Bohemian's blog

Population Growth Must Stop

Posted by Gail the Actuary on June 30, 2010 - 3:00pm in The Oil Drum: Campfire 
Topic: Environment/Sustainability
Tags: ecological overshoot, overshoot, population growth [list all tags]

Because of the large number of comment on this post, this thread is being closed. Please comment onhttp://campfire.theoildrum.com/node/6680. If there is a comment on this thread you want to respond to, feel free to copy it over to the new thread.

This is a guest post by Gary Peters, a retired geography professor with a long time interest in population issues. I have added some discussion questions at the end. - Gail

Earth’s population is approaching seven billion at the same time that resource limits and environmental degradation are becoming more apparent every day. Rich nations have long assured poor nations that they, too, would one day be rich and that their rates of population growth would decline, but it is no longer clear that this will occur for most of today’s poor nations. Resource scarcities, especially oil, are likely to limit future economic growth; the demographic transition that has accompanied economic growth in the past may not be possible for many nations today. Nearly 220,000 people are added to the planet every day, further compounding most resource and environmental problems. The United States adds another person every eleven seconds. We can no longer wait for increasing wealth to bring down fertility in remaining high fertility nations; we need policies and incentives to stop growth now.

Much has been written about population growth since the first edition of Malthus's famous essay was published in 1798. However, an underlying truth is usually left unsaid: Population growth on Earth must cease. It makes more sense for humans to bring growth to a halt by adjusting birth rates downward in humane ways rather than waiting for death rates to move upward as the four horsemen reappear. Those who think it inhumane to control human fertility have apparently never experienced conditions in Third World shanty towns, where people struggle just to stay alive for another day.

In 1970 Norman Borlaug won the Nobel Peace Prize for his work on developing new plant strains that formed the basis for the Green Revolution that began in the 1960s. However, in his Nobel acceptance speech Borlaug perceptively commented that "There can be no permanent progress in the battle against hunger until the agencies that fight for increased food production and those that fight for population control unite in a common effort. Fighting alone, they may win temporary skirmishes, but united they can win a decisive and lasting victory to provide food and other amenities of a progressive civilization for the benefit of all mankind." That was four decades ago. During that time the world's population increased by more than three billion and the struggle to feed, clothe, house, and educate ever-growing numbers of people continues. "Temporary skirmishes" seem persistent, if not permanent.

Writers sometimes confuse population issues. For example, in his post, The Population Bomb: Has It Been Defused?,", Fred Pearce wrote that "The population bomb is being defused at a quite remarkable rate." He conflates rates of growth with actual numbers. It is true that the rate of population growth worldwide has declined since 1970. However, the base population has grown by more than three billion; thus we currently add 80 million or more people to the planet each year. That is hardly "defusing" population growth!

Writers may sometimes have short memories when they write about population growth. Fred Pearce's post at"Consumption Dwarfs Population as Main Environmental Threat," is one example. George Monbiot's post on "The Population Myth," is another. Both authors seem to have discovered that our rate of consumption is an issue, so both play down population numbers and focus on our consumption habits. Neither mentions the work of Paul Ehrlich and his I = PAT equation, where I represents our impact on the Earth, P equals population, A equals affluence (hence consumption), and T stands for technology.

Both population and consumption are parts of the problem--neither can be ignored and both are exacerbating the human impact on Earth. More distressing, however, is that many among us don't even see that there are problems created by both growing populations and increasing affluence bearing down on a finite planet. To pretend that another 80 million people added to the planet each year is not a problem because they are all being added to the world’s poor nations makes no sense at all. Many of them will end up in rich nations by migrating, legally or illegally, and all will further compound environmental problems, from strains on oil and other fossil fuel resources to deforestation and higher emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. As Kenneth Boulding noted decades ago, "Anyone who believes that exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist."

