Oil spill muddies green political waters
Since it first emerged that the disaster on the Deepwater Horizons oil rig would produce an oil tide of serious proportions, prescriptions for the future from people concerned about it has fallen into two main camps:
• those who see it as a wake-up call on the need for the US to adopt a serious clean energy plan majoring on efficiency gains and renewables
• and those who see it as a technical issue of limited implications, implying only the need for better technology and better regulation in the oil exploration business.
With his address from the Oval Office on Tuesday night, President Obama has placed himself firmly in the radical camp.
"For decades, we have known the days of cheap and easily accessible oil were numbered. For decades, we have talked and talked about the need to end America's century-long addiction to fossil fuels. And for decades, we have failed to act with the sense of urgency that this challenge requires.
"Time and again, the path forward has been blocked - not only by oil industry lobbyists, but also by a lack of political courage and candour.
"The consequences of our inaction are now in plain sight. Countries like China are investing in clean energy jobs and industries that should be here in America. Each day, we send nearly $1bn of our wealth to foreign countries for their oil. And today, as we look to the Gulf [of Mexico], we see an entire way of life being threatened by a menacing cloud of black crude."
This is powerful stuff - a complete and utter shift of tone and emphasis from the eight years of George W Bush's administration, and more damning of "big oil" than during the eight preceding years under Bill Clinton.
Mr Obama is making exactly the connections that many in the green movement have been urging him to make for months, since it first became evident that climate and energy legislation might struggle to pass the Senate, well before the Gulf oil leak began.
The US consumes about one fifth of the world's oil, and logically must choose from three options:
• continue to buy oil from overseas, including from countries that the US regards as essentially hostile
• explore for more oil at home
• reduce consumption, through frugality and/or alternative fuels.
The problems of the first option are being flagged up louder than ever before, not least by some sections of the military and by veterans' groups such as Operation Free, with their contention that paying for foreign oil puts American troops and American citizens in danger.
The problems of the second are now being shown dramatically along the Gulf of Mexico's shores.
But implementing the third way is not entirely hurdle-free.
The first problem is that there's no easy substitute for oil. You can replace coal-fired power stations with natural gas plants or nuclear reactors or wind turbines; but replacing the oil that provides the petrol on the service station forecourts is a different question.
Electric cars, biofuels, even hydrogen may all have a role to play. But they all carry a substantial amount of baggage too; and the most radical - electric vehicles - implies a massive amount of infrastructural change, more than can be accomplished in a single US presidency.
The second problem is that if you wanted to make this huge infrastructural switch, you would have to put in place all the fiscal carrots and sticks, and all the regulation, to make it happen; similarly with any large-scale switch to city living based on public transport.
Some of this is expensive; and companies are not going to make "green" investment decisions whose effects will play out on a scale of decades without some certainty about the longevity of the "pro-green-tech" political climate.
More pertinently, political opponents can easily make it sound expensive - despite the Environmental Protection Agency's finding that prospective legislation would cost Americans about the price of a postage stamp each day.
Which brings us to the third issue: the Senate, which remains apparently unconvinced of the need for a wholesale switch of the kind Mr Obama is advocating.
Quite what their vision is - whether they endorse options one and two above, or just plan to hope for the best - isn't entirely clear; neither is the question of whether they actually have a coherent collective vision.
We've had the Kerry-Boxer bill, then we had the Kerry-Lieberman-Graham bill - now there's a third version on the table from by Senator Richard Lugar, who proposes scrapping any notion of cap-and-trade legislation and using conservation measures instead to reduce fuel consumption.
With each of these iterations, prospective Senate legislation moves further and further away from the bill passed by the House of Representatives last year, implying progressively more difficult politics to reconcile the two.
It's ironic, also, that the pro-coastal-drilling measures implanted into the Kerry-Lieberman-Graham version largely as a sop to the oil industry must now look to much of the US like a dark stain on the nation's shoreline.
The president might have embraced the oil-spill-means-clean-energy agenda much as his green advisers have been recommending; but without something coherent from Congress, there's a limit to how far he can turn the vision into reality.
And there's another highly cogent issue. His handling of the immediate crisis hasn't exactly gained plaudits everywhere; in fact, as the Huffington Post spells out in a round-up of reaction to that portion of his speech, many observers are apparently pretty dismayed.
If this damages the presidency, it also damages political initiatives close to the presidency - such as clean energy and climate legislation, making it easier for opponents to delay, obfuscate and reject.
Revealingly, on the sidelines of the UN climate talks last week, US analysts were openly discussing the possibility that nothing in this area would pass the Senate before the end of 2013.
Rather than clarifying things, what the president described as "the worst environmental disaster America has ever faced" may in fact turn the political waters murkier than ever.
I'm Richard Black, environment correspondent for the BBC News website. This is my take on what's happening to our shared environment as the human population grows and our use of nature's resources increases.
© 2012~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~33~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Impressive. Most impressive.
I've never seen an American president gaurantee he won't have a second term in one speech before.
American's haven't been as efficently greenwashed as we in Europe have. They won't buy what he's selling.
Complain about this comment
This is disgusting behaviour from Obama.
The American companies Transocean and Halliburton were the people on Deepwater site in US waters that were responsible for this ecological disaster but Obama is vilifying BP. The fact that no Brit politician will tell him to tell the truth is just pathetic.
Each anti BP rant that this charlatan , Obama makes, drops their share price lower and his American colleagues in the oil business buy the shares on the cheap.
Our 'special' relationship with the USA is one in which we are constantly suffering for their incompetence so for them its very 'special', to have such a willing scapegoat.
Complain about this comment
To Richard Black: re Obama's oval office speech:
I couldn't agree more with your comments, which is how I perceived the speech as well:
"With his address from the Oval Office on Tuesday night, President Obama has placed himself firmly in the radical camp...
This is powerful stuff - a complete and utter shift of tone and emphasis from the eight years of George W Bush's administration..." (Richard)
=============
Here, from David Ignatius of the Washington Post, as reported by the BBC:
"I liked him better Tuesday night than I have in a while - tired, beat-up politically, but not playing to the crowd with easy put-downs of BP CEO Tony Hayward or profit-mongering Big Oil. There's a glimmer of real leadership there, but not yet the bright beam."
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/06/a_glimmer_of_leadership_in_oba.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
=================
And now here is my opinion, after a night of reflection:
I feel for Obama.
Having experienced some gutter-fighting right here on this blog lately, which I did for a purpose, one gains first-hand perspective, that most valuable and hardest to come by - 'frame of reference.'
Obama is so young (I betray my age!).
He is daily in jeopardy for his life, and that of his family - hatred and fear is strong and growing in our New World, as evidenced by Tea Party thinking and the Fox/Rush Limbaugh crowd - or is it gang?
Obama is commander in chief of the world's largest and most powerful military - who in their right mind thinks he is really in control of this military/industrial/financial complex, which has been growing in power and the concentration of wealth since the founding of America, and warned against by every thinking President - from Thomas Jefferson to Abraham Lincoln to Theodore Roosevelt to Eisenhower to now.
This man and his family need and deserve our support and utmost respect, and even more importantly, we need to 'turn up,' to quote George Monbiot.
In a time of spectacular change, such as the one which has occurred since 1900, before the airplane, before plastics and big oil - previous to two World Wars, the Soviet Union, Mao of China, the Internet, nuclear power and bombs, and a quadrupling of world population and the emptying of the Seas, etc etc...
we can be forgiven if we are confused and always catching up.
The one thing we can do is rally around a leader, and yes, this comes with consequences.
But it has this advantage - it is who we are, and I don't think we can change that aspect of our psyches.
- Manysummits @ the Climate Change Cafe -
Complain about this comment
Can someone clarify what is a "green job" ?
Complain about this comment
Looks to me like the oil industry is about to get a "Sabarnes Oxley" or a" Homeland security" stuffed down their throats...tons of red tape and jobs for a few hundred thousand compliance experts and consultants.. a typical US knee jerk reaction, while the next issue is already building somewhere
Complain about this comment
Obama calls the 40K bls of oil leaking " the greatest enviromental disaster". He wishes... how about the 20M bls a day the USA consumes and the enviromental damage that causes viv a vis climate change.
If he demands the oil companies must rectify and pay to mitigate that damage they would all immediately become bankrupt.
Complain about this comment
Mr. obama has waited for several weeks to become interestd in the problem, and has refused help from our allies.
It seems to me that he wanted it to get to this level so that he could now take control of the petrolium business in the United States, just as he has the auto and finance.
Complain about this comment
President Obama's personal ideology does not represent the Constitution, desires, ideas, notions, traditions, thinking, and values of most Americans, and his lack of true leadership is evident in his actions and communications. What is his real agenda? What America truly needs now more than ever is a leader who knows how to lead the country without harming its citizens and its friends (Great Britain). The Oil Spill is a problem that needs to be solved first, not used for political purposes, then legislated and punished without due process - there are serious unintended consequences that will affect not only those already injured, but everyone else. I fear America is being transformed into something other than a Constitutional Democratic Republic as it was founded, and is now on the verge of insolvency and national bewilderment of who and what we were all about as a country and a people.
Complain about this comment
Posts #'s 1 & 2:
True to form - vilification, innuendo, half-truth and the playing to fear, the fanning of the flames - hallmarks of the neo-conservative right - not a constructive thought or word in sight.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
''If this damages the presidency, it also damages political initiatives close to the presidency - such as clean energy and climate legislation, making it easier for opponents to delay, obfuscate and reject.''
Presiding over the United States of America is like breathing. The very moment you start the process of sustaining Life, be it of a Presidency or of an Individual,that very process takes Life in the process. If you don't breathe or you don't 'Preside', you die organically or politically. If you do breathe or you do 'Preside', each breath or act of Presidency grinds the metabolism to its inextricable destiny.
So, of course the Presidency has taken a hit just by being, while the avenging earth was throwing Armageddon at systemic abuses and violations.
Pundits and Journalists spew redundancies and non sequiturs at the Presidency. Reality premisses and concludes on the basis of common sense and common practices, not on petty grievances and artificially erected biases.
The Presidency is in good hands, and so is the Environment under its watch. But it's dying off acting out its Mandate. But then, so do all mortals, the exceptional ones usually fading faster so as to access seamless immortality.
Complain about this comment
Two main camps should be three:
• those who see it as a wake-up call
• those who see it as a technical issue
- those who see it as far worse than currently portrayed and doubt that it will be resolved withoit a resultant catastrophe of huge proportions.
Obama may complain: "Time and again, the path forward has been blocked - not only by oil industry lobbyists, but also by a lack of political courage and candour.: But who was it that promised to limit the power of lobbyists? Who was it that should have had the political courage, the political candour, the political will?
Yes, consequences are visible but are they all visible, in plain sight? The President is (I think) being prescient when he says: “And today, as we look to the Gulf, we see an entire way of life being threatened by a menacing cloud of black crude."
Mr Obama may or may not have made the connections that many in the green movement have been urging him to make, or if he has made them, lobbyism remains too strong. The oil business remains poorly regulated. Even as I type MMS has approved 27 new sites in spite of Obama’s moratorium.
The US consumes about one fifth of the world's oil, and logically must choose from three options. I would make these four:
• continue to buy oil from overseas
• explore for more oil at home
• reduce consumption and
- exchange blood for oil in countries like Afghanistan and Iraq.
It’s the fourth that places American troops and American citizens in danger. It's the fourth that is the most likely to bring terrorists to our shores, unless the oil keeps them away.
The president might have embraced the oil-spill-means-clean-energy agenda much as his green advisers have been recommending; but without corporate acceptance (because corporations run America), there's a limit to how far he can turn the vision into reality.
Rather than clarifying things, what the president described as "the worst environmental disaster America has ever faced" may in fact turn the political waters murkier because in my mind, I foresee that Americans and the world have not yet seen the true extent of the damage.
What frightens me most is the pressure under which the oil is being ejected. I look at the video and I ask myself: “When is this thing going to blow?” Surely the wellhead is getting worn, enlarging the passageway; yet, the visible pressure reamins astounding.
As days go by, it becomes apparent (at least to me) that wellhead won’t be able to sustain the pressure much longer.
The oil has now reached the Gulf Stream and is entering the Oceanic current (a current at least four times stronger than the current in the Gulf). Is there a realization (green or otherwise) that the Oceanic Current could very well carry this slick much further than the Gulf states.
The oil along with the gasses, including toxins, is depleting the oxygen in the water, is killing ocean life – plant and animal.
I don’t think I’m exaggerating when I say that the wellhead, under intense pressure, will likely blow before pressure can be alleviated in August(?). If the wellhead blows, oil flow will be unrestricted.
If there is a wellhead blow, the pressure within the hole will begin to normalize because water will gush in to replace oil. This near to the erath's core, water gets hot. The water will be vaporized, turned into steam; enormous pressure will result and that pressure could likely lift the Gulf floor.
And then what?
I think tsunami - 20 - 50 feet high.
After that, the floor willl collpase. The hole wioll be sealed.
If I am right, the tsunami will leave an area from 20-100 miles inland which will be devoid of life. Contaminants remain in the ground for years.
Complain about this comment
Richard. You say:
"Mr Obama is making exactly the connections that many in the green movement have been urging him to make for months, since it first became evident that climate and energy legislation might struggle to pass the Senate, well before the Gulf oil leak began."
Maybe the “Green Movement” should be careful what they wish for.
Maybe one of the main reasons that much needed Senate legislation on Oil/Energy might not happen is because of the link which is made between energy and climate. Could it be that the resistance to climate change legislation which 47 Senators think is part of Democratic/EPA plot to circumvent the constitution based on unreliable science could actually be the thing standing in the way of very much needed action?
Complain about this comment
Obama is pathetic and he's not much of an improvement on george bush. He's now not only unpopular in his own country but also in the UK. This oil spill is caused by the incompetence of the american workers. Same as the recalls for Toyota which was caused by the US pushing their parts made by incompetent americans onto Toyota. this is what you get working with the US... back stabbing.
Complain about this comment
I think both President Obama and the critics of his Oval Office speech miss an important part of the debate concerning what needs to happen to reduce our need for fossil fuels. Unless we address our overpopulation issues we are going to have an uphill battle when it comes to conservation and the use of alternative fuels.
Complain about this comment
President Obama is NOT a Radical.
In my opinion ?
He is an intelligent visionary seeking ways to help humans and the planet at the same time.
Is it Radical to look at the BIG picture and realize that OIL is a limited resource and if we don't ALL get off our fat lazy buttocks to explore our SAFER, CLEANER fuel options, we will all be left with nothing to fuel our cars with in our children's lifetime.
Although that might not be a bad idea.... because then our children's children will have to actually WALK to places or ride a BIKE and then they will not be as fat and lazy as current day Homo sapiens.
Complain about this comment
'beruit' ? You are so poetic and true.
Complain about this comment
#9 manysummits wrote:
Posts #'s 1 & 2:
True to form - vilification, innuendo, half-truth and the playing to fear, the fanning of the flames - hallmarks of the neo-conservative right - not a constructive thought or word in sight.
- Manysummits -
-----------------------------
How many times do I have to tell you I'm NOT a conservative before it filters through your tinfoil hat and hits brain cell?
BTW, I'm still waiting for the apology you me, if you're man enough...
Complain about this comment
#12 britononthemitten wrote:
"Maybe one of the main reasons that much needed Senate legislation on Oil/Energy might not happen is because of the link which is made between energy and climate."
Absolutely agree that's a possibility: which is why the Kerry-Lieberman-Graham emphasised the energy side, why the Lugar bill removes cap-and-trade altogether, and why the President and his Senatorial backers are talking more about energy security and green jobs than climate these days.
Complain about this comment
I thought he looked like a man having a bad reaction to giving up smoking.
Complain about this comment
@take care
I assume by safe and clean you mean hydrogen?
It's the most abundant element in the universe (so we won't run out any time soon) and when you burn it the only byproduct is water.
The only fly in the ointment is that hydrogen is usually bonded to something else and needs to be seperated to be useful.
However, we can do that and there's no reason at all why we shouldn't.
Best of all, and this will annoy the greens, we can run high performance cars, trucks and SUVs off the stuff, so there's no need to go back to the horse and buggy.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#18 Richard Black wrote:
"the President and his Senatorial backers are talking more about energy security and green jobs than climate these days"
This is evidently true but it will be hard for the President to persuade opponents that there is not a hidden agenda. The White house is packed with climate change activists such as Lisa Jackson and Carol Browner and Rahm Emanuel's comment about "not letting a crisis go to waste" no doubt still rings loud in their ears.
Complain about this comment
\\\ Energy & Climate /// (#18 - Richard Black; & #12)
That the two are inextricably linked I would have thought a given!
That President Obama would concentrate on energy, because climate is such a 'hot' issue, I believe partly true.
1) The IPCC is undergoing peer review at the highest level possible.
2) The Royal Society is reviewing their stance on climate change, at the insistence of a group of Royal Society scientists.
3) President Obama has in his hands the Congressionally requested report from the United States National Academy of the Sciences, two years in the making, which states, in a nutshell:
"This is a wake-up call from science telling Congress to get real," says Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington, D.C. "Wake up and smell the carbon."
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2010-05-20-climate20_ST_N.htm
Both the IPCC & Royal Society reviews are expected in early Fall, as I understand it.
By then the relief wells will probably have succeeded in halting the further outpouring of oil from the Deepwater Horizon well, and most of the facts will be in as to the actual amount of oil released, an initial assessment of long-term consequences made, and possibly the determination, or not, of criminal liability on the part of the oil industry participants in the drilling of the Gulf well. A possible wild card will have been played - a major hurricane in the Gulf this summer.
It would make sense from my point of view to await these developments before any definitive White House Oval Office Declarations on the linkage between energy and climate change.
My opinion:
All reports from the scientific peer-review processes under way will affirm in spades the integrity of the science on climate change.
The damage to the Gulf ecosystem will be found to be 'profound.'
A category five hurricane will probably have occurred (>50 percent probability).
===========
Then we will hear and see the President lead the world off the path we are on:
\\\ Ecocide ///
- Manysummits @ the Climate Change Cafe -
Complain about this comment
In the spirit of your title, Richard Black, I just received this from Bolivia:
Comparison of the People´s Agreement and the Copenhagen Accord
June 16, 2010
Just below the beginning preamble there is a Table comparing the 'Bolivian's People's Agreement' with the 'Copenhagen Accord.'
Well worth a look-see:
http://pwccc.wordpress.com/2010/06/16/comparision-of-the-people%c2%b4s-agreement-and-the-copenhagen-accord/#more-2241
=========
- Manysummits, on a rainy day in Calgary -
Complain about this comment
Obama quote: "For decades, we have known the days of cheap and easily accessible oil were numbered. For decades, we have talked and talked about the need to end America's century-long addiction to fossil fuels. And for decades, we have failed to act with the sense of urgency that this challenge requires"
Actually, we don't know that "the days of cheap and easily accessible oil" are numbered - there is plenty of on-shore and off-shore oil to be found closer to shor - the US just won't allow drilling there, hence the necessity of drilling in much deeper water, making the task much more difficult and dangerous.
I don't see a need to end our "addiction" to oil. We don't know that it's a "fossil" fuel at all.
As far as "urgency", I fail to see what the rush is. There is no such thing as "global" warming - it's regional because other regions are actually getting colder. For Obama to connect this to the farce of global warming is ludicrous.
I suspect (as many do) that this spill may have been sabotage; the coincidence with Earth Day seems very suspicious. Radical greens will stop at nothing to further their agenda. It needs investigating.
Complain about this comment
Sadly Mr. Black you too will soon enough be a victim of this president's politicization of a catastrophie as the current loop delivers the oil to your shores.
Make no mistake, the inability to find a quick solution to this problem was a creation of the enviroterrorists. Don't drill close to the shores! So out they go, into water so deep they now can't fix the problem.
Obama knew how bad it was, there is quite a bit of proof of that fact - some of which is right here http://blog.al.com/live/2010/05/video_shows_federal_officials.html. Yet he chose to do nothing, except to golf, vacation, campaign and pass horrendous Executive Orders for TWO MONTHS! Oh, and to pander to the Unions and revive a 90 year old law so those who offered us help could not give it...He chose a crisis of this magnitude to take advantage of his POLITICAL opportunity! To what end? To the destruction of my homeland? Of our sea and the creatures of the sea? He refused to implement the safeguards and the immediate response we have had since Exxon Valdez. He has thwarted efforts EVERY STEP OF THE WAY!
Ask yourself who stands to benefit here? Halloway sells his stock, Goldman thiers 3 weeks prior to the spill. A week prior to selling, Halloway says he needs oil at a specific bottom to be able to afford to drill. BP, Petrobras and Coneco are all stakeholders in the largest oil find ever, in the deep water of the Gulf, announced back in Sept. of 2009. Now Petrobras stands to benefit because of BP's failures?...Ask yourself who is invested in Petrobras? Soros, Obama, who else? How many times has Soros been hit for manipulating markets? (Check records in Hungary for starters) So Obama gets his cap and tax, they all get their money, Petrobras wins BP stakehold...life is good, right?
Not for those of us in the Gulf States...not for Normandy and England soon enough...not for the fishes of the sea.
We cannot survive without oil. Why don't the enviroterrorists stop making like we can. It's past time to check their premise on that which they terrorize. We simply aren't there yet technologically, no matter how many billions they throw at the problem. But because of this, because of the enviroterrorists insistance we not to, gasp, drill nearer to the shore - or God forbid - on land, we may never know if we could have given prudence and patience the time to discover stable, temperature resistant fuels to power the world, rather than political manuevering that may very well have destroyed that eventuality forever.
With our seas dead, drilling stopped in the US...who knows what will happen to the world. This IS the end of life as we know it now - unless they get it stopped now. They up the amount that is spilling every single day now! And with our president (with a little p), the new Oil Magnate - in - Chief, now in the process of bankrupting BP, they may never be able to stem the flow of poison entering our sea, our bays, our marshes, and our estuaries in future days. Not EVER.
I'm telling you, this regime will stop at nothing until they own it all. Just check one of his cohort's in crime little slip to the Oil Executives a few years ago...our own congresswoman Waters - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niJAkR_6tKQ.
Of course Obama takes the most radical approach, that is who he is. He is no less radical than any other despot who has lived in infamy. He is destroying our country, our way of life and he is nothing more than a tyrant. He will not listen, he will not change his stripes. He will seek to destroy all the democracy he can in the short time he has left as our president. And trust me...we are counting the days....948 Days, 19 Hours, 15 Minutes, 23 Seconds - unless we can impeach him first.
If the UK and the EU doesn't wake up to this fact soon, then at least you can't say you weren't warned.
You say God help the Queen....I am saying God help us all.
Complain about this comment
Richard Black.
"But implementing the third way is not entirely hurdle-free.
The first problem is that there's no easy substitute for oil. You can replace coal-fired power stations with natural gas plants or nuclear reactors or wind turbines; but replacing the oil that provides the petrol on the service station forecourts is a different question."
but will the US of A have an incentive not to use more coal?
they are the second largest producer of coal, and they have the reserves, as J Rowlatt said: But there is one thing West Virginia has mountains of - and I mean literally mountains -and that is coal.
and then there's the synthetic fuel mentioned by Robert Lucien:
An array of products can be made via these processes – ultra-clean petroleum and diesel, as well as synthetic waxes, lubricants, chemical feedstocks and alternative liquid fuels such as methanol and dimethyl ether (DME)
Fuel made from coal ignites green row
Complain about this comment
Apparently, care in the community is alive and well on this blog.
Manysummits, you're going to need a few more hats - I hope there's enough foil to go round.
Regards,
One of Lobby ;-)
Complain about this comment
Brunnen_G #20.
"..we can run high performance cars, trucks and SUVs off the stuff [hydrogen], so there's no need to go back to the horse and buggy."
coal will do (see #27).
Complain about this comment
@jr4412
No need to use coal, you can make fuel out of the C02 in the air. All you need is a little sunlight (well, quite a lot actually, but there is plenty of it to go around).
Just Google sunlight to petrol and Sandia Laboratories, for more info.
Complain about this comment
4TimesAYear #25.
"I suspect (as many do) that this spill may have been sabotage.."
I suspect (as many do) that this spill may have been the result of all the companies involved cutting corners to screw every last penny (sorry, cent) of profit from the project.
Complain about this comment
It is not reassuring to see many of the comments on this board.
There is talk of green, and not so green - there should be talk of greenwash and whitewash, of smoke and mirrors - and in a way, there is.
Freeman Dyson once said:
"Sanity, in its essence, is nothing more than learning to live in harmony with nature's laws."
==========
Jared Diamond's words are quoted in Sylvia Earle's book "The World is Blue":
"Regardless of the resources on which the economy rests - farmed soil, grazed or browsed vegetation, a fishery, hunted game, or gathered plants or small animals - some societies evolve practices to avoid overexploitation, and other societies fail at that challenge." ("Collapse")
============
Is this not really what we are all talking about in the final analysis - minus the hype and ideology?
Are we not up to this challenge?
- Manysummits @ the CCC -
Complain about this comment
Richard writes: "His handling of the immediate crisis hasn't exactly gained plaudits everywhere; in fact, as the Huffington Post spells out in a round-up of reaction to that portion of his speech, many observers are apparently pretty dismayed."
That puts it extremely mildly. And the key point is that Huffpo was the site that Obama himself recommended as a source of 'news' because it was the most rabid pro-Obama site imaginable. In the past any post that merely suggested that Obama was less than infallible was attacked like a piece of meat in a pirhana pool.
The significance of the shift there is far greater than suggested. Obama has lost his magic and its never coming back. This crisis has shown him to be the ideological amateur and puppet that he really is. And the tragedy is that a real clear thinking leader was needed to minimize the damage caused by this leak, and he just made it worse.
Why did Obama refuse the help offered him by other countries, most significantly the skimmer ships that could have collected so much of this oil before it got near shore?
His speech was a cynical ploy to stampede support for the dead climate bill by exploiting this crisis. It just doesn't get much lower than that, even by Chicago standards. And it definitely did not work.
P.S. #23 - The Union of Concerned Scientists is just another environmental group. There statements are predictable and as 'scientific' as those of Greenpeace, the Bolivian Watermelon Society, or the head of the IPCC.
Complain about this comment
33. At 02:53am on 17 Jun 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:
"P.S. #23 - The Union of Concerned Scientists is just another environmental group. There statements are predictable and as 'scientific' as those of Greenpeace, the Bolivian Watermelon Society, or the head of the IPCC."
================
"What began as a collaboration between students and faculty members at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1969 is now an alliance of more than 250,000 citizens and scientists."
http://www.ucsusa.org/about/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Concerned_Scientists
===========
Just another environmental group!
You don't say -
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Cap and Trade is a corruption scandal that is bigger than any other in the history of the United States. It also explains how the Climategate scandal occurred. Like any wide-spread conspiracy, it was bound to come unglued sooner, or later. Simply put, the claims of Global Warming were all a hoax; the supporting "science" was rigged; it was a high-stakes con perpetrated around the globe.
Cap and Trade is being sold as a means for reducing carbon emissions, and other greenhouse gases, to levels 80% below those of 1990. The system would put a "Cap" on the amount of emissions allowed by a given entity. These allotments would be doled out in the form of "carbon credits". If a company used up their credits, they could “purchase” more from an entity that has credits available. The exchange (or “Trade”) of these credits would be brokered through the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX). The CCX would receive a fee for every credit purchased, as well as every credit sold.
How does this reduce emissions if "Caps" may be exceeded for a price? It doesn't. The primary purpose of this system is not to clear the air, but to redistribute wealth. Those already in the game stand to reap a fortune on the backs of average Americans who will see their energy bills, in the words of President Obama, "necessarily skyrocket."
Equally troubling is the blatant acknowledgement by those involved in this high stakes scam that POWER and PROFIT are the only real benefits to be had. As Joel Rogers explains: "I hope you all realize that you could eliminate every power plant in America today and you can stop every car in America. Take out the entire power generation sector and you still would not be anywhere near 80% below 1990 levels. You would be closer to around 60%. And this is with bringing the economy to a complete halt… basically."
The odds of all these connections between all of these entities, tying each back to a $10 Trillion scam, are far too long to be strictly coincidence. The carbon-trading scheme being stitched together here will do more damage than Goldman Sachs, AIG, and Fannie/Freddie combined. Nevertheless, it will bring great power and riches to its architects.
The Players:
Joyce Foundation (JF) – Founded in 1948, the foundation targets its philanthropy in large measure toward organizations dedicated to the agendas of radical environmentalism and “social justice". JF is a key progenitor of the Cap and Trade scheme and provided financial support for the CCX. The foundation has also supported the TIDES Foundation (a nonprofit that promotes social justice and provides fiscal sponsorship for progressive groups), and even an entity headed by John Ayers. (John’s brother, Bill, co-founded the Weather Underground in 1969. Their goal was to create a clandestine revolutionary party for the violent overthrow of the the U.S. government and to establish a dictatorship. They also attempted to blow up several Federal buildings.)
CCX – An exchange dealing exclusively with Cap and Trade carbon credits.
Barack Obama – President of the U.S. and former Board member of the JF. While Senator, Obama was largely responsible for creating the CCX by financing it with money funneled from the JF.
Valerie Jarrett – Senior Advisor to President Obama and current Board member of the JF.
Al Gore – Co-founded Generation Investment Management in 2005. The Competitive Enterprise Institute believes that the government policies Gore advocated to the U.S. Senate in January 2009 "will make him and his friends extremely wealthy at the expense of consumers."
Generation Investment Management - Owns 10% of the CCX. This gives Al Gore a financial bias towards promoting global warming control through a carbon trading mandate.
Goldman Sachs – Banking giant that also owns 10% of the CCX, and the recipient of billions of taxpayer dollars from the AIG bailout. Also worthy of note is that at least six former Goldman Sachs executives work inside the Obama Administration.
Franklin Raines – Former head of Fannie Mae. While there, Raines used taxpayer dollars to purchase Cap and Trade technology. Raines profited handsomely to the tune of some $92 million by buying and bundling bad mortgages that led to the collapse of the American economy.
Apollo Alliance – An influential left-wing environmentalist group that wrote Obama’s Stimulus legislation, recipient of $60 Billion in said Stimulus funds, and co-authored Obama’s Health Care legislation.
Jeff Jones – Co-founder of the Apollo Alliance. Also, co-founded the Weather Underground with Bill Ayers.
Van Jones – Self-proclaimed Communist, former White House Green Czar and Board member of the Apollo Alliance.
Emerald Cities Collaborative (ECC) - Another recipient of JF funding, ECC was founded by Richard Sandor in December 2009. The ECC includes unions, labor groups, community organizations, social justice activists, development intermediaries, and promotes "research and opportunities for fit and affordable housing." The JF funneled money toward the establishment of ECC for the enlistment of "technical assistance providers, socially responsible businesses, and elected officials" - all with the mission of "rapidly greening America’s cities."
Joel Rogers - "The Wizard" behind the curtain, the brains behind the money funnel that will start once mandatory Cap and Trade is enacted. He has professed that "power and profit" are the only real benefits to be had.
Joel Rogers' assessment is correct. The environmental impact of Cap and Trade would be so minimal that it would essentially be immeasurable. Many Western European nations adopted the carbon-trading scheme in 2005. The results have been dismal as evidenced by increased energy costs (often doubling them), an overall increase, rather than decrease in emissions, substantial job losses, and overwhelming fraud and abuse within the system.
The reality is that Cap and Trade has nothing whatsoever to do with saving the environment. Rather, it has everything to do with the personal enrichment and empowerment of a select group of political elites; a massive government power-grab; and a thorough fleecing of the American citizenry.
Complain about this comment
President Obama delivered his first Oval Office speech on the heels of his latest visit to the Gulf region - the fourth since the Deepwater Horizon rig explosion in April. With such an environmental and economic crisis present, the president needs to exert leadership to protect our precious coastal resources and clean up the spill, says Nicolas Loris, a research assistant at the Heritage Foundation's Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies.
His message was the wrong one, says Loris. Instead, he continued to politicize the crisis by pushing for cap and trade legislation and to establish a separate claims fund -- financed by BP -- that will do very little to address the issue at hand. President Obama is right in saying that the Gulf region will bounce back, but not with the policies of cap and trade and banning offshore drilling that he's suggesting.
The President has been using the oil spill to push cap and trade and "clean" energy investments forward:
But global warming legislation -- placing caps on carbon dioxide emissions -- would do nothing to improve clean-up or to prevent future spills.
It would distract from the very efforts to clean up and stop the oil that must be the top priority now.
Nor would emissions caps magically create new problem-free sources of alternative energy.
Instead, global warming legislation would raise energy costs for all Americans and kill much needed jobs.
Under a regime like the President proposed, higher energy costs would spread throughout the economy as producers everywhere try to cover their higher production costs by raising their product prices, further impacting Americans. The result will be a much slower economy and lost jobs at a time when the top priority for Americans is economic growth. This is hardly the bounce back for the Gulf's economy, says Loris:
Implementing the House-passed Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill would put a chokehold on Louisiana's economic potential, reducing the state's economy by $8.33 billion in 2035.
Beginning in 2012, job losses will be 21,832 higher than without a cap-and-trade bill in place.
And the number of jobs lost will only go up, increasing to 31,468 by 2035.
Source: Nicolas Loris, "The President's Oil Spill Speech," Heritage Foundation, June 15, 2010.
Complain about this comment
For some, carbon capture and sequestration will remain the Holy Grail of carbon-reduction strategies, says Robert Bryce, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. Before Congress throws yet more money at the procedure, lawmakers need to take a closer look at the issues that hamstring nearly every new energy-related technology: cost and scale.
Consider the first problem:
Capturing carbon dioxide from the flue gas of a coal-fired electric generation plant is an energy-intensive process.
Analysts estimate that capturing the carbon dioxide cuts the output of a typical plant by as much as 28 percent.
Given that the global energy sector is already straining to meet booming demand for electricity, it's hard to believe that the United States, or any other country that relies on coal-fired generation, will agree to reduce the output of its coal-fired plants by almost a third in order to attempt carbon capture and sequestration, says Bryce.
Here is the second problem:
The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory has estimated that up to 23,000 miles of new pipeline will be needed to carry the captured carbon dioxide to the still-undesignated underground sequestration sites.
That doesn't sound like much when you consider that America's gas pipeline system sprawls over some 2.3 million miles, but those natural gas pipelines carry a valuable, marketable, useful commodity.
By contrast, carbon dioxide is a worthless waste product, so taxpayers would likely end up shouldering most of the cost.
The third, and most vexing, problem has to do with scale:
In 2009, carbon dioxide emissions in the United States totaled 5.4 billion tons.
Let's assume that policymakers want to use carbon capture to get rid of half of those emissions - say, 3 billion tons per year. That works out to about 8.2 million tons of carbon dioxide per day, which would have to be collected and compressed to about 1,000 pounds per square inch (that compressed volume of carbon dioxide would be roughly equivalent to the volume of daily global oil production).
In other words, we would need underground sequestration sites capable of receiving a volume of carbon dioxide equal to the contents of 41 oil supertankers EACH DAY, 365 days a year.
Source: Robert Bryce, "A Bad Bet on Carbon," New York Times, May 12, 2010.
Complain about this comment
#34 - Yes, and you just confirmed it.
Complain about this comment
#34 - http://www.nrdc.org/reference/environgroups.asp
Complain about this comment
@Canadian Rockies, #33:
"Why did Obama refuse the help offered by other countries, most significantly the skimmer ships . . ."
The laws in the UDS include the "Jones Act", that restricts trade between any two US ports to US-flagged vessels. This is a benefit to union members, as all US-flagged vessels are crewed by members of US labor unions.
When Katrina had passed, Pres. Bush waived the Jones Act for a limited time for provisions for vessels carrying relief supplies for Louisiana and Mississippi. Why didn't Pres. Obama do something similar? In the words of Obama's Chief of Staff (Rahm Emannuel), "A crisis is a terrible thing to waste!" For passing his agenda, perhaps Obama would rather have a huge disaster than a smaller disaster somewhat mitigated by aid from other nations. Also, he didn't want to take the risk of offending the Democratic Party's labor union supporters. In the end, it's all about politics.
TeaPot562
Complain about this comment
35. tinahdans - Gore's Generation Investment Management was conveniently incorporated in the UK. Wonder why?
http://www.generationim.com/about/team.html
This info may be dated but... last time I looked, of the first 20 Partners, 16 came from, and all have ties to Goldman Sachs. Al Gores Senior Partner is David Blood, formerly of Goldman Sachs.
But, honest, Gore just wants to save the planet.
Complain about this comment
#40. TeaPot562 - Interesting. But, if that's the case, I'm hoping that it backfires on them... and that this horrific disaster sticks more to that corrupt regime than to the shoreline.
In the meantime, so sad to see what's actually happening.
Complain about this comment
41 CanadianRockies:
Yes, I'm sure he does. But he doesn't want to just "save" the planet, he wants to own it, too. (Hah!)
I hesitate to mention this, but being an American citizen, I am appalled and embarassed by Obama. Let me assure all of you, that he does not represent the majority of Americans. He's arrogant, rude, dishonest, hypocritical, anti-American, reckless, dangerous, and a horrible, horrible POTUS.
In the words of Rahm Emanuel: "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste."
Everything with Obama, his Administration, and their Progressive allies in Congress, is a CRISIS - and it's no accident. They're all proponents of the Cloward-Piven Strategy of Manufactured Crisis. The Strategy seeks to hasten the fall of Capitalism by overloading the government with a flood of impossible demands, thus creating crisis and economic collapse (sound familiar?). Once our current system collapses, and they've declared that "Capitalism has failed", they can then re-build on an ideological foundation of big-government Marxism and two-class progressivism.
Inspired by the August 1965 riots in Los Angeles, Cloward & Piven published an article titled "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty" in the May 2, 1966 issue of The Nation. Activists were abuzz over the Cloward-Piven Strategy and were eager to put it into effect.
Cloward-Piven's early promoters cited radical organizer Saul Alinsky (and Obama idol) as their inspiration. "Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules," Alinsky wrote.
This is the goal of Obama, his radical buddies and Progressive cohorts in Congress. And it was clearly displayed in their frantic desperation and relentless push to pass healthcare reform legislation - legislation that nobody with an ounce of sense wanted. (Side note: In the days prior to the final vote on the healthcare bill, Andy Stern, the former President of the SEIU and frequent White House guest, resorted to threatening and intimidating undecided members of Congress. He has recently stated that the SEIU contributed $1.5 million to Obama's presidential campain, and "Now it's time to see a return on our investment.")
The only reason someone would be this incredibly reckless and relentless is to fulfill an agenda. Obama's agenda is, in his own words, to "fundamentally change America." And at the rate he's going, he might just do it, too.
Complain about this comment
The U.S. National Incident Command (NIC) has developed an Interactive Map of the response to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. It provides near-real time data on trajectory estimates for the oil slick and locations of deployed research vessels, oiled shorelines, wildlife data, and fishery area closures.
The map can be accessed at: http://www.geoplatform.gov/gulfresponse/
Complain about this comment
4TimesAYear at #25 says "I suspect (as many do) that this spill may have been sabotage; the coincidence with Earth Day seems very suspicious. Radical greens will stop at nothing to further their agenda. It needs investigating."
What are all of you planning to call your wonderfully inspired investigation? Perhaps something really original like "Oilandwatergate"?
Complain about this comment
@ 45 nice one simon.
Complain about this comment
@ my 46- i of course meant simon's post 44
Complain about this comment
@simon-swede #45
you may laugh, Simon, but us sceptics know for sure that you greenies have been saving the whales for only one purpose - you've been training the whales in deep water sabotage skills
;)
/Mango
Complain about this comment
Today's mythology is growth.
Should we continue down this path ruin will be the result, Garrett Hardin's
\\\ Tragedy of the Commons ///
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/162/3859/1243
"...the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons."
=======================
Herman Daly, the 'full world' economist, has described this 'approach' as follows:
"There is something fundamentally wrong in treating the Earth as if it were a business in liquidation."
=======================
In reading some of the new poster's anti-everything except the status quo remarks, one wonders about our prospects, given that their remarks are echoed by many in this society, many of whom literally scoff at any thought of restraint - who have no notion of what is sacred, and what is not - save money and its influence.
What we really need is an ethic of restraint - a societal commitment to a 'good life, well lived,' not 'more toys.'
And it is toys that we are being sold, unnecessary, frivolous, and distracting.
Our record of non-restraint beggars the imagination. It is why some feel the world would be far better off without us. Being an 'incorrigible optimist,' I am not one of these.
That has implications. It means that one must stand up for the right, as one sees it.
In an age of cynicism, it is easy to believe all politicians are disingenuous, all leaders corrupt.
The lobby will play this card - their only strength.
- Manysummits @ the CCC -
Complain about this comment
To return to an earlier discussion, roughly what proportion of the spilled oil in the Gulf is being dealt with by being set on fire?
Complain about this comment
Mango at #48
You betcha - you don't think we wanted to free Willy just for the sake of it do you?
Complain about this comment
A lot of new names with short histories have appeared here recently, I believe that the Americans have some sort of elections coming up, all very tiresome for the rest of us.