Population, consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions will continue to grow until we either face up to the fact that there are limits on our finite Earth or we are confronted by a catastrophe large enough to turn us from our current course. If Chinese, Indians, and others in the poorer world had consumption levels that rose to current western levels it would be like Earth's population suddenly increasing to 72 billion, according to Jared Diamond, who then wrote that, "Some optimists claim that we could support a world with nine billion people. But I haven't met anyone crazy enough to claim that we could support 72 billion. Yet we often promise developing countries that if they will only adopt good policies--for example, institute honest government and a free-market economy--they, too, will be able to enjoy a first-world lifestyle. This promise is impossible, a cruel hoax: we are having difficulty supporting a first-world lifestyle even now for only one billion people."

This promise is often made by people who believe that that alone will stop population growth via the demographic transition, conveniently forgetting about such exceptions as China. As Tom Athanasiou argued, in Divided Planet: The Ecology of Rich and Poor, "In a world torn between affluence and poverty, the crackpot realists tell the poor, who must live from day to day, that all will be well in the long run. Amidst deepening ecological crisis, they rush to embrace small, cosmetic adaptations."

The widespread acceptance and political influence of modern neoclassical economics is a central part of our global problem. In one widely used economics textbook, Principles of Economics, Greg Mankiw wrote that “A large population means more workers to produce goods and services. At the same time, it means more people to consume those goods and services.” Speaking for many neoclassical economists, Tim Harford concluded, in The Logic of Life, that "The more of us there are in the world, living our logical lives, the better our chances of seeing out the next million years." The absurdity of Harford's statement must be recognized and challenged.

Economists do not deserve all the blame. As Thomas Berry noted, in The Great Work: Our Way into the Future, "Western civilization, dominated by a cultural arrogance, could not accept the fact that the human, as every species, is bound by limits in relation to the other members of the Earth community." On his Archdruid blog, John Greer added his observation that "Our culture's mythology of progress envisions the goal of civilization as a utopian state in which poverty, illness, death, and every other aspect of the human predicament has been converted into problems and solved by technology." We don't want to hear about limits.

Nowhere is acceptance of the twin towers of economic growth and increased consumption more apparent than in the United States, where "growing the economy" is still paramount, despite the leftovers of a financial meltdown created by banking and shadow banking systems run amok and a Gulf fouled by gushing oil. As Andrew Bacevich noted, inThe Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism, "For the majority of contemporary Americans, the essence of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness centers on a relentless personal quest to acquire, to consume, to indulge, and to shed whatever constraints might interfere with those endeavors." Yet evidence that modern economics has let most people down is abundant.

More than two decades ago Edward Abbey wrote, in One Life at a Time, Please, that "[W]e can see that the religion of endless growth--like any religion based on blind faith rather than reason--is a kind of mania, a form of lunacy, indeed a disease," adding that "Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell." He expressed his concern about modern economics as follows: "Economics, no matter how econometric it pretends to be, resembles meteorology more than mathematics. A cloudy science of swirling vapors, signifying nothing." Similarly, Nassim Taleb wrote, in The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable, that "Economics is the most insular of fields; it is the one that quotes least from outside itself!" Gus Speth argued, in The Bridge at the End of the World: Capitalism, the Environment, and Crossing from Crisis to Sustainability, that "In the end, what has to be modified is the open-ended commitment to aggregate economic growth--growth that is consuming environmental and social capital, both in short supply." Barbara Ehrenreich wrote, in This Land is Their Land: Reports from a Divided Nation, that "The economists' odd fixation on growth as a measure of economic well-being puts them in a parallel universe of their own. . .the mantra of growth has deceived us for far too long." Whether in local areas, the United States, or the world, no problem that I can think of will be more easily solved with additional millions of people.

Future oil production will come at an increasing cost, if it comes at all. As Bill McKibbin noted, in Deep Economy: The Wealth of Comunities and the Durable Future, "Cheap and abundant fossil fuel [mainly oil] has shaped the farming system we've come to think of as normal; it's the main reason you can go to the store and get anything you want at any time and for not much money." More expensive oil will eat into world food production, especially if we continue to use foodstuffs to help fill gas tanks.