Manysummits, can you now spot the difference between the professional blogger and the concerned amateurs who you like to call “the lobby”?
Complain about this comment
Smiffie #52:
No!
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Interesting that the US has flown a B52 on coal derived fuel, it all depends on if CO2 really is a problem or not.
Complain about this comment
Can we please put an end to all this anti-American racism? Racism is racism, whichever race the prejudice and hatred is directed against.
Complain about this comment
@manysummits #53
That's a shame
Regards,
One of the Lobby ;-)
Complain about this comment
Research just published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B argues that, in a hotter world, what are currently carbon dioxide sinks will tend to become carbon dioxide sources.
The paper presents a combination of experimental field data and theoretical predictions designed to investigate whether warming might alter the capacity of ecosystems to absorb carbon dioxide. The experimental results obtained confirmed the theoretical predictions made of the effects of warming on what they have termed "ecosystem metabolism".
Before anyone else says it, of course this research doesn't reveal anything about WHY things might be getting hotter. The focus is on WHAT could be a consequence of rising temperatures.
The reference is: Gabriel Yvon-Durocher, J. Iwan Jones, Mark Trimmer, Guy Woodward, and Jose M. Montoya, "Warming alters the metabolic balance of ecosystems", Phil Trans R Soc B (2010), 365: 2117-2126.
The full paper is available as an open access (i.e. Free!) article and can be read at:
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/365/1549/2117.full
Complain about this comment
bowmanthebard @#55
I don’t think that your comments yesterday helped.
Complain about this comment
Obama is doing further damage to the economy of both the US and GB as pension funds are taking big hits from the huge loss in BP share prices on both sides of the Atlantic.
It just appears to show his Political Naivety and the fact that the US Government is as willing a participant in Oil Exploration as BP due to the revenue that they collect from it.
Whilst we all recognise that we need to move towards a greener economy the fact is we have a carbon economy and for the forseeable future this will remain.
BP have an undoubtable responsibility to clean up the mess they have created but Obama should not shy away from the US Governments responsibility and seek to gain political capital from a dire situation. He should quit the British bashing after all people in Glass Houses!
Complain about this comment
Manysummits @ #53 - Your shortest post ever.
Manysummits @ #23 said “Energy & Climate - That the two are inextricably linked I would have thought a given!”
Not necessarily, the West needs clean, secure, renewable energy.
Clean – Non- carcinogenic, breaks down if spilled.
Secure – Raw materials can be obtained just about anywhere, no longer beholden to Saudi Arabia of Venezuela.
Renewable – We can make it as fast as we use it.
Now clean, secure, renewable energy need not necessarily be green. Take bio-fuels for example, it may be that we will decide that we need to sacrifice a few rain forests that we are never likely to visit and lose a few species of creepy crawlies that we have not got around to naming in order to grow palm oil and may be we should not give away surplus food (aid), we need to think seriously about what we really want to conserve and what we want to make use of.
Complain about this comment
@57, that would certainly make sense given the paleoclimatic data (specifically the vostok ice core samples) that historically show co2 levels increase due to temperature, no the other way around.
interesting.
Complain about this comment
#58 Wolfiewoods wrote:
I don’t think that your comments yesterday helped.
Red rag to the bull, I suppose. (Or maybe I mean red bulls------s!)
Analogously, if I had praised African culture, would it have caused complaints about new African people joining the blog because they "have some sort of elections coming up"?
Complain about this comment
To #23
You are aware that this enviromental catastophe happened 20 years ago in the same spot. Only I don't see how you can claim this event will be long lasting when the clean up last time was so short.
When I say 20 years ago, I even mean it happened in June.
Funny how nobody is mentioning this.
Complain about this comment
"Energy & Climate - That the two are inextricably linked I would have thought a given!”
Spoken like a true non-scientist. Nothing is a "given" and no scientific conclusion, no matter how well it is marketed, is conclusive and irrefutable.
Complain about this comment
Do Americans want Obama to swim to the bottom of the ocean and plug it himself?
What exactly can be done that isn't being done?
Complain about this comment
Smiffie at #54
Coal is so old school! How about nukes instead? Half a century ago the Russians managed 34 test flights of a Tupolev Tu-119 aircraft which had 2 experimental jet engines powered by a nuclear reactor. Admittedly this was in the 1960s and eventually they reckoned that ICBMs were a better way of carrying nuclear weapons...
;-)
Complain about this comment
Much recent publishing has been devoted to the supposed irreversibility of warming and/or CO2 release. So how come the Earth ever managed to cool down before now?
Complain about this comment
@simon-swede #57
i haven't got time to read it just yet, but it sounds like Henry's Law to me - something that has been known about since the early 1800's
/Mango
Complain about this comment
Strange how the BBC sees Obama's speach in such a glowing light, when even his closests allies in the US press have shot him down.
Just to chuck something in, the USA has possibly the greatest reserves of oil on the planet estimeted at current USA consumption to last 300 years. It is also easy to get to such as the estimated 200 billion barrels in North Dekota.
Why are they playing with the deep offshore drilling?
Complain about this comment
@simon-swede #66
"Coal is so old school! How about nukes instead? Half a century ago the Russians managed 34 test flights of a Tupolev Tu-119 aircraft which had 2 experimental jet engines powered by a nuclear reactor."
That's actually quite interesting, becuase I was under the impression that the russian demonstrator plane never actually flew the nuclear engignes?
I don't suppose you've got the source for that anywhere?
Regards,
Getting fed up with being in the Lobby - could I perhaps move to the Hall?
Complain about this comment
#65 Benefactor wrote:
Do Americans want Obama to swim to the bottom of the ocean and plug it himself?
What exactly can be done that isn't being done?
----------------------------------
It brings me no end of amusement that the same people who think government in the US should be smaller and do less (the so called tea party crowd) are the same people bleating that Obama should beheld personally responsible for the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and the so far unsuccessful efforts to stop the leak.
One or the other, you can't have both!
Complain about this comment
There is much that one could say one way or the other about Obama. But let's cut to the chase on this:
BP is looking at what may well be an effective and environmentally friendly solution to the oil spill - will Obama?
Follow these links.
http://www.neatorama.com/2010/05/24/kevin-costner-shows-off-his-oilspill-clean-up-machine/
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/05/19/2010-05-19_gulf_oil_spill_bp_oks_tests_of_kevin_costners_invention__device_to_clean_oil_fro.html
Complain about this comment
@Richard, you wrote:
Since it first emerged that the disaster on the Deepwater Horizons oil rig would produce an oil tide of serious proportions, prescriptions for the future from people concerned about it has fallen into two main camps:
• those who see it as a wake-up call on the need for the US to adopt a serious clean energy plan majoring on efficiency gains and renewables
• and those who see it as a technical issue of limited implications, implying only the need for better technology and better regulation in the oil exploration business.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
@Richard,
I don't think that is a fair characterization, nor accurate.
I have been accused many times (even here on this blog) of being part of the 'oil and coal' lobby. I would put myself in the 'cheap viable energy lobby'.
Lets face it - our success as a species has been as a result of our ability to harness and use cheap energy. It was cheap energy which allowed the West to develop the lifestyle and longevity so many enjoy today. We need to extend those benefits to the billions who do not benefit today. It goes all the way back to when we 'harnessed' fire and early man lived in tribes and one of the very important jobs in the community was to ensure that the fire never went out.
The 'zero carbon' lifestyle is a fantasy. Almost every fuel ever used by mankind has involved burning something - and the release of carbon dioxide. Personally, I am more interested in providing people with coal than having them burn wood for fuel - for the time being.
In the longer term, we will move away from oil and coal - just as we moved away from whale oil and wood (at least in the West). We will develop fusion and harness hydrogen - and there will be other "better", cheaper, cleaner fuels. Its just not going to happen tomorrow, no matter how much money is thrown at it.
In my view - it was not a 'technical issue' nor lack of regulation which allowed this disaster to happen - but a serious culture problem and a chain of events which never should have been allowed to happen. I also believe that no one was prepared for such an occurrence (my opinion). We do need to do a lot of work to clean this up - which will take years - and I do agree with Obama on this one point - we are at war with this thing.
I am also completely in favor of 'newer, cleaner energy' - but not for the same reasons as many of the 'radicals' as you call them. I am for it because this would be good for everyone on the planet - allowing us to raise the standard of living for so many more. Allowing us to preserve more natural habitats.
But we need to be smart about it - mandates are not going to do it - serious investment and 50 year planning will do it.
I don't buy into the AGW thing - I think everyone here is aware of that - I am very skeptical of both the science and conclusions - and, in my opinion for very good reason. I have heard manysummits speak of his burning 'sustainable' wood in his home in the past - I think it is absolutely horrible. Wood is not a 'sustainable' fuel source, nor is it a good fuel to use period. What if just everyone in North America did what @manysummits does - we wouldn't have much left in the way of forests before long.
Windmills and solar cells are not the answer - heck, windmills have been around for thousands of years - this is not 'newer, cleaner, better' technology. Hydro is not the answer - the environmental impact is just too severe. In the US, we are actually tearing down damns.
I am also not a big fan of fission - because of the long term waste problem. The answers are there - and we will move on, but it will take time. In the meantime, just be realistic - people are not going to stop drilling or pumping or using oil - not much we can do about that. We can do a lot to reduce the burning of wood - which even if you are in the CO2/AGW camp - is probably the WORST fuel available - not only do we lose precious forests (carbon sinks - if thats your issue) - but burning wood produces more CO2 per BTU of energy produced than any other fuel we have.
I believe that most 'regular folk' want 'cleaner, cheaper, better' energy - but it has to be viable and we can't move backward. The only thing that will end our use of coal and oil is something like fusion, geothermal, geomagnetic and other sources we haven't even thought of - perhaps harnessing gravity. This will come, but it will take time.
I am very disappointed that Obama is using this disaster (in my opinion) to further his energy agenda. I believe his focus is in the wrong place right now.
Tell me Richard - just how are 'we' going to stop people from pumping, refining and using petrochemical products? Maybe we could spend trillions in the west on an 'interim set of "solutions"' - but that is not going to stop the rain forests from being cut, nor from most of the world from burning oil, gas and coal.
Lets take away the 9B (US) per year in ethanol subsidies which go mainly to Illinois (Obama's home state) - and spend that money on a "Manhattan-style project" to develop fusion and other energy sources. That land could then go back to growing food - as it should.
There is also a lot we can do to improve crop yields and reduce fertilizers - as I have talked about before - stop building in the flood plains and let the annual floods naturally fertilize the land - rather than building levies and towns and trying to control the annual spring floods - which we will never do.
There are so many important issues out there that we need to address. I am disappointed that you seem to be lumping everyone into 2 camps - the 'its just a technical problem' and 'its a wake up call for renewables'. It is much more complex than that. It is not 'black and white' - it is all gray.
Solutions must be realistic and viable.
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
71. At 2:49pm on 17 Jun 2010, Brunnen_G wrote:
#65 Benefactor wrote:
Do Americans want Obama to swim to the bottom of the ocean and plug it himself?
What exactly can be done that isn't being done?
----------------------------------
It brings me no end of amusement that the same people who think government in the US should be smaller and do less (the so called tea party crowd) are the same people bleating that Obama should beheld personally responsible for the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and the so far unsuccessful efforts to stop the leak.
One or the other, you can't have both!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Personally, I'd like to see Obama try to swim to the bottom of the Gulf and plug it himself (just kidding).
I am not for 'more government' in the US. As I think most American's agree. One major problem we have here is that new Federal Agencies get created - but none get dismantled. The government needs to 'evolve' to a changing world - not just keep getting bigger. More needs to be done to cut waste in Government.
With regards to 'doing more' - the US Government has a lot of resources today which are not yet deployed and should have been deployed since the beginning. Tens of thousands of National Guardsmen, The Army Corps of Engineers, there is also the Army, Navy and Air Force with hundreds upon hundreds of heavy lift helicopters which could have been building berms and hauling equipment out to the coastline since the beginning. The list just goes on and on...
I think there is a lot which could have already been done - which is not even happening today. We could already have a hundred miles of berms protecting the most sensitive salt water marshes, mangroves, estuaries and swamps.
The government could have put FEMA in charge to enlist the aid and support of all the major oil companies and coordinate activities to help contain and clean the spilled oil. That is what FEMA is there for - and believe it or not, they can be pretty effective - I have seen a lot of Hurricanes, and while every talks about Katrina - it was a disaster waiting to happen - much of New Orleans was built on a peat bog, which when drained sunk some 10-15 ft in the last hundred years and is now under water.
Obama could have pledged the full support of every asset available to the US government to work with BP and everyone else from day one - rather than 'tough talk' about 'holding BP's feet to the fire', a lot of useless rhetoric and comments about 'looking for who's *** to kick'.
We don't need bigger, more government - we need smarter government.
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
Dateline Gulf of Mexico, Day 59
Well, yesterday, it was reported that the size of the spill is about the size of Kansas - while not as big as Texas - its a big state, I have driven across it a number of times - its a very long drive. If I am not mistaken, it is about 3/4's the size of the United Kingdom. It also appears that it is going to get bigger before it starts to get smaller.
I want to say a few words about some comments I have seen regarding BP and US/British relations. I don't know anyone here who holds any blame for the British People, nor the British government. I think this sort of rhetoric is both useless, ridiculous and pathetic. BP (no longer called "British Petroleum" for many years) is a multinational corporation - nothing to do with the people nor the government of the United Kingdom - our closest allies and friends. I don't see that changing over this.
I interviewed at BP twice in my career - both for 'consulting/project' work. The first time, not long after they acquired Amoco and had changed their name to just 'BP'. As it was explained to me by an IT VP - BP changed their name because they felt they were viewed as a 'minor player' and a 'British Company' - and wanted to be a 'major player'. [I am just relating his opinion and comment to me, not necessarily a statement of fact from BP representatives]. They moved their HQ here to Houston and acquired Amoco and other companies. As a side note, one of the opportunities I did not feel was the 'best fit for me' and after talking at length with the VP, we agreed. The second time, I was offered a temp to perm job and declined for 'more interesting work' with Bell South.
I think everyone who has read my little 'dateline' things knows that I am not a 'big fan' of BP at the moment. I personally feel like BP has not been completely up-front, nor transparent with regards to this disaster since the beginning - but thats just my opinion (hope that will pass the moderators).
I also feel like BP is not equipped to deal with this situation - nor do I believe any driller could handle a disaster of this magnitude themselves. I am disappointed that they appear to have been offered so much assistance and what has been reported here - they have declined pretty much every offer thus far.
I also am concerned that it appears that all but one of their attempts to contain the leak have involved not sealing it, but 'recovering' as much as possible. I find it difficult to believe that there are not other viable options for sealing the wellhead. That is only my perception, but I believe one shared by many many people here.
The Chairman of BP made a 'big boo-boo' yesterday in referring to all the 'little people' - it did not go over well here. It has been the lead on the local news since he said it - I realize that he does not speak english well - but someone should have prepared the statement for him if his english is so bad. Since then, they have also shown Mr. Hayward over and over saying 'he wants his life back' - that has not gone over well here - lots of very negative commentary.
Mr. Hayward will be on Capital Hill today 'getting grilled' as several members of Congress have put it. It will be interesting to see what he has to say.
There was a comment here about the stock price of BP sinking so bad and all us American's grabbing it up at bargain basement prices. I don't really think that is a fair statement either. While I applaud the 20B fund that BP set up this week - I also believe this could run into over 100B plus in costs. I spoke with a friend yesterday, he is the director of IT for a large energy company - he was talking about buying BP stock, I suggested he buy 6 month calls instead. We should have a better idea of the liabilities at that time.
I also hope very much that BP does not declare bankruptcy - in my opinion, it would be very bad for everyone. There has been a lot of talk about the possibility of that happening here for the last couple of weeks. I feel bad for the shareholders - but worse for all the millions along the Gulf Coast. BP and others do need to pay - but I would like to see them remain viable so that not only can they pay - but also so that the millions of shareholders and pensioners are not ruined.
Everyone associated is going to take a hit on this - we need to focus on minimizing that for everyone and get this thing sealed and cleaned up.
As I said from the beginning, there were four major companies involved here - BP, TransOcean, Halliburton and Cameron. Thus far, all the others have been able to 'maintain a pretty low profile' - but I don't think that will last as the facts start to come out. If Halliburton took 'short cuts' - regardless of whether BP told them too or not - they should have their feet held to the fire. They were hired for a job for the expertise and if they felt they were doing something they should not have - they should have said no - they had their area of expertise.
The same is true of Cameron - who designed and built the wellhead sitting on the ocean floor. It has been reported here - but can't say for certain - that there were design flaws and issues with this wellhead and that they knew about it - keep in mind that this is heresay at this point and I am not defaming the company - but if the facts come out and it was true - they should be nailed to the wall - in my humble opinion.
At the end of the day right now - I think that we really need to focus on stopping the leak and cleaning up the spill - period. That is job one and all the pundits and 'flamers' and 'pundits' are doing nothing to address the real issues at hand.
As I have sat here for the last couple of hours, I have been listening to the TV downstairs and there have been a lot of comments about the disaster - most in my view, unproductive.
Well, I think I have said enough for one day. Again, let us hope for better news tomorrow (I could continue to go on for hours...)
I really hope that we can stop the non-sense and really focus on the job at hand - job one: sealing the well, cleaning the spill and restoring the habitats already lost as well as doing everything possible to reduce the amount of additional habitat loss as a result of this terrible disaster.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
The system for off shore oil explaration in the US is to do it under licence. To encourage companies to bid for licences their potential liabilities are capped at $75 million and there is an inspectorate to make sure the the companies operate safely and obey the conditions of their licence.
If there is an accident there is an organisation (the EPA) mandated to produce and implement a contingency emergency plan.
None of this is of course what has happened which implies that the US regulatory system is not fit for purpose and (unless this was a totally unexpected accident or BP has breached its license conditions) the US authorities should carry at least some of the blame.
Complain about this comment
4. At 5:17pm on 16 Jun 2010, Jack Hughes wrote:
Can someone clarify what is a "green job" ?
-----------------------------------------------------
It is a fantasy lifestyle. Some crazy notion that people can go back to living in caves, grow their own food and live without any fuel...at least that is my opinion.
It is just not viable, nor realistic.
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
#70 blunderbunny wrote:
"That's actually quite interesting, becuase I was under the impression that the russian demonstrator plane never actually flew the nuclear engignes?"
I'm interested in this too. There is no such thing as a "nuclear engine" -- at least not for an aeroplane -- so they must have had some plan to use the heat from the nuclear reactor to power turbines that blew air like a turbojet. But how? I'd be grateful if anyone could enlighten us on this.
Complain about this comment
Energy & Climate - An Earth Systems Science Perspective
I seem to have caused a small stir when I wrote that I thought energy and climate being related was a given.
Let's look at this for a minute, as green energy is still energy, even if its release of carbon to the atmosphere is much less.
The early history of the Earth, from say 3.8 billion years ago to 2.3 billion years ago was apparently relatively warm, perhaps warmer than now, despite the Sun being only some 70 to 80 percent as bright.
Best current theory as to why - Life.
Possibly methane producing Archaea - Methanogens.
Without Life, in this case Methanogens and their waste product, the greenhouse gas methane, the planet Earth would have been much cooler.
Ergo, without the energy conversion mechanisms of Life, the Earth's climate would have been radically different.
Along come the cyanobacteria, say ~ 2.7 to 2.8 billion years ago. They release Oxygen as a waste product - Oxygen reacts with methane - exit Methanogens from the surface as they can only survive in anaerobic conditions, and in comes the first Snowball Earth, say ~ 2.4 billion years ago, as the levels of the potent greenhouse gas CH4 (methane) plummet.
Ergo - different energy regime - different climate.
And on and on - Geology - Earth System's Science - James Lovelock vindicated - Again.
I don't think this is the forum for a course on the geological history of the Earth and its atmosphere and its lifeforms, all inextricably intertwined.
Suffice it to say that without life's differing energy pathways, our planet first of all wouldn't be our planet, as life would not be here, and we would have a largely CO2 atmosphere - and a dead planet - somewhere intermediate in physical aspect between Venus and Mars.
The reason we don't have a dead planet is due to luck - we are the right distance from a star of spectral class G2, and we are water rich, etc...
Life may be an inevitable consequence given these conditions, in other words.
Yet, despite all of our science and technological prowess, no one has ever come one centimeter, one micrometer closer to understanding Why we are here in the first place.
Why is for religion - Science is merely descriptive.
==========
References:
"Life's a Gas"; Nick Lane; New Scientist 6 February 2010.
"Impact from the Deep"; Peter D. Ward; Scientific American October 2006.
"First Life"; Michael Russell; American Scientist January/February 2006.
"When Methane Made Climate"; James F. Kasting; Scientific American July 2004.
"The Evolution of Life on Earth"; Stephen J. Gould; Scientific American October 1994.
- Manysummits @ the Climate Change Cafe -
Complain about this comment
"66. At 1:04pm on 17 Jun 2010, simon-swede wrote:
Smiffie at #54
Coal is so old school! How about nukes instead? Half a century ago the Russians managed 34 test flights of a Tupolev Tu-119 aircraft which had 2 experimental jet engines powered by a nuclear reactor."
Info on this for you guys.
The Americans spent a lot of money experimenting with this idea. There were two possible systems "direct" and "indirect" engines. The direct design spewed radiation out of the exhaust and was dropped as an idea. The indirect design was flight tested but the radiation shielding was so heavy the range was minimal and the problem of radiation escape in a crash killed the project.
After the Berlin Wall came down it turned out that the USSR also had an atomic plane which made a few dozen test flights.
The Russian plane had NO SHIELDING for the crew many of whom died young.
Stupid idea from the start but in the era of Brave New World............
Complain about this comment
For those interested in finding out what happens to all the oil that gets leaked both accidentally by us and from natural occurring seeps I found this site informative:
http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=57272
I live just up the coast from Santa Barbara where oil seeps naturally and continuously into the ocean. In fact I've heard it said that more oil would seep naturally if we did not take some and relieve the pressure.
Also adjacent to this area is one of the protected areas of the ocean which is abundant with rich life.
This oil spill is more an inconvenience to us and we only have ourselves to blame. In the long term nature appears to be able to handle it and flourish, as she does with all the other massive destructions that she causes.
Complain about this comment
The BP CEO's testimony on TV right now, and for the past few hours, has been truly pathetic.
How did this twit become CEO of this company? Together with Obama, one couldn't imagine worse 'leadership' in the face of this disaster.
#74, 75 - Larry Kealey - I agree. It boggles the mind that they are still dragging their feet on the cleanup and containment. And it is so tragic that they didn't do more earlier.
Complain about this comment
#82 CanadianRockies wrote:
"How did this twit become CEO of this company?"
I haven't seen the video, but it might be somewhat the same way as bankers get to the top in banks: agreeability.
The politically correct lefties on this blog will disown me, but I am genuinely on the left. One of the reasons I think a (moderately) regulated market is a good idea is I think we all tend to promote people who "say the right things" (i.e. agree with us, whoever "we" may be). Profit is in fact secondary to human sociality.
It's quite astonishing how smoothly and inevitably agreeable but stupid people rise to the top -- like scum. Meanwhile the clever, disagreeable people are regarded as "outsiders" and at best they stay where they are.
One of the beauties of (genuine) science is its reversal of the usual pattern.
Complain about this comment
@A Few(we happy few)
Re: the Nuclear Tupolev.
I was under the impression that they'd stuck a nuclear reactor on an old bear, but that there was no propulsion of any description attached to it.
However, I've seen reports on wiki (well you can't really trust them - now can you?) that they had attached two props to the reactor and had two direct cycle jets built into the fuselage.
I still think it's unlikely that said plane was more than a flying reactor/accident waiting to happen, but I was wondering if Simon had any non-wiki references that I might have missed.
Regards,
One of the Hall(just trying it out - maybe vestibule would be better)
Complain about this comment
83. bowmanthebard
I'm guessing he was also a member of the 'club.' I find some of the comments on the James Delingpole blog very informative on this aspect of the UK.
(Not to be confused with 'The Lobby' of course... which apparently allows anybody to join.)
Agree on your other thoughts. Galileo was soooo disagreeable, and simply failed to recognize the 'wisdom' of the consensus. Unfortunately he did finally buckle but reality eventually won.
And all this simplistic 'left-right' (us-them) stuff is laughable but obviously very convenient to the divide, distract, and conquer manipulators. Sure seems to work.
Complain about this comment
You guys are all wrong.
Tony Haywood is very clever and a brilliant CEO. He is just being whirled around in a horrendous political shitstorm.
Every time he opens his mouth the American media takes the odd sentence and twists it to make him seem cruel and uncaring. So he is restricting himself to a few bland, harmless, well rehearsed phrases.
The media, of course, both in the US and here, is generally made up of reporters who would shag their grannies to sell a few extra copies, so balanced reporting is out of the window (Sorry Richard)
BP is over a barrel with Obama publicly reaming it. It has to abase itself for the time being to keep its' contracts with the US military and so forth.
Obama's political grandstanding and bullying tactics are playing with fire so far as the British public are concerned. It wouldn't take much to put us against involvement in Afghanistan!
The truth about the cause and background to the explosion and the failure of the containment systems to work will have to wait for a proper commission. I expect that by the time the report comes out nobody will care. The bribes will have been paid and the US mid-term elections will be history.
Complain about this comment
Richard Black, your articles are always right on target. I wish they were aired and published in the USA. I really learn a lot from your insightful, conscise and scholarly articles. As an amateur ecologist & environmentalist
who will be beginning a course of Scientific study in Ecology & Environment in near London soon, I really appreciate your ideas & writing. this I maintain is an ethical and moral issue, worldwide we must end our consumption of fossils fuels and economies based on them and implement the many viable Green Energy alternatives and economy that are readily available, on a massive world wide scale. this is not about politics, nationality or blaming, the world needs to see, and know the truth, and move forward with a Green action plan on all levels, world-wide. Keep up the great work. Best Regards,Pat.
Complain about this comment
84. blunderbunny
Vestibule! I like it. Vestibulians even sounds like something out of Star Wars... threatening the planet, of course.
Looks like the Vestibulians are going to have to kill all the whales:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/16/whale-poop-fights-global-warming/
Complain about this comment
Comment from James Delingpole's blog on "Three reasons why our economy is heading for the rocks"
peteh 06/15/2010 02:43
"It's OK. Now that we have invested all of that money in those lovely windmills, we'll be able to sell all the spare power they generate.
In the last 24 hours they have generated a staggering 458 MWh. That means that each £2 million + windmill has generated about £8 of electricity. Makes you proud to be British doesn't it.
http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htm "
Complain about this comment
#86. DrBrianS wrote:
"You guys are all wrong.
Tony Haywood is very clever and a brilliant CEO. He is just being whirled around in a horrendous political shitstorm."
His televised performance today was a total disaster. Evasive, repetitive, and generally Nixonesque. And if his answers were remotely truthful, he had no clue as to what was happening in his own company... even while he sold at least one-third of his shares.
BP needs to dump him ASAP. He can become a UK MP or join Tony Bliar in the highly lucrative climate change business.
Complain about this comment
blunderbunny #30.
sounds good, and I remember you mentioning it before; be interesting to know what are the implications of manufacturing the required 'cobalt-doped ferrite (Fe3O4) ceramic' in quantity -- bound to be noxious ;(
Complain about this comment
BP's Tony Hayward:
"Education: University of Edinburgh PH.D Geology 1982. He holds Honorary Doctorates from the University of Edinburgh, Aston University and the University of Birmingham..."
and much more.
This man is smart and talented.
Which does not preclude other less virtuous traits, of course.
http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9021976&contentId=7038002
=================
Come come now!
No remarks on the links between climate and energy?
Too scientific??
How about the new report here on the BBC - about further evidential linkage between CO2 and Ice Age Climate???
Does the lobby not thrive on real evidence?
Ancient climate change 'link' to CO2
By Victoria Gill
Science reporter, BBC News
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10342318.stm
"Dr Carrie Lear, a palaeoclimate scientist from Cardiff University in the UK, agreed that carbon dioxide was the likely "culprit".
She told BBC News: "This study reveals a feedback process that has magnified climate change since the inception of Northern Hemisphere glaciation 2.7 million years ago.
"It seems the tropical warming caused by high CO2 levels set off a chain of events resulting in additional greenhouse gases, including water vapour, being released to the atmosphere, thus causing further warming."
Dr Lear said that such studies of past climate change were "invaluable in understanding the current climate system, and hence predicting future change".
===============
Remember Wallace Broecker's admonition that to understand Holocene/Anthropocene climate one must understand the Ice Ages.
In combination with the work being done on the deep past, which also links not only climate and life's energy pathways, but also the Big Five Mass Extinctions and others with flood basalt provinces and their extraordinary CO2 emissions, we have a gas here, CO2, which is, along with hydrogen, in what Michael Russell calls a 'Tale of Two Molecules' ("First Life" - see #79), involved from the very beginning of life on Earth in the fundamental process which drives virtually all life on our planet to this day, from chemosynthesis to both high and low light photosynthesis in the smallest lifeforms on Earth, to the chlorophyll and mitochondria which power virtually all multicellular life within complex Eucharyotic cells.
As time passes and our great scientists continue discovering additional information on Earth's past - we increasingly understand the present - climate that is!
But understanding the human being, so seemingly intent on self-destruction - now that's a much harder nut to crack.
I mentioned a much cited article in an earlier post, "The Tragedy of the Commons," which saw us heading for ruin basically because of the selfish drive and rational thinking, if I can summarize a lot.
Luckily, my own observations suggest the human being is not always rational, perhaps one could even say seldom rational.
And that is where the hope lies.
- Manysummits @ the Climate Change Cafe -
Complain about this comment
LarryKealey #73.
"The 'zero carbon' lifestyle is a fantasy."
the debate is about reducing unsustainable "lifestyle".
"The United States, with only 5% of the global population, uses 30% of the world's natural resources. Other major industrialized countries also consume natural resources to a far greater extent than an equitable distribution would allow.
Only about 25% of the world's people live in developed countries, yet they use 80% of its non-fuel minerals."
http://library.thinkquest.org/26026/Science/comparative_resource_consumpti.html
Complain about this comment
Surprise surprise!!!
Some members of the lobby want Tony Hayward axed - blamed,,, i.e. scapegoated.
How convenient to have one person to blame.
So much like the rants against President Obama!!!
Yes - he should don wetsuit and fins, and personally 'stop 'dat leak!'
Wasn't his administration preceded by eight years of Bush and the Saudi Princes White House? It seems I read somewhere the Bush's were in some way connected to Big Oil, both in the United States and in Saudi Arabia.
Maybe I'm mistaken here - it was all so long ago...
Wait - it wasn't that long ago after all!!!
Just a year and a bit - as I all of a sudden remember.
- Manysummits - sarcastic - true - but heh - no one's perfect -
Complain about this comment
manysummits #94.
"It seems I read somewhere the Bush's were in some way connected to Big Oil, both in the United States and in Saudi Arabia."
and Iraq.
LOL
Complain about this comment
Dateline Gulf of Mexico Day 59 - Supplemental Entry
A very interesting day indeed - and I did not see much that was 'positive' nor very constructive in my opinion. I want to respond to a couple of comments made regarding this by CanadianRockies and ManySummits - but first, some more interesting developments.
This evening here in Houston, it was reported that so far 126 M gallons of oil have leaked/spilled thus far from the DeepwaterHorizon disaster. The worst spill ever (except for the intentional Iraqi spills during the First Gulf War) was 140 M gallons - Ixtoc I in the Bay of Campeche in '79, which was in much shallower water and took nine months to cap. It will be a very short time before this disaster eclipses Ixtoc I in terms of volume. In my opinion, it has already eclipsed Ixtoc I greatly in terms of environmental damage - because of the areas the oil has washed ashore and into the marshes, swamps, bogs, etc...
It was also reported that the reservoir which the leak is coming from contained approx 2 B gallons so a whole lot more could come out (more on why in a moment), but if memory serves me, that find is estimated at 2 B BBL - or about 44 B gallons - not 2 B gallons.
I saw reports from scientists that suggested that the pressure is so great coming up the pipestring to the wellhead that even if they had 'plugged' the wellhead with the 'top kill' method - there was a real possibility of the casing below the wellhead disintegrating - making the problem more difficult and potentially increasing the flow of oil from the reservoir. This was the argument presented justifying BP's efforts being focused around 'recovery' as opposed to 'sealing' the well until the relief well is complete.
I see the risk - it certainly seems a very valid concern to me - but why have we not heard this all along? They gave an 'additional' recovery plan they are implementing now - I missed the details but can't wait to get filled in in the morning and see how it is going.
I also want to correct an error I made - I believe I said the spill was the size of Kansas - which was what was reported - I stated the size of Kansas was around 45,000 sq mi - it is actually 82,277 sq miles - or just a little smaller than the size of the UK - 94,526 sq miles. Thats pretty big...
I was not impressed with Mr. Hayward's testimony on the Hill today - about the only thing I heard that I liked was 'I'm sorry'. The safety record of BP under Mr. Hayward's leadership was brought up - and appeared to be the worst in the industry with OSHA stating that 97% of the 'worst violations' occurred at BP refineries. [hope I don't get moderated for saying that - but it is in the congressional record].
I think Mr. Hayward should have 'his life back' at this point - I think it would be better for everyone involved - but with a few modifications. He should have a waterfront home - he's earned it - in Southern Louisiana. The rest of his homes and assets can go into the 'fund'. He can apply for assistance to be able to stay in his house and eat, just like everyone else there. He can get up every morning and see the life so many people will have to live for years - he can experience it - he can live it - he can have it - IN MY HUMBLE OPINION.
I am also not very happy with either the Obama Administration and their failure to accept responsibility - and there is plenty which lies upon their shoulders. I have been disappointed since the beginning and continue to be very disappointed with their response and the apparent inability to mobilize all available assets and utilize them.
I think this disaster will be remembered for a very long time by people who are just young kids now - or not even born yet. I think it is that big.
As I write this, I just heard three commercials for beaches in Florida which are open and clean - their main industries are tourism and oranges - guess which one pays the bills...
@CanadianRockies - I agree - it boggles the mind that we have gone so long and it is still such a mess with no real apparent 'plan' to fix it.
We are also in total agreement regarding Mr. Hayward.
@ManySummits - I am shocked that you would defend Mr. Hayward and think that he is going to be a 'scapegoat'. He was the man in the corner office - you know the guy with the plate on his desk that says 'The Buck Stops Here'. He won't be the only guy to go down - if he does go down - (actually, regardless) there will be others, plenty.
Ditto for Obama - you defend him because of his using this disaster to promote an energy agenda which you share. Well, such an agenda will take time and cost trillions - in the meantime, just ask Obama - we are fighting a war, an ecological one - one that is going to be very expensive, regardless of what BP pays (in my opinion).
Obama has been pitiful in my view in terms of his response, actions and words since this disaster began. Oh, but he supports legislation you want to see in a country where you don't even live - so you are going to support him, no matter how horrible a job he has been doing with regards to the worst ecological disaster of our time.
Yep, no one is perfect - glad you at least admitted to that.
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
94. At 04:08am on 18 Jun 2010, manysummits wrote:
Surprise surprise!!!
Some members of the lobby want Tony Hayward axed - blamed,,, i.e. scapegoated.
How convenient to have one person to blame.
So much like the rants against President Obama!!!
Yes - he should don wetsuit and fins, and personally 'stop 'dat leak!'
Wasn't his administration preceded by eight years of Bush and the Saudi Princes White House? It seems I read somewhere the Bush's were in some way connected to Big Oil, both in the United States and in Saudi Arabia.
Maybe I'm mistaken here - it was all so long ago...
Wait - it wasn't that long ago after all!!!
Just a year and a bit - as I all of a sudden remember.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Well, you might consider following American Politics a bit closer. The deregulation of both the energy industry and the banking/finance industry occurred during the Clinton Administration - during the 90's.
Perhaps the Bush Administration should have worked harder to 'undo' the legislation and deregulation during the Clinton Administration - but they did were 'tightening the belt'. What has Obama done except 'bailouts'??
Cheers.
Kealey
PS - oh, but thats right, as long as people agree with your one issue "AGW" - everything else is ok...of course, if I am not mistaken, in your posts of late if someone doesn't agree with you position on AGW, you tend to shift the subject to the views on evolution and religion.
Very interesting indeed - perhaps you should take that break and have some 'family time'
Kindest
Complain about this comment
LarryKealey #97.
"Well, you might consider following American Politics a bit closer. The deregulation of both the energy industry and the banking/finance industry occurred during the Clinton Administration - during the 90's."
but deregulation as 'the new politics' didn't start as late as that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deregulation#Deregulation_1970-2000
Complain about this comment
Sunny Spain suspends solar subsidy scam
€18bn flushed down the baño
"Dead broke Spain can't afford to prop up renewables anymore...
Estimates put the investment in solar energy in Spain at €18bn - but the investment was predicated... on taxpayer subsidies... Incredibly, Spain pays more in subsidies for renewables than the total cost of energy production for the country. It leaves industry with bills 17 per cent higher than the EU average...
Spanish economist Professor Gabriel Calzada... estimated that each green job had cost the country $774,000.
Worse, a "green" job costs 2.2 jobs that might otherwise have been created... Industry, which can't afford to pay the higher fuel bills, simply moves elsewhere."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/17/spain_sustainability_scam/
Complain about this comment
The nclear powered Tupolev
Intrigued that a rather tongue-in-cheek comment provoked so many responses.
Blunderbunny at #70 and #84
My understanding is that the Russian's flew their aircraft, while the Americans performed ground-based tests. However DrBrianS thinks otherwise. There also was at least one case of a working reactor being installed in an aircraft but not being used to power the propulsion systems (it was done to see if it could be done, and the power was only used to for some electrical systems).
My files are froma while back. However there are a few bits and pieces on the web (but not a great deal). The Wikipedia article mentioned is not bad. There are also some images on-line.
A couple of years ago (I think) there was a documentary on the Russian project - but I can't recall the specific details of who produced it or the title. A major focus was on the radiation exposure of flight crew. Although, to the best of my knowledge, there has been no actual exposure data published.
Bowman at #78
If you read what I wrote earlier a bit more carefully, you would see that I don't refer to a nuclear engine. I refer to jet engines powered by a nuclear reactor. Other types of engine were considered also, including ramjets.
Complain about this comment
#86 DrBrianS wrote:
"Tony Haywood is very clever and a brilliant CEO."
I've often wondered about claims like these, made for bankers and businessmen. I can see how artists, scientists, mathematicians, engineers -- even philosophers -- can be "brilliant". But I've never been able to understand what sort of "brilliance" is required to run a company or a bank, especially ones that are run badly.
A lot of people who work in business have told me "brilliance" is definitely required for business, but they've never been able to communicate to me what that "brilliance" involves, and they never seemed all that brilliant themselves.
As for the claim that big bonuses are "needed to attract the best people" -- Why would the best people be attracted by bonuses? Would Mozart have made better music if he had got bigger bonuses?
Complain about this comment
#93 jr4412 quoted:
The United States, with only 5% of the global population, uses 30% of the world's natural resources. Other major industrialized countries also consume natural resources to a far greater extent than an equitable distribution would allow.
If there was a more equitable distribution, the overall consumption of "natural resources" would go up, not down. Or does this idea of "equitable distribution" involve the rich getting poorer, while the poor stay as poor as they already are?
As a rule of thumb, the wealthier a person is, the more he consumes.
Complain about this comment
CanadianRockies at #99
The piece from the Register is a bit hysterical.
A more balanced article appeared in the Economist last year. This also mentions the Calzada claim (which really is no more than a back-of-the envelope thing rather than a serious bit of analysis).
See 'The grass is always greener: saving the planet and creating jobs may be incompatible', The Economist, 2nd April 2009, at: http://www.economist.com/node/13404568
Complain about this comment
#96 LarryKealey wrote:
@CanadianRockies - I agree - it boggles the mind that we have gone so long and it is still such a mess with no real apparent 'plan' to fix it.
It's because the "little people" are putting too much trust in the "experts". That is the curse of our age. If they'd just gone for a modest, heavy-handed, low-tech solution such as pouring lots and lots of concrete on top, the problem would probably be under control by now.
I'm still guessing that the eventual solution will be very simple like that. But think of all the time wasted while deferring to the experts (most of whom are pretending to know much more than they really do).
Sceptically yours -- bowmanthebard
Complain about this comment
#100 simon-swede wrote:
"If you read what I wrote earlier a bit more carefully, you would see that I don't refer to a nuclear engine. I refer to jet engines powered by a nuclear reactor."
And if you read what I wrote earlier a bit more carefully, you would see that I don't assume you refer to a nuclear engine. My question was about how a nuclear reactor could power a jet-type aero engine. It was a genuine question.
Complain about this comment
Bowman at #102
As a rule of thumb, rules of thumb often suffer from over-generalisations.
Your rule of thumb here doesn't take into account the extent that the amount of consumption depends also on how efficient it is (or how wasteful). The US tends to be a rather wasteful consumer compared to some other similarly wealthy countries in Europe.