Scientists need to encourage a deeper and more realistic interest in population growth on a finite planet and its effect on many of the major issues of our time. We ignore the implications of further population growth at our peril. In 1971 Wilbur Zelinsky, in an article entitled "Beyond the Exponentials; The Role of Geography in the Great Transition," fretted that "The problem that shakes our confidence in the perpetuation and enrichment of civilized human existence or even our biological survival is that of growth: the rate, volume, and kinds of growth, and whether they can be controlled in intelligent, purposeful fashion."

Continued population growth is unsustainable, as is continued growth in the production of oil and other fossil fuels. As Lester Brown argued, in PLAN B: Rescuing a Planet Under Stress and a Civilization in Trouble, "If we cannot stabilize population and if we cannot stabilize climate, there is not an ecosystem on earth we can save." As Alan Weisman wrote, in The World Without Us, “The intelligent solution [to the problem of population growth] would require the courage and the wisdom to put our knowledge to the test. It would henceforth limit every human female on Earth capable of bearing children to one.” Started now, such a policy would reduce Earth’s population down to around 1.6 billion by 2100, about the same as the world population in 1900. Had we kept Earth’s population at that level we would not be having this conversation.

Next Generation Biofuels: Five Challenges and Five Positive Notes

Posted by Robert Rapier on July 2, 2010 - 7:14am
Topic: Alternative energy
Tags: algae, biofuel, biomass, cellulosic ethanol, ethanol, next generation biofuels, us department of agriculture report [list all tags]

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has just issued a report detailing the outlook and challenges of next generation biofuels. I provided some input during the drafting of the report, which hopefully was of some use. Here I select five pessimistic projections and five optimistic projections from the report.

The report is: Next-Generation Biofuels: Near-Term Challenges and Implications for Agriculture

Here are five findings from the report that promise to strongly influence the country’s direction on next generation fuels.

1. Production and Capital Costs

 

 

“Estimated production and capital costs for next-generation biofuel production are significantly higher than for first-generation biofuels.” The report quotes costs for a 100 million gallon biochemical conversion plant (e.g., cellulosic ethanol) at $320 million, and the costs for a 100 million gallon thermochemical conversion plant (e.g., gasification and conversion to liquid fuels) at $340 million. The report states that this is “more than three or four times those for corn ethanol plants.”

2. Biomass Feedstock Costs

 

 

The report suggests that the presumed costs for purpose grown biomass have likely been underestimated. It cites POET, for instance, as assuming a $40 to $60 per ton price for corn cobs. But the report states

the range of prices may underestimate the cost of increasing biomass yields on marginal lands and the incentives required for harvesting, gathering, and delivering bulky material to the biorefinery

and

dedicated energy crops would need to compete with the lowest value crop such as hay which has had a price exceeding $100 per ton since 2007.

In a previous essay I identified this as one of the bad assumptions many biofuel producers today are making: That biomass costs will be low or even negative in the future as demand ramps up.

3. Algae Conversion Costs

 

 

The report repeats the mantra that you have heard from me many times:

Production cost estimates (net of capital costs) for growing and converting algae to fuel are significantly higher than for first- and next-generation biofuels, ranging from $9 per gallon to $35 per gallon.

As I have noted before, I think people confuse the ease of growing algae with the ease of growing it commercially and turning it into fuel.

4. Support for Cellulosic Ethanol May Be Short-Lived

 

 

The report suggests that support for cellulosic ethanol may be short-lived:

Given the limited market for ethanol as a gasoline additive (due to the E10 “blend wall”) and as a gasoline substitute (because of slow development of the E85 market), developers and investors may turn away from cellulosic ethanol in favor of production of another class of next-generation biofuels, petroleum substitute fuels. These so-called ‘drop in’ fuels can be used as gasoline or diesel substitutes in current vehicles without limit and distributed seamlessly in the existing transportation fuel infrastructure.

The report further states

There may be a shift in favored technologies underway. Several companies planning to be operational with some of the larger plants in the next several years plan to use thermochemical approaches or other processes that produce biobased petroleum-equivalent.

My position on this is clear: I believe that thermochemical approaches are more scalable and less energy intensive than most biochemical approaches.