Complain about this comment
Bowman at #104
I am looking forward to your description of a "low-tech" way to pour concrete in sufficient quantities in the right place at depths of a mile.
Complain about this comment
#104 bowmanthebard
"It's because the "little people" are putting too much trust in the "experts". That is the curse of our age."
never miss an opportunity to bang your drum. experts here are technicians working for an oil corporation which probably had an eye on keeping the well going. and to suggest they haven;t tried a low tech solution (like lots of concrete) just isn't true.
the reality is that oil extaction is risky and as oil becomes scarcer will become more so in the future.
Complain about this comment
#94 manysummits
very funny, you should try venting your sarcasm more :o)
in essence, if you want oil at 2c a gallon and insist on driving 10mpg cars you'll need a lot of oil. this was an inevitable disaster somewhere, sometime. the only long term solution is to accept you can't have it all ways (although i'm sure our libertarian contributors will disagree).
but for bp the real disaster is that this is in the gulf of mexico not the gulf of oman or somewhere else where people are not little, they're infinitesimal.
Complain about this comment
#108 rossglory wrote:
"never miss an opportunity to bang your drum."
What's the point in saying this?
Complain about this comment
#106 simon-swede wrote:
"The US tends to be a rather wasteful consumer compared to some other similarly wealthy countries in Europe."
You need to give me a counter-example to my rule of thumb. Are you suggesting that some European countries -- even morally splendid, worthy countries like Sweden -- have a lower per capita consumption of natural resources than that of the third world?
Complain about this comment
This week's Science has a review of oean acidification, with links to some recently published research.
Ocean Acidification Unprecedented, Unsettling
Richard A. Kerr
Science 18 June 2010:
Vol. 328. no. 5985, pp. 1500 - 1501
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/328/5985/1500
Complain about this comment
If you are a technician working for an oil corporation (as rossglory breathlessly puts it) simply pouring lots of concrete down a reasonably well-aimed tube represents a humiliating climbdown -- as admission that you are not "in control" the way the worshipful "little people" assume you must be as an "expert"....
So you will be reluctant to fall back on that as a solution. And the more your self-image means to you, the more reluctant you will be.
As I said before, it is like extracting a tooth with a pair of pliers instead of using the latest laser technology to conduct a high-tech root canal operation. Dentists are generally reluctant to do the sort of thing that Bob Hope was doing in The Paleface because it makes them look like... Bob Hope. But it's sometimes the least bad thing to do.
Complain about this comment
#107 simon-swede wrote:
I am looking forward to your description of a "low-tech" way to pour concrete in sufficient quantities in the right place at depths of a mile.
1. Get a mile-long tube, and stick it into the water. It doesn't have to be watertight -- in fact it's better if it isn't.
2. Make sure the bottom of the tube is roughly over the place where the oil is leaking (this might require the use of robotic submersibles).
3. Pour concrete down the tube -- lots of it.
You don't have to worry about pressures, because when the tube starts off its full of water, and as the concrete falls down it pushes the water out of the way.
Complain about this comment
A friend sent me an article about the Deepwater Horizon from "Solutions" (one of the co-authors being Robert Costanza, referred to recently on this blog too).
While the article includes some perspectives on the scale of the Deepwater Horizon accident and the damage it is causing, its focus turns more towards learning from this experience to help prevent future oil spills (rather than concentrating on mitigation, clean-up and compensation). It discusses new institutions (like common asset trusts) and financial instruments (like assurance bonds)which could be used to change the status quo and create incentives to help prevent similar disasters like this in the future.
See: http://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/node/629
Complain about this comment
Bowman at #111
No I'm not. What I am saying is that there are examples of countries which have a much lower per capita energy and natural resource consumption than the United States although they have a similar level of wealth as seen in the US.
Complain about this comment
Bowman at #114
Kudos to you for replying, although I guess i should have been more suprised if you managed to refrain from doing so!
However what you describe doesn't really convince me (nor is it particularly low tech, if you think of the engineering involved). Moreover, looking also at your reply to rossglory, it seems that your attitude is driven more by your apparent mega-sized chip on your shoulder about experts and assumptions about what might appeal to engineers than it is by you having a 'brilliant' solution.
Nonetheless, if you are serious, then there is a way to put your idea forward for proper evaluation. You can join the more than 20,000 others who have submited their suggestions on how to stop the flow of oil or contain the oil spill which have been sent to BP since the Gulf of Mexico incident.
And before you mock it - BP has implemented a process to review and evaluate all of these suggestions and they have promised to reply to each suggestion made.
There are two ways to submit a suggestion in this option:
1.Call the Houston suggestion line at (281) 366-5511
2.Fill out the online suggestion form at http://www.horizonedocs.com/artform.php
Each caller to the Houston suggestion line has their details entered into the Horizon Call Center database. The database then automatically generates and sends the caller a simple form, termed the Alternative Response Technologies form, for them to set out the details of their idea.
Alternatively, the online form is a valuable tool in helping the team to systematically review the technical merits of the idea, as it allows the caller to describe the materials, equipment and skills needed for it to work.
After the caller completes and submits the form, it is sent for triage by a team of 30 technical and operational personnel who will review its technical feasibility and application. Given the quantity of the proposals and the detail in which the team investigates each idea, the technical review can take some time. Each idea is sorted into one of three categories:
•Not possible or not feasible in these conditions;
•Already considered/ planned or;
•Feasible.
The feasible ideas are then escalated for a more detailed review, potential testing and field application. So far, around 100 ideas are under further review.
Each submitter receives a reply informing them of the outcome. Those whose ideas are considered feasible will be contacted by BP if, and when, their support is needed.
Looking forward to hearing about how it goes!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Kealey #96 &97: re scapegoating Hayward & Obama
What's that word - BS - yes, that's it.
I have followed US politics longer than you, being older, and having an interest.
You however, are closer to it, being an American.
Perhaps you missed my post? The one in which I stated that every thinking president from Thomas Jefferson and on down has worried about and warned of the military/industrial/(and now financial) complex.
Let's look at CUI BONO:
If Hayward is blamed, BP is absolved - and will continue to drill, in the Gulf and elsewhere. Their safety record is poor as I understand it, and no company the size of BP is run by its president - it is the board of directors working for the shareholders, some of whom may have very large positions in the company. But CEO's are expendable, a regrettable externalized cost in case something like Deepwater happens.
You know this of course, but pretend you don't. BP may end up absorbed by one of the other major independents - and while all this is going on, smart and savy investors are buying BP no doubt sensing the truth in what I have just said.
Just good business of course - nothing personal - which is probably true, when you think about it - a corporation is impersonal by design and legal mandate. Some prefer to call this trait psychopathic.
==============
But then, arguing politics frees you from discussing the latest findings on CO2 - which I also posted on - I guess you and the lobby missed that - it was in big headlines on this very website actually. Here, I'll show you:
Ancient climate change 'link' to CO2
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10342318.stm
==============
And you and the lobby are freed from commenting on my posts on energy and climate - the links between - and the links to CO2 of the Big Five mass extinctions, etc etc etc..., despite denigrating comments from - 'the lobby' at the time - so strange - I think it's called avoidance.
Funny how that works heh? A neat diversion into politics and out of AGW CO2 territory.
But then your manuals on denial don't have a lot of science in them, now do they? Not yet anyway, on flood basalt provinces; on energy pathways in the biosphere from the Archean through the Huronian 'banded iron oxides'.
Not surprising - this is hard science, every bit as hard as physics or engineering - harder I would venture. But let's not go down that path, and divert from our main theme here:
Fossil Fuel Addiction versus Cleaner Alternatives - AGW Center Stage - as it has to be - for an Informed Electorate
Remember that - informed electorate? That's the opposite of the 'dumbed-down' electorate which Carl Sagan and Thomas Jefferson warned about.
- Manysummits @ the CCC -
Complain about this comment
Ross #109: re
"but for bp the real disaster is that this is in the gulf of mexico not the gulf of oman or somewhere else where people are not little, they're infinitesimal." (Ross)
============
How true. I have watched several documentaries over the last couple of months on this very topic.
I was in the oil business for almost twenty years. This has nothing to do with guys out doing their job, looking for what everyone wants - cheap energy, and everything to do with management at the top, which consciously and with malice aforethought seek to externalize every cost they can including at the expense of people's lives and health - and the farther from the media the better.
Ecuador, for example. But I've posted on this before, with links.
The real problem is not providing links. I believe most people know how the system works - they just don't know how to fix it, given the seeming fact that the big corporations run politics these days.
Obama will try and do the right thing, and corporate 'business as usual' will try and destroy him. They have point men on this right now, perhaps on this weblog.
It's why I hope that irrational man will triumph where rational man cannot.
Let's face it - too many scientists are seen, and perhaps are - too rational - same as businessmen.
What we really need is people who can feel again - and vote.
Warmist regards,
Manysummits
Complain about this comment
Here is an intersting article on jellyfish, which appear to be one of the beneficiaries of our emptying of the oceans of fish and whales, sharks and dolphins and coral reefs etc...
The planet's only immortal animal is spreading fast
"Theoretically, the process [transdiffeentiation] can go on indefinitely, which may help to explain why scientists have noticed a spike in the number of these jellyfish in the oceans. "We are looking at a worldwide silent invasion," said Dr Maria Miglietta of the Smithsonian Tropical Marine Institute.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/yahoocanada/100617/canada/the_planet_s_only_immortal_animal_is_spreading_fast
==========
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
I'm sure the idea to "entomb the leak under lots of concrete" has been thought of already -- it's so low-tech and obvious that anyone could think of it. The real problem, and the point I'm trying to make, is that "hotshots" tend to be narcissistic and thereby avoid the obvious. I'm interested in psychological problems of politics and decision-making, and widespread deference to "experts".
Please note that each individual component has already been achieved: (1) A mile-long pipe is no big deal nowadays, especially one that doesn't have to withstand pressure or even be watertight. It only has to be strong enough not to rupture when subject to a bit of movement. (2) Unmanned submersibles are already working at depths of a mile. I don't think it would be all that difficult to have one move the end of a pipe around a bit. Remember the pipe is a mile long, and suspended at the top, so the lateral forces involved at the bottom would be very small. (3) There may be logistical problems involved in getting vast amounts of concrete shipped out to sea, but it's probably no big deal compared to some old Soviet-Union-era dam-building projects. (Don't forget they dropped quite a lot of concrete from helicopters to "entomb" the reactor at Chernobyl.)
By the way, how is the burning of spilt oil going?
Anyone? Beuller?
Complain about this comment
@ 119
re: ancient co2 change.
i suggest you actually read the article properly, it's another 'proxie' based 'review' that involves a hell of a lot of guesswork- patently from a pre-concieved viewpoint. Your cup of tea it would seem.
@117 i had no idea they were doing that- that's brilliant.
Complain about this comment
@LarryKealey
"spill was the size of [place name]"
http://www.ifitwasmyhome.com/
Complain about this comment
@LarryKealey #96
(@CanadianRockies)
(@manysummits)
"I was not impressed with Mr. Hayward's testimony on the Hill today - about the only thing I heard that I liked was 'I'm sorry'. The safety record of BP under Mr. Hayward's leadership was brought up - and appeared to be the worst in the industry with OSHA stating that 97% of the 'worst violations' occurred at BP refineries. [hope I don't get moderated for saying that - but it is in the congressional record]."
Reminder. There is a difference between BP's safety record and Hayward's BP safety record (Hayward has only been in the job since 2007). At the hearing yesterday Hayward appeared to be made answerable to the former. For instance Texas City was in 2005, when Browne was in charge.
This is OK so long as we make it clear. It is one thing to hold BP the organisation to account for mistakes made by former management, and Hayward is representing BP here. But don't blame individuals for errors that occurred on someone else's watch.
Complain about this comment
I forgot to mention that concrete is very alkaline, so not only would my solution seal the oil leak, it would fix the "acidity of the ocean" all in one go!
Three cheers for bowmanthebard!
Complain about this comment
@120.
i've heard it all. Scientists are too rational.... sigh.
Complain about this comment
Bowman at #122
As I said, not low tech - you can't just say "concrete" equals low tech, or that each element has been done somewhere else, you need to look at the process as a whole and what it entails in this specific instance.
Given your attitude that 'experts ignore the obvious' and your belief that your 'solution' is so obvious, surely you are going to submit your proposal for evaluation! Or is that too obvious for you?
Complain about this comment
@CanadianRockies #85
(@bowmanthebard)
(@LarryKealey)
(@manysummits)
"club"
Hayward has a background as a rig geologist. And he would have upset the rest of management by publically criticising them over safety just before he got his current job.
Note the applicability of his criticisms to BP's recent management of Deepwater Horizon.
Hayward interview, December 2006:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/2952547/Hayward-shares-candid-views-on-2006.html
Complain about this comment
Jane at #124
Nice site!
About the size of Tasmania then?
Complain about this comment
LabMunkey at #127
Apparently it could be worse - imagine if they were experts!
Complain about this comment
@119 manysummits
Reading that article a little closer I notice that the study mentioned basicly suggested that a pattern of the changes in the climate exists for the last 3 million years, and may suggest that there has been a feedback mechanism in place which may have amplified both the heating and the cooling phases.
One of the things that I did notice was that they didn't give any suggestions on what was driving those changes.
Why carbon dioxide was tagged as a driver from these studies seems to be more due to carbon dioxide being blamed for any change in the climate rather than any data from the study. (Although I don't doubt that it was higher with higher temperatures, although I do recall that it has been show that temperature has historically driven levels of carbon dioxide)
Complain about this comment
Bowman: although it's nice to see some "concrete proposals" being put forward, it appears that you may be inadvertently strengthening the case for listening to the experts. Time to drop the subject, maybe?
Complain about this comment
@bowmanthebard #104, #114, #122, #126
(@rossglory)
Are your "concrete" comments serious?
Basically you've reinvented the wheel, or in this case "top kill".
Your ideas have flaws which "top kill" addresses, such as cement/concrete not being able to withstand the pressure while setting. "Top kill" gets round this by techniques such as applying "heavy drilling mud" first.
They tried "top kill", it didn't work.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/us_and_canada/10191622.stm
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
105. bowmanthebard wrote:
"My question was about how a nuclear reactor could power a jet-type aero engine. It was a genuine question."
The reactor would simply act as a source of heat to expand compressed intake air, that is it would do what burning fuel does. If it did that directly then the exhaust air would be highly radioactive so it's necessary to have a secondary indirect heating system. The weight of the necessary lead shielding made the project unsustainable except to the Soviets who tended to view their people as sacrificial for the good of the state and didn't let the absence of shielding let the project down.
As I remember it the Americans worked with the Boeing B36 and the Russian with a Bear.
By the way. I'd take the various estimates of the size of the spill with a grain of salt. The higher the figure goes the greater the fine so it doesn't do the US any good to minimise the damage.
Also I thought the media measured AREAS in "the size of Wales", HEIGHTS in Nelson's Column and VOLUMES in "Olympic swimming pools" perhaps State-size is the new American standard.
Complain about this comment
The Economist has long been in favour of a carbon tax. This week they publish the results of a new assessment they commissioned on the impact of a carbon tax on the UK economy.
The framework given was that the carbon tax should raise revenues equal to 1% of GDP by 2020, and that other policies with similar objectives (fuel duty, subsidies for renewable energy, Britain’s membership of the European emissions-trading scheme—the ETS—and so forth) would be abolished or reduced.
The results predicted that despite the increased taxation revenue, the UK's economic performance would improve, and output would be 1.2% higher by 2020 than under the current arrangements.
See "Taxing carbon - worth a go", the Economist, 17 June 2010 at:
http://www.economist.com/node/16377337?story_id=16377337
Complain about this comment
@ManySummits
You are correct, the US began steps toward more deregulation during the late 70's and 80's. The changes in the 70's resulted in the S&L crisis in the 80's. Deregulation really took off for the energy and finance industries during the 90's - part of the problem was all the new 'products' (read derivatives) and the lack of understanding of how these instruments work nor the potential liabilities associated with them.
I remember when the first NYMEX contract for energy began trading in '91 - it was simple Nat Gas commodity contracts (as opposed to OTC contracts), since then, the number of products and diversification has increased exponentially. The banking and finance deregulation of the mid-late 90's was not well thought out in my opinion - nor was the electricity deregulation 'model' implemented in California in April '98. In my view, the lawmakers and regulators didn't know what they were doing and a lot of companies made a ton of money at the expense of the California Rate Payers.
You might be a bit older, but I have followed American Politics since I was very young - it has always been very interesting to me. I could not wait to be old enough to vote.
What happened to that 'family time'? It might do you some good to climb a mountain - or (as I did not know until recently that you were a skydiver) get a few jumps in, it always gives me a bit of peace and attitude adjustment.
Kindest.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
@ManySummits wrote:
If Hayward is blamed, BP is absolved - and will continue to drill, in the Gulf and elsewhere. Their safety record is poor as I understand it, and no company the size of BP is run by its president - it is the board of directors working for the shareholders, some of whom may have very large positions in the company. But CEO's are expendable, a regrettable externalized cost in case something like Deepwater happens.
------------------------------------------------------------------
I do not think BP will be 'absolved' even if Mr. Hayward is vilified (as I think he should be). I believe BP will pay a price - I don't think it will mean they can't drill, but this will change the rules for everyone going forward.
My biggest hope is that a) we really get mobilized and really start cleaning this thing up ASAP and b) That a 'real plan' which is flushed and practiced is implemented which involves every possible asset from every source (all the major oil companies, state, local fed authorities, environmental groups, etc) - so that a real response can be made at the first real sign of trouble (like flames shooting hundreds of feet in the air from an explosion on a rig in deepwater).
I also want to see more transparency - which I believe we are still not getting from either BP or the US Government.
Kindest.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
125. At 11:57am on 18 Jun 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:
@LarryKealey #96
(@CanadianRockies)
(@manysummits)
"I was not impressed with Mr. Hayward's testimony on the Hill today - about the only thing I heard that I liked was 'I'm sorry'. The safety record of BP under Mr. Hayward's leadership was brought up - and appeared to be the worst in the industry with OSHA stating that 97% of the 'worst violations' occurred at BP refineries. [hope I don't get moderated for saying that - but it is in the congressional record]."
Reminder. There is a difference between BP's safety record and Hayward's BP safety record (Hayward has only been in the job since 2007). At the hearing yesterday Hayward appeared to be made answerable to the former. For instance Texas City was in 2005, when Browne was in charge.
This is OK so long as we make it clear. It is one thing to hold BP the organisation to account for mistakes made by former management, and Hayward is representing BP here. But don't blame individuals for errors that occurred on someone else's watch.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Personally, I think it is a matter of a culture which has been allowed to flourish at BP - and that 'culture' and the big decisions come from the top - thats where the blame lies in my view, not just Mr. Hayward - but his team as well (and in particular).
I know a lot of people who work for BP - I do live in Houston, the Energy Capital of the World - they are good people in my view and as appalled as the rest of us regarding this disaster.
I would also make one more comment regarding Mr. Hayward - he said anyone on the rig could stop operations if they felt there was any safety issue. Perhaps that is written in some document somewhere, but I do not believe it to be reality. I am sure that anyone could say 'this ain't right' and be promptly removed from the rig and probably never work offshore again (except maybe as a cook) - but that is just my opinion based upon my experiences and those which have been related to me by people I know.
I don't lay all the blame on Mr. Hayward - there is plenty to go around - but I am not pleased with Mr. Hayward's performance to date in regard to this disaster.
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
#113 bowman
"If you are a technician working for an oil corporation (as rossglory breathlessly puts it)" - phew, huff, puff, pant.....must be my asthma......too much pollution from traffic maybe :o)
Complain about this comment
#113 bowman
so you really think oil technicians 60 mile out to sea are more worried about looking like bob hope than upsetting their paymasters?? i wish i had your insight....phew, puff, pant...wheeeeze
Complain about this comment
#128 simon-swede wrote:
you can't just say "concrete" equals low tech
The Romans built the Colosseum out of concrete, and much of it is still standing. It can't be all that high-tech!
you need to look at the process as a whole and what it entails in this specific instance.
Do I detect a "can't-do" attitude here? I'm not a practicing engineer, but nor was the guy who thought up the idea of the "Mulberry" floating harbours -- a huge help after D-Day. Also made out of concrete, by the way!
Given your attitude that 'experts ignore the obvious' and your belief that your 'solution' is so obvious, surely you are going to submit your proposal for evaluation! Or is that too obvious for you?
If experts ignore the obvious, they'll ignore this very obvious suggestion... But just for the record, I just submitted it, along no doubt with a thousand other indistinguishable proposals just like that one. I'm not expecting them to use the idea, I'm just testing whether experts really do ignore the obvious in this instance!
Complain about this comment
# manysummits
"What we really need is people who can feel again - and vote."
i agree, maybe another way of looking at it is that 'they' have lost a human element somewhere. politicians care about winning elections more than people, corporate ceo's care more about shareholder profit than people, bankers care more about the next bubble/crash/bubble cycle than people.
at one level they're all just doing their jobs but the balance is wrong, there needs to be more checks more emphasis on democratic input. the bulk of what we debate here regularly is the direct consequence of 3 decades of the balance being wrong (all started with the 'greed is good', 'wealth trickles down', 'there is no alternative' etc mantras from the 80s imho).
Complain about this comment
#129 JaneBasingstoke wrote:
Hayward has a background as a rig geologist. And he would have upset the rest of management by publically criticising them over safety just before he got his current job.
One might argue that if he had really upset them, they wouldn't have given him his current job. But since they did give him his current job, he mustn't have really upset them.
Complain about this comment
#bowman
"Three cheers for bowmanthebard!"
hip, hip, hip .........no? nothing?
my money is on a 300 foot elastoplast, but it's got to be a waterproof one. the cloth ones would be no good. only take a team a 50 divers to peel back the non-sticky strip and you're done. maybe seal the seabed around the leak with a 1,000 gallon tube of savlon as well to be doubly sure.
Complain about this comment
132. At 12:58pm on 18 Jun 2010, Arcid wrote:
"One of the things that I did notice was that they didn't give any suggestions on what was driving those changes." (Arcid)
================
Excellent point!
I haven't read the 'Science' article referred to in the article by Victoria Gill, Science reporter, BBC News, and I imagine that would clear things up.
Milankovitch or orbital cycles would I imagine, still be considered the trigger mechanism. Were this not so, that would indeed be front page news.
With luck, I may be able to go to my local university and print off both this article and the one on ocean acidification linked to by simon-swede.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
To Arcid; further to your #132 and my 147:
Carbon Dioxide Is the Missing Link to Past Global Climate Changes
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100617143936.htm
==================
This isn't the original article either, but it is clear that it is the synchronicity of both tropical and Northern Hemisphere climate variations that carbon dioxide is thought responsible for:
"We think we have the simplest explanation for the link between the Ice Ages and the tropics over that time and the apparent role of carbon dioxide in the intensification of Ice Ages and corresponding changes in the tropics," said Timothy Herbert, professor of geological sciences at Brown and the lead author of the paper in Science...
"It seems likely that changes in carbon dioxide were the most important reason why tropical temperatures changed, along with the water vapor feedback," Herbert said..."
=========
Remaining unanswered are several questions, but if I copy and paste anymore I risk moderation - see last few paragraphs in the link.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
134. At 1:10pm on 18 Jun 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:
Basically you've reinvented the wheel, or in this case "top kill".
I never made any secret of the fact that what I was proposing was so obvious that it didn't involve "invention" at all. If you check the archives, you'll see that I welcomed "top kill" when I first heard about it because I thought it was low-tech. When I heard that it was high-tech, I correctly predicted that it would fail.
cement/concrete not being able to withstand the pressure while setting
What do you mean? Please explain.
Complain about this comment
To Larry Kealey #138:
"What happened to that 'family time'? It might do you some good to climb a mountain - or (as I did not know until recently that you were a skydiver) get a few jumps in, it always gives me a bit of peace and attitude adjustment." (Larry Kealey)
===========================
Yes, it certainly would. I was scheduled to climb one two weeks ago - the organizer cancelled - a mistake in my opinion. He then rescheduled for today, and I cancelled, due to what I perceive as too high a risk given the recent rain here and snowfall in the mountains, which only ended overnight.
I used to lead and organize virtually all my trips, well over seven hundred of them in the late nineties and early years of the new millenium, but we haven't had a car for a few years, and my mountaineering partners do not seem to relish climbing with children (Cloudrunner), so I get out only occassionally.
When Cloudrunner was first born, he came to the local coffee shop with me on day 1, and before he was a year old had done twenty mountain adventures with myself and Underacanoe, as we then had a car.
When I blog here, I do so from a different experience than most, and I believe that is a significant understatement. It is why I feel I have something to offer.
If I may be so personal, now that you are engaged, are you and yours thinking of children? If that is too personal, I apologise in advance. It is just that having a son of my own has changed me at least as much as my seven year devotion to the climbing of mountains and the exploration of deserts.
Regards,
Manysummits
Complain about this comment
#142 rossglory wrote:
so you really think oil technicians 60 mile out to sea are more worried about looking like bob hope than upsetting their paymasters??
The "paymasters" are the people who are most worried about looking like Bob Hope. In fact one of the reasons why rich people want more money is in order to "look better" to society in general, and in particular to the opposite sex. The "technicians" who are doing their "masters'" bidding are also worried about looking like failures too.
We humans are an animal, you see, and we exercise sexual selection.
It doesn't matter whether we are technicians 60 miles out to sea -- irrelevant.
There are no limits to human narcissism, or to the folly it generates. Instead of correcting our mistakes, or even admitting them, we are inclined to dig deeper holes for ourselves. I would argue that "moral raptures" are all about narcissism too, but that's another story.
Complain about this comment
Bowman at #143
"I just submitted it"
-> Good for you! See, you can suprise me...
"I'm not expecting them to use the idea"
-> Tsk, tsk. Do I detect a "can't-do" attitude here?
Complain about this comment
@bowmanthebard #145
Interesting. Two alternatives. Give him the job and everyone fully cooperates with him. Or don't give him the job.
I hadn't realised there were only two alternatives. Silly me.
So what do you think of the theoretical possibility where some managers liked him and others didn't?
Or the Sir Humphrey Appleby possibility, where you give someone the job, but control the information that reaches them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Right_to_Know
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_Games_(Yes_Minister)
Complain about this comment
@bowmanthebard #149
"cement/concrete not being able to withstand the pressure while setting" Janebasingstoke #134
"What do you mean? Please explain." bowmanthebard #149
You have seen the force with which the stuff is escaping, haven't you. You do know there are large quantities of methane gas involved.
This stuff would just force a channel through the cement/concrete that would remain there after it had set.
news item on high proportion of methane in oil
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gIXWYBTpLtSayJtg41LKXpxSxVPAD9GDO2VG1
live feed from ocean floor
http://globalwarming.house.gov/spillcam
Complain about this comment
#146 rossglory wrote:
"my money is on a 300 foot elastoplast"
Very amusing -- but never underestimate the power of duct tape. As I recall, the guys in Apollo 13 owe their lives to duct tape.
I imagine many stories of academic-experts-outwitted-by-sensible-little-people are urban myths, but they never fail to warm the cockles of my heart...
There was "Lindbergh-James Stewart's mirror held fast with a pretty girl's chewing gum"; "experts develop million-dollar-electric-shaver for weightless astronauts only to discover old-fashioned wet razor works better"; "million-dollar weightlessness pen not as good as kid's crayon"; "physicist dips rubber band in iced water"; and so on (not all totally untrue).
Complain about this comment
#151 bowman
"The "paymasters" are the people who are most worried about looking like Bob Hope."
so how do you explain bob hope? he was remarkably like bob hope in fact as close as you can get i think (although i recall sean connery being criticised for not sounding like himself enough....blame the tv impersonators) and yet he was phenomenally rich.
"Instead of correcting our mistakes, or even admitting them, we are inclined to dig deeper holes for ourselves."
hence the fantastic achievemnets of peer review in climate science (light blue touch paper, retire 5 yards, wait for explosion......)
Complain about this comment
Bowman at #151
And now I must agree with you - you are living proof of: "Instead of correcting our mistakes, or even admitting them, we are inclined to dig deeper holes for ourselves."
Complain about this comment
@bowmanthebard #145
(@myself #153)
Agh. Brackets in links.
Or the Sir Humphrey Appleby possibility, where you give someone the job, but control the information that reaches them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Right_to_Know
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_Games_Yes_Minister
Complain about this comment
#121 manysummits
you may also be interested in the views of the biologist prof jeremy jackson (some presentations on youtube). his calls the changes in the ocean 'the rise of slime' (because algae and jellyfish will be the dominant species).
Complain about this comment
#149, bowmanthebard:
"134. At 1:10pm on 18 Jun 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote: cement/concrete not being able to withstand the pressure while setting
What do you mean? Please explain".
Hope you are not seeking expert advice here - that would be cheating ;o)
Complain about this comment
#153 janebasingstoke
ahhh, whatever happened to political satire :o(
actually there was a david frost programme on last night about just that subject. i wonder just how much impact satire has on the political process. i'm sure spitting image must have had some impact.
and rather bizarrely the right_to_know episode of 'yes minister' revolved around a badger colony in hayward's spinney. i reckon they should do another series, having done 'yes minister' and 'yes prime minister', called 'yes my lord'.
Complain about this comment
I don't believe this. New restrictions on using percent signs to deal with brackets in links.
OK. Try HTML.
Or the Sir Humphrey Appleby possibility, where you give someone the job, but control the information that reaches them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Right_to_Know
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_Games_Yes_Minister
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_Games_Yes_Minister
Complain about this comment
@rossglory #161
"ahhh, whatever happened to political satire :o("
Sadly I can't link to either "Tucker's Law" (which is now genuinely available embroidered on a tea towel), or Malcolm Tucker's Election Briefing (hint, it's on the Graun website). Too much effing and ceeing for BBC House Rules. Be interesting to see what Iannucci et al make of the new lot.
However the following is not satire
"BP’s former chief executive Lord Browne of Madingly, who has just been appointed to advise chancellor George Osborne on how to save money in Whitehall."
http://www.private-eye.co.uk/sections.php?section_link=hp_sauce&
Complain about this comment
More HTML.
Or the Sir Humphrey Appleby possibility, where you give someone the job, but control the information that reaches them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Right_to_Know
Party_Games_Yes_Minister
Party_Games_Yes_Minister
Complain about this comment
#155 bowman
the iced water absolutely true (richard feynman of course) but the special pen versus pencils/crayons was a myth (ordinary biros work perfectly well....and floating pencil shavings in a spaceship are not a good idea).
i dont disagree that simple solutions sometimes work best but as einstein once said 'make things as simple as possible but not simpler'.
Complain about this comment
Jane at #162
Or perhaps the site is treating links according to another process described by Sir Humphrey - in one episode he explained the distinction between an issue being 'under consideration' and 'under active consideration'.
In the former, its quite simply that the file has been lost; in the latter, they are actually trying to find it again!
Complain about this comment
#154 JaneBasingstoke wrote:
You have seen the force with which the stuff is escaping, haven't you.
No I haven't, and neither have you. What we have seen is video footage of liquid escaping at moderately high speeds, but we cannot judge force from that. The force is evidently not strong enough to force the oil through the layer of rock that has been sitting above it for millions of years.
Your original comment suggested to me that you were saying something about the pressure at depths causing concrete to not set.
The force with which oil was coming out of burning wells in Kuwait was generally over-estimated. Let us learn from our previous errors, and try a low-tech experiment that common sense suggests is worth trying.
You do know there are large quantities of methane gas involved.
This stuff would just force a channel through the cement/concrete that would remain there after it had set.
It would probably force a channel through the first layer, sure, but it would force successively smaller channels through successive layers. Eventually the hole(s) would be so long and convoluted, and the friction of the oil+gas passing through the hole(s) so great that the flow would be greatly reduced. Before long, I would guess, they could drop a final cargo-hold full of concrete, and a mere trickle would stop completely. Then they should another few cargo-holds just for good measure.
Complain about this comment
Bowman at #167
You really don't realise that you don't have a clue do you?
Complain about this comment
Re: Tony Hayward
My comments at #82 and #90 reflected what I saw of Hayward testifying before Congress yesterday. A total PR disaster for BP. Thus his educational background is irrelevant to that point and, for that matter, to the point of whether he has what it takes to be the CEO of BP. Many highly educated people are utterly useless communicators and have no leadership qualities... and as Phil Jones of the CRU has shown, they can be hopelessly 'unorganized' and incapable of even keeping data.
But at least Hayward was enough of a 'visionary' to sell one third of his BP shares just prior to this blowout. How convenient.
As demonstrated by the pompous BP chairman, who talked about the unfortunate impacts on the "small people," BP has much larger problems than Hayward.
In any case, I just hope that BP can plug that leak ASAP and that the equally incompetent and negligent Obama administration can get their act together enough to minimize the damage. The latter have already blown great opportunities to contain the damage and are rightfully being blamed for that. And in the meantime, Obama is trying to use this disaster - which is as bad as possible due to his own lack of action - to ram through his energy bill. Something stinks with this, and it isn't just the oil.
Complain about this comment
103. simon-swede wrote:
"CanadianRockies at #99
The piece from the Register is a bit hysterical."
Its mild compared to IPCC summaries and BBC reports. The bottom line is that the grand green energy vision is a boondoggle... and that report didn't even get into the corruption angle. Like the use of diesel generators to create 'solar power' at a great profit.
As for wind power... see my #89, or any number of articles. Another very profitable idea for the select few.
Or carbon trading... it goes on (see #41). And some people still actually believe this has something to do with saving the planet.
Complain about this comment
Writing BEFORE Hayward appeared before the US House of Representatives committee on energy and commerce, the Economist noted that "The House hearings are designed as theatre, not forensics" and that "Mr Waxman’s hearing seems likely to reinforce the perception of BP as an evil rogue."
The Economist acknowledges that when Mr Hayward replaced John Browne, he emphasised "a new coherence in management and a commitment to safety, with ambitious company-wide schemes meant to deliver these results." It points out though that "chief executives cannot renew cultures without years of protracted and increasingly disseminated effort to that end."
See: "The oil well and the damage done - BP counts the political and financial cost of Deepwater Horizon", The Economist, 17th June 2010.
Complain about this comment
"You really don't realise that you don't have a clue do you?"
Which bit did I get wrong? -- That would be more constructive than completely empty personal comments.
Complain about this comment
#170 Rockies
"And some people still actually believe this has something to do with saving the planet."
it has something to do with saving our energy addicted culture not the planet
Complain about this comment
173. rossglory wrote:
#170 Rockies
"And some people still actually believe this has something to do with saving the planet."
it has something to do with saving our energy addicted culture not the planet
So its not about the climate now? Finally there's some progress. Good to see a watermelon admit their true social engineering objectives.
What next? Saving us from our food addicted culture?
In the meantime, the most energy addicted culture is that of the jet setters who are addicted to lavish conferences in Bali or Copenhagen or Bonn or Cancun to talk about... CO2 and, of course, taxes.
Complain about this comment
#172, bowmanthebard: "Which bit did I get wrong?"
If you can't figure that out for yourself, then perhaps you need some help from an expert. But can they be trusted?
Complain about this comment
bowmanthebard: "Which bit did I get wrong?"
vegetable_grower: "If you can't figure that out for yourself, then perhaps you need some help from an expert. But can they be trusted?"
I've always said that experts should consult non-experts, and that non-experts should consult experts. It's the deference to authorities that I object to -- the handing over of decision-making to people who got where they are by arselicking the authorities. All I'm really arguing for is a wider range of opposed voices -- the more the merrier, and the ruder the better, because "rudeness" is generally a sign that someone's smug world has been rocked a bit.
Complain about this comment
"You really don't realise that you don't have a clue do you?"
I think Richard Feynman would be proud of a deep comment like that, and so am I.
Complain about this comment
@bowmanthebard #167
(@simon-swede)
"No I haven't, and neither have you. What we have seen is video footage of liquid escaping at moderately high speeds, but we cannot judge force from that."
OK, being literal. Or pedantic. Or both. Typical Bowman.
To be fair Bowman, before they had a good estimate of the rate of oil spilling out you might have been correct.
But with that figure we can apply the formula
F = dρ/dt where ρ is momentum and t is time
substituting ρ = mv where m = mass and v = velocity gives
F = d(mv)/dt
rearranging
F = v dm/dt where dm/dt is the rate of oil spilling out by mass
Let's use the lower estimate of 5600 m3 of crude a day. That's about 0.065 m3 per second = 65 litres per second.
The density of light crude is about 0.84. So dm/dt is about 55 kg / s
Now all I have to do is estimate a speed in metres per second from the video feed so I can multiply 55 kg / s by the velocity and I have a lower estimate of the force in newtons.
"successively smaller channels through successive layers"
Doesn't work. As long as it is getting through, slower speeds mean wider channels. So you need to deliver an enormous blob of concrete in one hit to have a chance of stopping the flow.
You may want to know how big the blowout preventer is. (Although I expect that the size of your concrete blob would need to dwarf it anyway.)
http://www.theoildrum.com/files/8%20layour%20in%20BOP.jpg
Complain about this comment
"Typical Bowman"
And typically bowmanthebardishyly, I have to draw your attention to the way you haven't taken "size of hole" into account. All those formulas -- did you write them yourself?
Complain about this comment
Bowman at #177
As the saying goes...
Thought would destroy their paradise. No more; where ignorance is bliss, 'Tis folly to be wise.
Complain about this comment
Bowman: Glad to see I got your attention at last :o)
Well, now that you've clarified your position a bit, I would hope that some of the experts will step in to offer some advice as to which bit(s) you got wrong. In the meantime, here are a few points for consideration . . .
Standard concrete won't develop any strength at very low temperatures such as you would find on the seabed in the GoM. So it will need to be some kind of special concrete (ie: not low-tech).
I can't disprove your idea that there is no proof that a great deal of pressure is forcing oil from the sea bed - because - like yourself - I've not actually been down there. Maybe the whole thing is a hoax and there's just a little bit oozing out gently. But if the ROV's can't be trusted to find out what's happening down there then they couldn't be trusted to put the concrete in the right place either.
You suggest that carrying on applying coats of concrete would gradually sort the problem (because the holes would gradually fill in) might be optimistic. As a simple experiment, take a deep breath open your mouth wide and try to blow out a candle. Then repeat with a smaller hole - same volume, same ammount of energy stored.
I presume your comment about alkalinity was tongue-in-cheek: so I won't bite on that.
I'm no expert on this (I'm an ex-electronics engineer) so please don't take this as gospel.
As a final thought for tonight, just because someone offers advice that doesn't mean they are necessarily against you.
Complain about this comment
180. At 9:46pm on 18 Jun 2010, simon-swede wrote:
"where ignorance is bliss, 'Tis folly to be wise."
And where people honestly exchange opinions, 'tis cowardly to express nothing better than empty resentment.
It's a shame the Vikings lost. I wake up every morning in a rage about it! But isn't time we moved on?
Complain about this comment
#89 CanadianRockies wrote:
"It's OK. Now that we have invested all of that money in those lovely windmills, we'll be able to sell all the spare power they generate.
In the last 24 hours they have generated a staggering 458 MWh. That means that each £2 million + windmill has generated about £8 of electricity. Makes you proud to be British doesn't it.
--------------------------------------------
That's nothing to worry about. At that rate the windmills will have paid for themselves in only 684 years.
Interesting that windmills are touted as anything other than a waste of money. Even if they were ten times as efficent they would never be able to pay for themselves as windmills have a lifespan of 20-25 years.
Complain about this comment
Brunen_G, although it's not exclusively about windmills, this post has some interesting viewpoints on the subject. Highlights some of the silliness involved. It would be amusing if it weren't such a tragic waste of money.
Complain about this comment
Dateline Gulf of Mexico Day 60
I will start with a couple of comments - first I am pleased to see the number of posts related to this disaster - including those I don't completely agree with. Second, finally, it seems we are starting to get action and things are starting to happen - good news at last.
Mr. Hayward, it was reported here on local news today is no longer 'in charge' of day to day responsibility for dealing with the spill. Jane may think he is being 'used as a scapegoat' but I disagree - in my view, he was not the man for the job and the job was not getting done. I was personally disgusted by his testimony on Capital Hill - I could 'possibly' understand his not being 'aware of the technical issues' of the DeepwaterHorizon project on day 1 or even day 5 - but not on day 59. This was a 'flagship project' for BP - and he does not know the 'details' - well, sorry I just don't buy it.
We have seen a number of other positive developments today.
They are burning large amounts of oil collected by booms offshore - we saw video from helicopters today showing multiple burn sites. They just got this going again. From reports here - it seems that more people now have more delegated authority to act - red tape is being cut - a great thing.
There are 'top of the line' skimmers (oil skimming ships) already arriving and will continue to arrive from places as far away as Norway over the next month - it would seem, everything 'they' can get their hands on.
The 'vacuum' barges are either already out on the water collecting oil - or heading out this weekend - instead of sitting at the dock.