5. Scale

 

 

Fiberight is forecast to be the leading cellulosic ethanol producer for 2010 – with a production capacity of 130 barrels per day. To put that into perspective, the very small oil refinery I used to work at in Billings, Montana had a capacity of 60,000 barrels per day.

The bits I extracted are all themes that I have addressed here many times. In a nutshell, they relate to the fact that many would-be next generation fuel producers are making unrealistic assumptions about things like feedstock costs. Thus, where they project falling costs based on their optimistic projections, the USDA report forecasts that their biomass costs will be much higher than expected.

Here are five positive notes from the report:

1. Renewable Diesel Plant Capacity

 

 

“Next-generation U.S. biofuel capacity should reach about 88 million gallons in 2010…” This is primarily a result of the expected start-up of a next-generation renewable diesel plant. I have reported on this technology before, as well as the efforts of first-generation biodiesel producers to slow it down and protect their own interests. My guess is that unlike the ConocoPhillips project that was killed after Congress voted to deny them the full tax credit, this project will receive the same tax credit as a conventional biodiesel producer. On a level playing field, I believe the hydrocracking approach is superior to first generation biodiesel, but our political leaders will need to stop playing games with the tax credits in order for next generation diesel to realize its potential. (For a complete explanation of the different kinds of renewable diesel, see my Renewable Diesel Primer).

2. Competitive Race

 

 

Companies are taking a number of different approaches to coming up with next-generation solutions, increasing the chances that a dark horse will arise as a contender: “There are about 30 next-generation companies in the United States developing biochemical, thermochemical, and other approaches, and experimenting with a variety of feedstocks, some of which are directly linked to agriculture..”

3. Open for Business

 

 

The first next-generation plants are expected to come online in 2010: “Range Fuels and Dynamic Fuels are expected to complete the first commercial next-generation biofuel plants in 2010.” I have certainly given Range Fuels a hard time over their public statements – especially in light of recent reports which this USDA report also flagged:“According to the EPA, however, the plant’s initial capacity has been reduced from 10 million to 4 million gallons per year and initial output will be methanol.” However, readers should not mistake my position as hoping that they fail. To the contrary, I hope they succeed, because we are going to need a lot of successes. I am just skeptical that they will achieve commercial (unsubsidized) success, and unhappy that they sucked up a lot of taxpayer funds based on their initial promises that clearly did not materialize.

I would further note, however, that Range Fuels and Dynamic Fuels may be the first U.S. plants that could be classified as next-generation commercial plants (although as I have pointed out, we had commercial cellulosic ethanol plants in the U.S. by 1920), but such plants do already exist overseas. Neste Oil, in fact, has built several plants based on the same sort of technology that Dynamic Fuels is employing. There are also other overseas companies doing gasification (the Range approach) that are further along than Range is.

4. Algae Research

 

 

Just as there are many different approaches to next-generation fuels, there are many companies taking many different approaches to producing fuel from algae: “More than 30 U.S. companies currently are experimenting with different approaches to producing algae-based fuels.” Some of these approaches are unconventional: “Although the majority of algae-to-biofuel companies are focusing on producing algae oil for traditional biodiesel production, some companies are using algae to produce ethanol (Algenol), or petroleum-equivalent fuels (UOP and Sapphire).”The challenge of course will be to drastically reduce production costs, but the potential is too great to ignore.

5. Production Costs Decrease

 

 

Both production and capital costs for cellulosic ethanol are falling. The report noted “POET recently reported it had lowered production costs for cellulosic ethanol, including capital expenses, from $4.13 to $2.35 per gallon in a year as of November 2009 at its South Dakota pilot plant.” The report further notes that estimates for a 100 million gallon cellulosic ethanol facility have fallen from the $650 million to $900 million range (2004 estimate) to $320 million (2009 estimate). However, the report notes that these estimates should still be considered speculative, since“there are no actual cost data for commercial operations since none are yet operational.”

As a body of work, I highly recommend you read the USDA report if you are interested in the status of next generation biofuel facilities. It is a sober, objective assessment of the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead as next generation fuel technologies continue to develop.