The 'compensation fund' is now being managed by someone other than BP. It was reported here on the local news that the list of documents required to file a claim was very significant and went back to recovery from Katrina - several years of tax returns, bank statements, etc etc etc - this is being streamlined.
On the downside, there was a report today that the cost would exceed 100B (US) - as a minimum. We will see - but that seems about right to me.
We still have a very long way to go, but I am at least pleased to start to see some 'real progress' - which in my view, we have not seen up to this point - only fits and starts...
Regarding sealing the leaking wellhead and ensuring that the pipestring below does not rupture - I do believe that there are alternatives. I am not close enough to really evaluate those alternatives, but it does seem that almost all attempts have revolved around recovery of oil, rather than sealing. The other thing that really bothered me was the comment by Mr. Sutton, the COO who stated that they couldn't suck up all the oil because then they would be sucking up sea water with it. I personally think it would be much better to have a couple of extra tankers with oil and seawater mixed than oil continuing to leak into the Gulf.
I also believe there are other options with minimal risk which could actually seal the well - at least until the relief well is complete. - But again, I don't have ALL the technical facts nor have been provided the data to evaluate alternatives.
I would like to see a lot more transparency with regards to exactly what is going on and everything BP and the US Government knows - I think we are starting to see steps in this direction (finally) today - I sincerely hope this trend continues.
Channel 13 here in Houston just reported that BP is starting to use Kevin Cosner's gadget to separate oil and water - and while it is slow, it does work and appears to be scalable. (I am listening to this on the TV as I write this).
I want to end by saying that I am encouraged by the developments of the day - and I hope this trend continues. I have been hoping (and praying - in my own way - my religious beliefs are very private to me) for some good news since day one - let us all hope this continues.
I will iterate that I am very pleased to see all the comments related to what in my view, is the worst ecological disaster of our time. There are a number of comments which I would like to respond to - but my lady is coming over, we have wedding plans to take care of - and need some quality time (@ManySummits???).
Ok, my sweet lady has arrived, gotta go - ya'll take care.
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
@bowmanthebard #179
"size of hole"
Not relevant. I was talking force rather than pressure.
If you want the pressure then the hole is an arbitrary choice. Alternatives include in the well (when the well diameter from the plans might be relevant) or a cross section through the plume, perhaps at the location of the Top Cap.
Oh, and there's a lot less uncertainty about the pressure than there is about the outflow rate. Pressure measurements were taken in the run up to the blowout. They're just rather less newsworthy than the volume of oil polluting the ocean.
"All those formulas -- did you write them yourself?"
Reinvent Newtonian mechanics from scratch? No. I stood on the shoulders of giants. Look them up this evening? No. I remembered them from a physics lesson.
:-p
Complain about this comment
Brunnen_G:
Unfortunately, you are right. Americans are not buying it. I have been posting on Yahoo and MSN periodically since this crisis started. Every post that suggests that we tighten our belts and reduce our conspicuous oil consumption is met with hostility and gets a very poor rating. Americans are not ready to relinquish our glutonous life styles. You wouldn't believe how many people are still driving around gas hogging SUVs in a recession and an oil crisis. It's vile and I'm embarrassed for us. Most of us are so inexperienced as to think that everyone lives the way we do and the rest are so narrow minded that they think we are entitled to it. A small minority of us realizes that we are accomplices to our oil catastrophe.
Complain about this comment
@Richard, CanadianRockies #89, Brunnen_G #183 & Vegetable_grower #184
at least the olympic committee have had the good sense to scrap their token wind turbines
http://buildingarchitecture.net/2010/05/an-olympian-waste-of-money/
Complain about this comment
Thanks BBC for the diagrams and explanation of what the oil companies are trying to do to stem the oil leak. Thanks LarryKeeley for the eye witness updates of the spill and its impact on local environments etc. Is KK's solution to the clean up equivalent to using a cotton bud to clean up the mess from a severed artery or is his idea practical...at least for the surface stuff? What happens when the sea gets rough and the tectonic plates move a bit? Was the disaster entirely BP's fault or did nature have a hand in it? Have you ever tried to stem a rapid flow of liquid, say from a stream, with little more than sand? The sand gets eaten away by the flow but the main body of the sand stays put. Oddly enough, fine sand appears to work better than a mixture of uneven sized aggregates and large rocks in such an experiment. Where are all those clever engineers who built those artificial islands, for luxury housing in the Middle East, gone?
Complain about this comment
#186 JaneBasingstoke wrote:
"size of hole"
Not relevant. I was talking force rather than pressure.
You originally used the word 'pressure', and it certainly IS relevant. Ever cut an artery? A big one or a little one? There is a huge difference.
The simple fact is that no one knows very much about what's going on down there, and it's worth a few experiments trying to fix it without endlessly appealing to "what the experts know".
I do hope you or simon-swede never become teachers -- your endless appeals to authority and "slapping down" of new ideas is a wet blanket on thought itself.
Complain about this comment
All you bloggers who claim to know so much, please tell me:
How is the burning of spilled oil going in the Gulf?
Complain about this comment
@bowmanthebard #190
"You originally used the word 'pressure', and it certainly IS relevant. Ever cut an artery? A big one or a little one? There is a huge difference."
Your criticism in #167 applied to my #154 reference to "force". My #178 was tackling your #167 so yes force in my #178 was relevant.
If you are now adding a further criticism to my #154 I point out that I have addressed your issues in my #186.
Your artery analogy doesn't apply. The smaller artery would have a lower blood flow due to the branching structure of the circulatory system. Oh, and on average a lower pressure as well due to being further from the heart. (Yes I remember that arteries contribute to pumping their own blood.)
"I do hope you or simon-swede never become teachers -- your endless appeals to authority and "slapping down" of new ideas is a wet blanket on thought itself."
Right. So if you criticise one of our posts you are being helpful and informative. But if we criticise one of yours, even if defending our posts against your criticisms, we're appealing to authority and slapping you down.
Interesting you mention teachers. I wonder how your teachers coped with such an attitude.
Complain about this comment
Your artery analogy doesn't apply. The smaller artery would have a lower blood flow due to the branching structure of the circulatory system. Oh, and on average a lower pressure as well due to being further from the heart. (Yes I remember that arteries contribute to pumping their own blood.)
Now substitute "passages through setting concrete" for "arteries", and "hole" for "heart" in the above passage.
So if you criticise one of our posts you are being helpful and informative. But if we criticise one of yours, even if defending our posts against your criticisms, we're appealing to authority and slapping you down.
It's the habitual hostility to originality and/or freedom of thought, and the ever-eager sucking up to authority that I can't stand. You are the most loyal servants I have ever encountered for the status quo. I don't regard myself as being "slapped down" at all, and I rather enjoy the way you and simon-swede do damage to your own case by being professional wet blankets!
Complain about this comment
@LarryKealey #185
(@manysummits)
"Jane may think he is being 'used as a scapegoat'"
My thoughts on Hayward are more complicated than that.
The man being grilled by Congress looks trapped between a rock and a hard place. His company has done something awful for which they are going to have to pay.
But for him to defend his company against paying for the blunders of others as well as their own seems doubly reasonable given the need to ensure that everyone in the oil industry takes safety seriously and given the huge costs involved.
My impression is of Hayward is that he has been trying to fix safety in BP. But that he has found inertia and resistance. Perhaps some elements within management have actively resisted his changes. Or perhaps more difficult cases like Deepwater Horizon, the very cases that really need safety first, have them revert to the more familiar Browne era costs first approach.
It's no use having rules that say safety first if your chain of command gives accountants easy access to decision makers and has those engaged with physical safety kept at rather more than arms length due to the location of the rigs.
And Hayward's statement that staff in BP can call a halt on safety grounds sounds horribly naive. It's a good rule. But the individuals doing this would need support.
Fixing BP's safety culture was always going to take a strong character and time. I am not sure Hayward has had both.
Complain about this comment
Listen Chaps.
BP are not short of ideas for stopping the flow or for scooping up the oil. They have literally hundreds of ideas which are being evaluated and the more practical ones are being tested.
But, as I've blogged previously, they are attempting something that has never been tried before and we shouldn't expect any miracles or complete sealing of the well till the relief well comes on line. And we are entering the hurricane season!
I disliked Tony Haywood's responses to the Congressional Committee but for different reasons to you guys. So bad is BP's image now and as just about everything he says is twisted by the US media to show him as uncaring, he ought to have responded to those pontificating politicians with both barrels.
A much more sharp response and a few comments about their grandstanding to the electorate before the mid-term elections might have punctured their moral superiority. They're obeying the political rule of never letting a good crisis go to waste and they need taking down a peg.
As to Obama's decision to 'green' the US. I'm quite sure that if he restricts oil use or does something stupid in the windmill field he will be a one term President.
Complain about this comment
#186 JaneBasingstoke wrote:
"I stood on the shoulders of giants."
Translation: I copied and pasted from Wikipedia!
Complain about this comment
#195 DrBrianS wrote:
BP are not short of ideas for stopping the flow or for scooping up the oil.
I'm sure you're right, but do you think they prefer some ideas to others because they show BP up in a better light? I think BP have been reluctant to go for simple, slow, heavy-handed, reliable solutions because they're thinking about their own PR. It happens again and again in this sort of situation.
Complain about this comment
@bowmanthebard #193
"Now substitute "passages through setting concrete" for "arteries", and "hole" for "heart" in the above passage."
Another analogy that doesn't work.
The branching structure in arteries is the result of natural selection - the need to get right down to multiple capillaries for gas and nutrient exchange.
Whereas gases pushing through liquid cement/concrete will take the path of least resistance - which will strongly favour a wide single channel.
"habitual hostility to originality and/or freedom of thought, and the ever-eager sucking up to authority"
Oh I get it. Anyone who happens to agree with someone you designate an "authority" must be unoriginal, against freedom of thought, and sucking up to that authority. Whereas anyone who happens to disagree with someone you designate an "authority" must be original and for freedom of thought.
Complain about this comment
@bowmanthebard #196
LOL.
No, I chose F = dρ/dt because I had dm/dt and v. and didn't have m and a.
(F = ma = m(dv/dt) = d(mv)/dt = dρ/dt)
Also if I had mindlessly cut and pasted from Wikipedia I'd have attempted to use vector notation instead of taking the short cut and using scalar notation. My old physics textbooks used bold for vectors, which is doable on these threads. F = dρ/dt
I am sorry your physics education was so poor that you suspect me of not being able to remember F = dρ/dt from my physics education without Wikipedia's help.
Complain about this comment
#198 JaneBasingstoke wrote:
gases pushing through liquid cement/concrete will take the path of least resistance - which will strongly favour a wide single channel.
Are you sure they're gases at that pressure? -- In any case, concrete consists of mostly solid material. And even if I'm wrong, simon-swede originally asked how anyone could get concrete down a mile underwater to the right place in a "low-tech" way, and I told him.
Your and his attitude throughout has been "the experts will have tried that already", which I think is antithetical to science, and to thought in general. And it's just plain miserable. Like other proponents of AGW, you both seem unaware that life itself is a sort of experiment.
Oh I get it. Anyone who happens to agree with someone you designate an "authority" must be unoriginal, against freedom of thought, and sucking up to that authority.
Rubbish. I love disagreement and I am 100% in favour of the exchange of ideas. In most of my messages I defend mainstream ideas. But at least I try to put things in my own words, knowing that if I can't put an idea in my own words, I don't have the idea in the first place.
Complain about this comment
Most air crashes are caused by pilot error. What often happens is that the captain makes a silly or obvious error, and then doesn't consider the obvious solution to the obvious error because "I'm the captain! -- I wouldn't make an obvious error!"
Air safety has been improved in recent years by airlines insisting on less authoritarianism in the cockpit -- in other words, they've been making it easier for the co-pilot to point out the silly errors that we all make.
Complain about this comment
@bowmanthebard #200
"Are you sure they're gases at that pressure?"
Methane bubbles have been a feature of this whole situation. Oh by the way my "least resistance" argument also applies to liquids under pressure.
"In any case, concrete consists of mostly solid material."
But it has to be sufficiently liquid to flow into gaps to make a seal. And it has to be slow setting because normal cement/concrete gets hot as it sets, which would release methane from methane hydrates.
"simon-swede originally asked how anyone could get concrete down a mile underwater to the right place in a "low-tech" way, and I told him"
Actually simon-swede asked for "your description of a "low-tech" way to pour concrete in sufficient quantities in the right place at depths of a mile". I suppose you could argue that he wasn't expecting an effective"low-tech" way, but you do seem to have conveniently forgotten his reference to "sufficient quantities".
"I love disagreement and I am 100% in favour of the exchange of ideas. In most of my messages I defend mainstream ideas."
Having trouble reconciling this with your #190 and #193 for reasons already stated.
"I try to put things in my own words, knowing that if I can't put an idea in my own words, I don't have the idea in the first place."
Not all concepts translate easily into words.
Some do better as pictures. Perhaps you could explain the Mandelbrot set just using text. Or the complex plane in which it is located. Or even longitude and latitude on the globe. Or the distortions that occur when Earth's near spherical geography is projected onto a flat 2-D world map. To someone who doesn't already have pictures of the relevant concepts already in their head.
Complain about this comment
191. At 09:36am on 19 Jun 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:
All you bloggers who claim to know so much, please tell me:
How is the burning of spilled oil going in the Gulf
-----------------------------------------------------------------
@bowmandthebard - can't say I know so much - I wish I knew a lot more.
I can say that corralling and burning oil on the Gulf has resumed, yesterday and this morning, we saw a number of 'rings of fire' - oil burning on the water. Granted it is still 'a drop in the bucket' - but the Coast Guard is continuing to ramp up these efforts.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
@LarryKealey #185
(@manysummits)
"Jane may think he is being 'used as a scapegoat'"
My thoughts on Hayward are more complicated than that.
The man being grilled by Congress looks trapped between a rock and a hard place. His company has done something awful for which they are going to have to pay.
But for him to defend his company against paying for the blunders of others as well as their own seems doubly reasonable given the need to ensure that everyone in the oil industry takes safety seriously and given the huge costs involved.
My impression is of Hayward is that he has been trying to fix safety in BP. But that he has found inertia and resistance. Perhaps some elements within management have actively resisted his changes. Or perhaps more difficult cases like Deepwater Horizon, the very cases that really need safety first, have them revert to the more familiar Browne era costs first approach.
It's no use having rules that say safety first if your chain of command gives accountants easy access to decision makers and has those engaged with physical safety kept at rather more than arms length due to the location of the rigs.
And Hayward's statement that staff in BP can call a halt on safety grounds sounds horribly naive. It's a good rule. But the individuals doing this would need support.
Fixing BP's safety culture was always going to take a strong character and time. I am not sure Hayward has had both.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
@Jane,
My thoughts on Mr. Hayward are also complex - but I will be brief in my response here as everytime I criticize Mr. Hayward, I seem to get 'moderated'.
I completely agree with your last statement.
Today, on the local and national news, one of the 'big stories' was that Mr. Hayward is 'getting his life back' - well - good for him.
Having watched his performance over the last two months, I am very pleased that he has been 'relieved of day to day operations and responsibility for the spill and clean-up'. Personally, I think that he shouldn't 'get his life back' - but get a nice stilt house on the Louisiana coast and have to deal with the life all those affected there have to deal with.
Personally, I don't feel that he has been completely up-front and don't believe he deserves 'his life back'. I have been very disappointed with his words and actions since this disaster began.
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
Dateline Gulf of Mexico Day 61
This morning a lot of discussion revolved around the 'dead zone' in the Gulf of Mexico.
Due to the outflow of all the fertilizers and organic material from the Mississippi River, there has been a 'dead zone' in the Gulf for many years. It is typically about the size of the state of New Jersey.
Scientists this morning warned that the volume of Methane being released will greatly expand this 'dead zone' and fears were expressed that this could expand as far as Cuba - which has some of the most pristine and beautiful coral reefs in the Western Hemisphere. The methane has similar effect to that of the fertilizers and organic material coming from the Mississippi - it depletes the oxygen in the water to the point that fish cannot live (nor corals - or anything else that needs oxygen). Southern Louisiana is a major breeding ground for the Red Snapper - probably the most important fishery in the Gulf. A scientist from Texas A&M said this morning, it could take 30 years for the red snapper to recover from this - with careful management.
They also said this morning that about a million gallons a day are being captured, collected or burned - but that still leaves about a million gallons a day seeping into the Gulf.
It is going to be a long hard road - but as I stated yesterday, I am pleased that assets are being drawn from as far away as the North Sea. Unfortunately, I with this had happened two months ago as it will take a month for many of these vessels to arrive and begin work on the scene.
Now I would really like to see a much greater mobilization of the Army Corpse of Engineers, National Guard, Navy and Air Force to build berms and help clean beaches and protect wetlands.
It was also reported this morning that only 12% of claims made by the people in the affected area have been paid. They went through the list of documentation required - which was very extensive - and had the 'new guy' (appointed by the US Gov't to oversee the claims process and payouts). He stated that he is focused on reducing the paperwork and red tape required and streamlining the process - we will see in the coming weeks if he can be effective in this role.
More good news - it was reported that the relief wells are 'ahead of schedule' - but with the caution that there is still a long way to go and that it is a 'very tricky' operation. As of yesterday, the first well was at 10,677 feet below the sea floor and is "starting to close in on the well bore itself,", while a backup rig is at 4,662 feet below the sea floor.
Also, Anadarko Petroleum, a minority partner in the DeepwaterHorizon project blasted BP for what they called 'Reckless Behavior' (source CNN Money). Quoting: "The mounting evidence clearly demonstrates that this tragedy was preventable and the direct result of BP's reckless decisions and actions," Anadarko chief executive Jim Hackett said in a statement issued late Friday.
BP has responded to the allegations very strongly and disagree with the statements made by Anadarko. It looks to me like the 'blame game' is picking up steam again. I feel confident that the facts will come out and we will eventually know the truth to these allegations.
Estimates for the ultimate cost now range from a low of 10B (US) to over 100B (US) - personally, I think it will be at the high end of the range as a minimum.
While I am very interested in 'what went wrong' and why this disaster happened - I have greater concerns than possible punitive damages levied against the companies involved. I am more concerned with (as I have stated repeatedly) getting the spill contained and cleaned up, determining the string of events which caused this to happen and ensuring that it doesn't happen again - and the creation of real response plans for any future disaster which includes participation and assets from every resource which has those assets (every driller in the Gulf as well as elsewhere, the full assets of state, local and federal government as well as resources available from other nations).
Deepwater drilling is not going to stop anytime soon (in my humble opinion - like it or not). We need to have everyone working together on this disaster and leave the 'blame game' and finger pointing for later. We also need to be prepared to deal with this type of situation anywhere in the world - much more effectively than the response to DeepwaterHorizon has been thus far.
There will be plenty of time for determining the 'facts' of the matter later - the focus now needs to be on the 'fix', not the blame.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
A quick additional note - the relief wells will attempt to intersect the leaking well at a depth of 18,000 ft below the sea floor. The pipe string from the leaking well is 7 inches in diameter - this is not an easy operation.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
#206 LarryKealey wrote:
the relief wells will attempt to intersect the leaking well at a depth of 18,000 ft below the sea floor.
Are you sure? That sounds unbelievably deep. But I was quite wrong about the burning of oil, so I'm probably wrong here too!
Complain about this comment
JaneBasignstoke
Not all concepts translate easily into words.
Some do better as pictures.
That's a good point. I would say all do better as pictures, whenever pictures are possible.
What I'm trying to say is that it's too easy for us to think we have ideas/concepts when we actually don't have them at all. The easiest way for this to happen is when we get into the habit of "pointing" at someone else's writing as if it expresses our own ideas; it's somewhat less easy when we are forced to use our own words, because the act of articulating our thoughts gives us a better grasp of them, and makes us makes us more aware of our own limitations. But even then, we can put words together in language that make no sense. There are many awful philosophical "pseudo-concepts" that really signify nothing, yet which can be expressed in language which on the surface appears to make sense.
To give you an example, I used to be an "expert" on telling the difference between "analytic" and "synthetic" claims (the former are supposed to be "true by definition"). Then I realized that here is no such distinction (nothing is "true by definition"). So my former "expertise" was a bit of empty narcissism.
Complain about this comment
The very idea of costs at the 100 billion dollar level with fines on top will kill deep sea drilling for good.
No company could risk such costs following a mishap that US lawyers will attribute to negligence and no insurance against such costs would be obtainable even in the London market.
Shallow sea drilling might become similarly uninsurable and the premiums on even land drilling would go through the roof.
The end of new drilling in the US would leave the only option for America to buy overseas and worsen its' energy security situation.
Rapacious US lawyers could easily kill the golden goose and ruin America.
Of course such a risk will never stop the vultures.