Gulf of Mexico Storm Watch

Posted by methaz on June 25, 2010 - 4:12pm
Topic: Supply/Production
Tags: deepwater horizon, gulf of mexico, hurricanes, oil spill [list all tags]

This is the first post by Chuck Watson (aka methaz), Director of Research and Development for Kinetic Analysis Corporation (KAC). KAC provides detailed impact and risk assessments to a wide variety of commercial and government clients, including most of the Caribbean governments, the UK Overseas Territories, and Bloomberg Business News. Over the last few years Chuck has provided exclusive insights in to the potential impact of storms on energy infrastructure here at The Oil Drum, and this year will be joining us as a contributor to help assess the impact storms may have on our energy infrastructure. - Gail

We now have our first serious threat to the Gulf of Mexico this year, in the form of Tropical Depression 1 (TD #1). The current official forecast is for the storm to hit the Yucatan Peninsula and, if it survives, cross the Bay of Campeche and strike the coast again near the Mexico/Texas border. Some of the more advanced computer models are showing that the system may make a more northward turn and become a strong tropical storm or hurricane after passing over Yucatan, potentially impacting the area of the Deepwater Horizon response. I would caution here that forecasting weak systems is tricky, and track/forecast models have a poor track record on storms at this stage.

That said, here is a map of some of the computer models, as of late Friday afternoon (7pm ET), including the official forecast track in bright red. We should have a better handle on where the storm is going, and if there is serious potential to impact the Gulf production areas or DH spill response, over the weekend. As discussed below, if it turns and strengthens, it could be problematic for the DH response.

 

 

If the storm crosses Yucatan directly as per the official Forecast, it should have minimal impact on PEMEX. The waves might cause problems for the DH response, but it is too early to tell. Since we don't really know at this stage if the storm will be a serious threat, below the fold I will discuss in general the impact hurricanes have on production in the Gulf, what a storm might do to the oil spill (and vice versa!), what this year might have in store, and what kinds of info we'll try to post here during incoming storms.

Note: This overview of hurricanes and GOMEX oil/gas production is based on research by Dr. Mark Johnson of the University of Central Florida and myself. This year we will be posting comments on incoming storms, forecasts, and results of our ongoing work here at The Oil Drum as conditions warrant.

Hurricanes and GOMEX Oil/Gas Production

Ever since offshore oil and gas production accelerated in the 1970s, hurricanes have been a factor. However, the rapid expansion of offshore production coincided with a period of lower hurricane activity resulting in part from a 20-30 year climate cycle known as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). If 2004's Hurricane Ivan was a wake up call, 2005's Katrina and Rita, combined with tight markets, were Mother Nature up-ending the bed and dumping us on the cold hard floor. We are now in a period of higher activity that is likely to last for another 5-10 years.

Hurricanes disrupt Oil/Gas production in two key ways: evacuation and actual damage. Offshore assets must be evacuated well in advance of an incoming storm. Precautionary shut-downs are made to prevent spills in the event platforms, rigs, and undersea pipelines are damaged. Thus, even if a storm completely misses the offshore assets, a storm in the Gulf can cause the loss of 3-5 days of production as crews shut down, evacuate, return, and restore production. Admiral Allen noted in a press conference today they would need to start shutting down the Deepwater Horizon operation 5 days before 34kt winds arrived, and it could take two weeks to resume operations. That seems excessive to me - 3 days evacuation, and 5-7 for recovery seems more in line with historical disruptions, but given the complexity and ad hoc nature of the response equipment may well be true. If 5 days to evacuate number is accurate, this is a serious problem, since 5 day forecasts are notoriously unreliable and have a "cone of uncertainty" of over 300 nautical miles. AL93 is already less they 4 days out, according to some models.

The damage a storm will cause depends on many factors. Waves are a major factor. Older platforms had an air gap (the distance between the normal, static water surface and the base of the platform) of 35 ft to allow waves to pass under the platform. Over time that grew to 55 ft. But Ivan, Katrina, and Rita firmly demonstrated that these air gaps are too small. Chevron's Petronius platform was hit by a 90ft wave in Ivan, and was shut down for six months. Another major problem is damage to the 33,000 mile network of pipelines that connects platforms with on-shore refineries. Undersea landslides, pressure damage, and damage to the infrastructure where the pipelines come onshore can cut off platforms for months. The high winds from a storm can strip off towers, cranes, and other superstructure from offshore assets.

Assets are generally built to withstand a 100 year event. However, that often results in a serious under-design of the entire system. While a 70 foot wave might be a 100 year event at any one point, it is only a 12 year event for at least one platform in the Gulf. Another issue is the harsh offshore environment. In effect these structures are sitting in a salt bath. Even with aggressive preventive maintenance, it is doubtful that a structure designed to handle a 120mph wind can still handle those loads after sitting in the Gulf for years or decades.

Restoration times are also a complex calculation. Some wells, especially older, nearshore assets, are simply not worth restoring as they are too far along in their production cycle to warrant the expense of repairing the damage. For major events like Katrina, another issue is the globally limited resources to replace damaged assets.

2010 Outlook

This doesn't look to be a good year for several reasons. First, we are still clearly in a warm phase AMO cycle, with the Atlantic sea surface temperatures above normal. Second, it is increasingly clear that we will be entering a La Nina phase of the ENSO cycle over the next few weeks. Thus, there will be more energy (SST) and favorable winds (La Nina). Historically, when those conditions exist, there is disruption to Gulf of Mexico (GOMEX) production. Our modeling indicates that 98% of years with climatology similar to this one will lose at least one week of production, as opposed to 40% of all years. On average, 98 million barrels of production are shut in in years like this one.

Oil Spills and Hurricanes

There has been a lot of discussion about the impact of a hurricane on the spill, and vice versa. Jeff Masters has a good discussion on the impact of oil on a storm topic here. As he points out, the size of the storm is large compared to the size of the slick. I agree that as far as the impact of the spill on storms, I seriously doubt it will be noticeable. In theory, an oil sheen should reduce the energy exchange between water and air, and reduce energy available, and therefore weaken a storm. Also in theory, some are arguing the oil will result in slightly higher SSTs, and therefore more energy and stronger storms. I think both arguments are of the "angels on pinheads" variety due to the size factor, and that wave and wind action will disrupt the slicks long before either process could come in to play.

The impact of a storm on the oil is whole different matter. I think the best thing the Gulf Coast could get this year is a direct hit by a big, wet, Cat 1 storm. Strong enough to clean things out, not so bad as to hurt folks much worst than they already are. The currents and wave action would probably mix up and disperse the oil, rain bands and surge would flush out the wetlands without pushing oil much further inland. A worst case might be a mid or southern Gulf bypassing storm - winds, waves could push the oil on to and beyond protective devices as well as deeper in to the marshes, but not be violent enough to seriously mix up the oil and disperse it, and no rain bands to dilute or wash out the wetlands. A direct hit by a stronger storm could potentially push oil far inland, but the mixing and dilution effects should mitigate that somewhat.

Either way, given climatology, we're almost certainly going to find out what a hurricane does to an oil spill this year . 

Beyond Self-Interest Fundamentalism:
A New Human-Centred Economy 

by Joe Brewer

Self-interest fundamentalism was the economic religion of the twentieth century. Its birthplace, in the guise of “rational choice theory”, was the very military think tank that gave us the  global arms race. But a new view of human reason is emerging. It finds we are profoundly social and wired for empathy. Furthermore, human reason is embodied. We interpret the world through core values. Here then, is the authentic working basis for a new, human-centred economy.


Chris Jordan's "Barbies" depicts 32,000 Barbie dolls, the number of elective "boob job" surgeries performed monthly in the US - a triumph of self-interest fundamentalism.


Why should appeals to self-interest lead to a just society anyway?
Self-interest evangelicals have been spreading the "good news" of self-interest fundamentalism for decades in public policy programs, political science departments, and financial institutions.  Converts can even be found in environmental organizations that tell us we’ll save on our energy bills if only we change those light bulbs