Complain about this comment
To Kealey #'s 205/206 & Bowman #207 re 'depth'
I suspect strongly that the depth's reported on the relief wells and the intersection depth are all depths below the Kelly Bushing, i.e. below the drilling platform's drilling table. There's a bushing there, right on the rig platform, which the drill string passes through called the Kelly Bushing. I imagine the same usage is on ocean platforms?
The depth's are not below the sea floor, or below sea level, unless reported as such.
Just thinking of the time they have been drilling, it seems also that the depths reported are all below KB (Kelly Bushing).
The trajectory will be an arc from below the BOP's on the sea bed, and directional drillers are no doubt using the very best high end and space age technology to position the drill bit right where they want it.
But even this technology is not precise enough to guarantee a direct hit on so small a target, which is why they may have to back off and cement, then re-drill a small section near the blowout several times before they get close enough.
Larry you could check with knowledgeable sources down where you are - probably they can realistically hit a two or three meter target?
- Manysummits - being nostalgic - (I've been in on the drilling of a lot of directional holes)
Complain about this comment
Re the depth - Yes it is 18,000 below the sea floor.
"The Deepwater Horizon semisub commenced drilling on the Macondo prospect in February 2010 and had recently terminated drilling at a depth of just over 18,000 ft."
http://www.rigzone.com/news/topics/deepwater_horizon.asp
And this rig "could operate in waters up to 8000 feet (2400 m) deep,[10] and had a maximum drill depth of 30000 feet (9100 m)."
http://www.cargolaw.com/2010nightmare_deep_horizon.html
(This latter site has all sorts of details on various disasters)
The new oil field off Brazil has oil even deeper, and that is where the drill rigs now in the Gulf will be going if Obama's moratorium is maintained.
The beneficiary of this will be Petrobras, the Brazilian oil giant which desperately needs these rigs, and George Soros is both a major behind-the-scenes advisor to Obama and a major stockholder in Petrobras.
All Brits should recall what Soros did to them.
Complain about this comment
If it's that deep, a well-placed explosive charge is the answer!
Complain about this comment
212. bowmanthebard wrote:
"If it's that deep, a well-placed explosive charge is the answer!"
Don't think so. The leak is on the sea floor and, from what I have read, they are worried that it is fracturing already. So an explosion could just make the hole bigger and the leak worse.
The real bottom line here is that there seems to be a huge amount of oil down there and that this is a real gusher. If this accident had not happened this would have been a major league find for BP and their (25%)partners Anadarko. Interestingly, the latter is now saying that it is all BP's fault, of course.
In the meantime, the cleanup circus goes on with little sign of any competence yet. So sad.
Complain about this comment
bowmanthebard #212: "If it's that deep, a well-placed explosive charge is the answer!"
CanadianRockies #213: At 8:45pm on 19 Jun 2010, CanadianRockies wrote: "Don't think so."
You're getting an inkling of why big decision-making powers have wisely been kept out of my hands -- long may it stay that way!
I'm very interested to hear what your solution would be, or at least what they should be doing right now, in hopes of not making things worse.
If the oil/gas pocket as all that far down beneath the rock, I would have thought a decent bit of shearing of the upper level of that rock layer would be likely to help things rather than make things worse.
I'm also interested in making a few "gentleman's bets" ( = no real money involved, just kudos) in how they eventually do fix the problem.
Complain about this comment
#199 JaneBasingstoke wrote:
I chose F = dρ/dt because I had dm/dt and v. and didn't have m and a.
(F = ma = m(dv/dt) = d(mv)/dt = dρ/dt)
The physics of ideal, frictionless bodies moving in space is nothing like the dirty, poorly-understood physics of fluid + uniquely-shaped solid material + gases passing through a uniquely-shaped orifice.
I confess that I switched to pure maths before graduating from my primary degree in engineering. But I was there for long enough to know the word 'viscosity' struck fear into every real engineer. All you can do is experiment.
Complain about this comment
214. bowmanthebard wrote:
"I'm very interested to hear what your solution would be, or at least what they should be doing right now, in hopes of not making things worse."
I'm no engineer so I just know what I read on this. It seems that the relief wells to take the pressure off this are the best hope as far as stopping the leak goes. Sure hope that works!!!
As for not making things worse, the Obama administration already has made things much worse through their incompetence, negligence, and more. One can only hope they get their act together ASAP. But there's no sign of that.
For example...
Obama's Spill Recovery Chief Will Be Part-Time
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/comments?type=story&id=10949857
Note that this network (ABC) has been an Obama worshipper until recently. The comments are very interesting indeed including this one:
"Obama should focus on stopping the gushing oil from completely killing the Gulf of Mexico. That must be his top priority. But instead of providing leadership in this crisis, he plays golf, goes on vacations, entertains sports teams, throws parties, campaigns for members of congress, and in general, shirks his responsibilities. View the timeline of his response to the oil spill: http://dailybail.com/home/awesome-video-timeline-of-obamas-daily-response-to-bp-oil-sp.htmlHe has refused help from several countries that have offered assistance. He has refused to get other experts and other oil companies involved. He has refused to listen to experts. He has refused to suspend the 1920 Jones Act. He has blocked initiatives by Governor Bobby Jindal to construct sand berms. http://lubbockonline.com/interact/blog-post/may/2010-06-19/obama-administration-continues-block-oil-cleanupMake no mistake, BP is responsible for this disaster and should be held accountable. In addition to being required to pay for all damages, they should also face criminal charges. But the chief culprit in this disaster is Obama and the federal government.
Posted by:
Bill7023 12:07 PM"
And the one by the same poster just before this one is also rather interesting as to the 'why' questions.
That Jones Act thing is very significant. He refused the help of many countries who offered to send in oil skimming ships which could have helped limit the amount of oil reaching the shoreline.
Complain about this comment
I wish this were just an act of nature instead of people then maybe people would work together to stop it and clean it up and not be more worried about pointing fingers.
Oil companies had no business drilling there with even a 1% risk of this happening. Those who were drilling, those who allowed them to drill, those who stood to profit from it and those who consume it are the ones who should pay to clean it up (yes, raise gas prices, I will happily pay more and consume less!). I am sorry if many pensions in Britain and the USA will be affected and some ex US Presidents and Vice Presidents won't be as rich (not really sorry about that).
I also wish more people would make an effort to change their lazy, arrogant, over consuming habits.
Many would see me as liberal for my views but I consider myself conservative. I believe in conserving the environment and wildlife by not destroying it, conserving the lives of soldiers and civilians in my country the countries that have the oil we covet and start wars to get. I would rather conserve all the money wasted on the oil wars and cleanups, insurance payouts, public health problems etc.., conserve the health of the people living in areas affected by oil spills in the USA, Africa and other places. I conserve my health by riding a bike most of the time instead of sitting in traffic in a car, driving in circles on the island I live on. I conserve fuel by buying locally grown food whenever possible. I installed in my apt. tile floors and fans instead of carpeting and air conditioning to conserve energy. The "conservatives" are very liberal with destroying what is not theirs if they can make money. Funny thing, there was a surge in bike riding last year. It coincided with a sharp rise in gas prices. Now the prices have gone down there are few bikers again. I guess money is the primary motivator for most people. Too bad.
Complain about this comment
@cuckootoo #188
at least the olympic committee have had the good sense to scrap their token wind turbines
http://buildingarchitecture.net/2010/05/an-olympian-waste-of-money/
here's another story for your scrapbook:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/7823681/Does-money-grow-in-wind-farms.html
it seems wind turbines will make money for their owners even when the wind doesn't blow!
/Mango
Complain about this comment
Wow, so much to say..
First Tony Hayward, I think one of the biggest problems was with language, the senators and US media all speak US management and political speak, while he speaks British management speak, it was practically 'Swahili' verses 'Urdu'.
Also looking at his expressions and appearance he is obviously very close to the edge - I predict a stay in a mental hospital or sanatorium in his near future. I hate to say it but it looks to me like he is little more than a sacrificial lamb anyway. Saying that this has been a shambles from the start, there just seems to be so little pre-planning or disaster contingency, far to little redundancy in the engineering, and BP's bad safety record looks very well deserved. If what the senators said is correct the whole thing was simply the result of cost cutting to save a few million dollars. (nothing to a company like BP)
-----
Re stopping the oil. Have to say - if there was a simple straightforward way of stopping it they would have done it already.
Afraid I can see two fatal flaws with bowmans suggestion. The first is that that yes any flow under high pressure will tend to force its way out through any weak points in any barrier so simply pouring cement on it is unlikely to work unless it is a LOT of cement. The second is that taking thousands of tons of cement out into the deep ocean is a procedure that itself could take months to set up.
-
Tried to come up with a few ideas myself, thats the kind of thing I do. The first was using a shaped charge to squash the pipe closed.
Then there is the thought of using a nuke, a small nuclear explosion say a hundred meters under the sea floor next to the pipe would almost definitely seal it.
Then there is cryogenic freezing, enough liquid nitrogen would freeze the whole thing solid sealing it absolutely.
A final solution involves using a very heavy robot structure to grab the pipe and simply force a heavy stopper on the end.
Sadly they all have reasons why they are unlikely to be used (or work). -
Shaped explosives - could potentially break the pipe, unlikely to actually totally seal it, unpredictable and irreversible.
Nuclear charge - requires hole to place the bomb, still not 100% positive of sealing hole - and would then create uncontrolled (and radioactive!) leak area. (If the bypass bores both fail expect to see a nuclear bomb as the next option.)
Cryogenic cooling - Requires large cryogenic rig at sea - a lot of new tech plus hugely expensive, may cause pipe to weaken and fracture, requires continuing cooling until bypass bore is completed.
Robot plug - heavy and slow to machine, requires R&D taking months.
Of all of them the robot plug is by far the best, it could be deployed with a heavy ROV and activated within days of the breach. Of course it would need to be ready BEFORE a disaster happened, cobbling it together in a few days or weeks would be very difficult (ie impossible). Hate to say it again but ENGINEERING!!!, pre-planning, prepare for worst case scenarios, build in redundancy, in high risk environments don't take risks.
Complain about this comment
@ManySummits
Yes, the depths are correct - as are the depths reported for the two relief wells. The target is 7" - it is an incredible engineering task.
The first relief well has passed 15,000 ft - and I believe it is about a quarter mile or so away.
Lets all keep our fingers (and toes) crossed.
There were a number of developments here today, but I shall have to write a bit later - wedding on the way - have to keep the priorities in line - life goes on...we know all about that here on the Gulf Coast...
Kealey
Complain about this comment
Re the refused skimmers:
http://climateaudit.org/2010/06/20/epa-and-dutch-skimmers/
Re what Obama has been doing during this crisis:
http://politipage.com/2010/05/28/obamas-days/
Complain about this comment
Very revealing story, hot off the presses as they say:
"The Spill, The Scandal and the PresidentThe inside story of how Obama failed to crack down on the corruption of the Bush years – and let the world's most dangerous oil company get away with murder"
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/111965
Complain about this comment
More 'funny business' from the Obama administration...
"Members of a panel of experts brought in to advise the Obama administration on how to address offshore drilling safety after the Deepwater Horizon disaster now say Interior Secretary Ken Salazar falsely implied they supported a six-month drilling moratorium they actually oppose."
http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/06/experts_seek_to_clarify_their.html
Or:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704198004575311033371466938.html
Complain about this comment
@Robert Lucien #219
(@Bowman)
(@Jane)
"[Bowmanthebard's suggestion of] simply pouring cement on it is unlikely to work unless it is a LOT of cement."
I did a back-of-the-(very-small)-envelope calculation to come up with a (very very) rough estimate of what "a LOT" of cement is:
I've made the following assumptions:
1. The oil would force a vertical channel through the wet concrete (I decided on concrete rather than cement) so the pressure preventing further flow would have to come from the pressure of the vertical oil column.
2. The oil is light crude (density = 0.84 x water).
3. When the concrete is poured it will form a cone with a profile roughly like Mount Fuji (base diameter = 3 x height), which is a reasonable analogy as it was formed (essentially) by pouring viscous, rapidly setting fluid on a single point.
4. wellhead pressure is 5000psi (I've seen estimates from ~3000-13000 so this is on the conservative side).
The oil column required is approx 4.1km high, so the cone of concrete required has a volume of ~160 km^3. Using a concrete density of ~2.2 x water this translates to ~350 Gtonnes of concrete (metric).
I found a site that said world production of concrete is of the order of 10 Gtonnes/yr so the required concrete would take 35 years to produce.
Now, once the cone reaches the surface of the ocean (1.5km) you could put a standard onshore production rig on the top of it. This would reduce my estimate of concrete required by ~2 orders of magnitude , this still requires 4 months of world concrete production (half of which is in China so I think you'd be lucky to secure a deal to get it!) to be shipped to the drill site and ALL building projects WORLDWIDE completely suspended during this time and ALL worldwide shipping to be diverted to the task of carrying concrete.
Never mind the fact that ordinary concrete wouldn't work well under these conditions, the logistics alone prevent this plan being feasible.
[sound of wet towel slapping]
Personally I'm pinning my hopes on the relief well(s) followed by a successful top-kill on the leak.
Complain about this comment
Dave-oxon at #224
"Personally I'm pinning my hopes on the relief well(s) followed by a successful top-kill on the leak."
Ditto!
(Not sure about those calculations though!)
Complain about this comment
@simon-swede,
the calculations were just a slightly tongue-in-cheek way of pointing out that, if dropping concrete on the well were considered a viable solution, the logistics of obtaining enough concrete and getting it out there would prohibit the operation. I'm afraid I have previous when it comes to doing rough calculations on this blog ;o)
In my defense, I gave a two orders of magnitude error and allowed all concrete to be used (in reality you would have to limit yourself to specialist materials that work (a) in seawater and (b) under high pressure), and there is still an insurmountable logistical problem when compared to digging relief wells and top-kill (which is essentially the same solution but more technical).
Let's all hope they succeed this time and the final result will be a step-change in industry safety procedures and accident prevention/recovery planning.
Complain about this comment
@bowmanthebard #215
Yes, I should have said "net force". Which, given the direction of friction is always against the direction of motion means the force from the oil field would be even greater than the force calculation discussed in my #178.
I also remind you that the plume visible in the live feeds referenced in my #178 are downstream of the "orifice" and therefore unlikely to be slowed further by it.
Meanwhile friction and viscosity are implicitly covered in my qualitative statements about you needing an enormous blob of concrete/cement.
Complain about this comment
@Robert Lucien #219
Actually I don't think words were the problem so much as body language. Always a problem when a Brit is on trial in an American court. It really doesn't help that Hollywood likes casting mild mannered Brits as baddies.
Complain about this comment
Addendum : the basic idea of trying to keep it simple is no doubt the right one.
EG Robot claw - grabs pipe, attaches clamp and screws itself tight. Attached to the claw a circular saw cuts through the pipe creating a clean face, also attached is a heavy plug which can be moved into position and forced into the hole until its sealed. All the joints and structure have to be built with a specified strength and torsion force of say ten tons - either electrically driven or by hydraulics, costs maybe 20 -30 million. Building it from scratch would take months - though if someone had enough heavy enough parts it could be done much faster.
Just a thought.
Complain about this comment
#228. JaneBasingstoke wrote:
"Actually I don't think words were the problem so much as body language. Always a problem when a Brit is on trial in an American court. It really doesn't help that Hollywood likes casting mild mannered Brits as baddies."
Did you watch his testimony? Body language may have been a factor but, given his words - which are now quoted all over the place - that was all but irrelevant. His responses were evasive and inadequate... but then, the loaded questions of the showboating inquisitors were challenging to put it mildly.
As for the Hollywood angle, I'm not convinced of that but, to the degree that matters, here's a suggestion for BP. Get a phonebook, find all the James Bonds, and hire the most photogenic one as CEO. Even one who looked like Churchill would work. Or perhaps a Jane Bond who looks like Maggie Thatcher.
Complain about this comment
Re stopping the leak... finally tracked down a summary of how serious the problems could really be. In the worst case scenario there is no fix except draining the reservoir of billions of BARRELS! Sure hope this is wrong!
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6593/648967
Complain about this comment
@CanadianRockies #230
The hearing seemed confined to BP's contribution, and seemed to be asking Hayward to take full responsibility for all the mistakes, including those of other companies.
The CEOs of other companies seemed to have it easy. Yes they were caught out on the dead expert's telephone number issue. But would they take the same shortcuts that BP has taken? "No". Oh good, we can trust them with their current behaviour then.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/15/exxon-bp-oil-gusher-congress
If the hearing wasn't at least partially show trial why didn't Congress pay more attention to the blowout preventer? And if the hearing was at least partially a show trial wouldn't Hayward giving fuller answers have helped let the others off the hook?
Meanwhile I want you to take another look at Hayward.
He came in three years ago to fix an overtly cost cutting culture where a strong pro-cost cutting policy had cost lives. It looks as if he has fixed the overt cost cuts before safety policy, but has not had the strength of character or the time to ensure this has been fully implemented, especially when an expensive project is running behind schedule.
I suspect this is because accountants have easy access to decision makers and rig workers don't, although there may also be managers more used to a cost cutting culture who thought their new boss's safety first policy was too expensive or inappropriate for Deepwater.
Perhaps the fix is to force the managers to live on the rigs too.
Complain about this comment
#232. JaneBasingstoke
No doubt that BP and Hayward are being scapegoated by the Obama gang... to distract everyone from their complicity in this. So I agree that it was a "show trial"... thus I wrote about the "loaded questions of the showboating inquisitors."
Did you read that article at #222?
I actually think that there is a LOT more to this than meets the eye and that Hayward is the convenient fall guy... but unfortunately for him, he played that role too well at the Inquisition and on TV.
The reality of this will only become clear later. After all, they brought Tony Bliar back and now he's making megabucks from Climate Crisis Inc. and is actually respected again by some fools - and what he did was far worse than anything Hayward did.
As usual, what we are seeing in the media is just what we are supposed to see.
And shocking, shocking news re my #211:
Petrobras to Invest $224 Billion In Offshore Push
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2010/06/21/business/business-us-petrobras...
However, JUST heard that a US court reversed Obama's decision for that drilling moratorium (see #223 for what a scam that was)which could screw up this grand plan.
In the meantime, the leak keeps on leaking - did you read #231!!! - and Obama et al are just using it for their agenda. Pathetic.
Complain about this comment
Bowman was asking earlier how much oil had been burned as part of the response to the spill from the Deepwater Horizon accident. It was reported in a Swedish newspaper this morning (the 25th June) that an estimated 35 million litres had been burned so far.
Complain about this comment
@CanadianRockies
Reference that Rolling Stone article. Reads like something out of Private Eye.
(Private Eye mixes satire http://www.private-eye.co.uk/sections.php?section_link=headmasters_message&
with investigative reporting http://www.private-eye.co.uk/paul_foot.php?
and other related journalism (oh look, they are currently covering the Deepwater spill) http://www.private-eye.co.uk/sections.php?section_link=hp_sauce& .
Their editor is Ian Hislop http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOYo-GdXsqs )
I thought I was cynical with respect to Big Oil. Yet some of the stuff there rather exceeds my expectations of their internal corruption and stupidity. And as far as Obama is concerned it reads like he inherited an old house with obvious problems like damp and leaky plumbing, and started to fix the damp and leaky plumbing, and then the house fell to bits because it was riddled with dry rot.
How do you fix a house if all the local builders with any relevant experience are cowboys? It's a trade-off between deep knowledge of the industry and involvement in the corruption. Someone like sincere, well meaning but comparatively naive Salazar was probably Obama's best bet. And that Rolling Stone journalist is benefitting from hindsight.
Meanwhile my prescription is still the same. Get the oil company managers living on the rigs so the rig workers have their ear.
Complain about this comment
@CanadianRockies
(@myself #235)
OK, new edition of Private Eye came out while I took a break from working on my #235, so here's Private Eye's HP Sauce on BP
http://www.private-eye.co.uk/sections.php?section_link=hp_sauce&issue=1264
Complain about this comment
Here's a link for a tongue-in-cheek video interview on BP's response to the oil spill.
http://grumunkin.blogspot.com/2010/06/john-clarks-spin-on-bp-oil-crisis-front.html
The "Front Fell Off" (about an earlier oil tanker accident) is also worth a look (moderators permitting): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-QNAwUdHUQ
If the links to the clips don't come through, try searching for "John Clark" plus "BP Oil Crisis" for the first, and "John Clark" plus "Front fell off" for the second.
Complain about this comment
CanadianRockies #231, #233.
well, a "..former longtime Russian minister of nuclear energy.." says BP is wasting time and suggests an explosive alternative to waiting:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-20009648-54.html?tag=nl.e797
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS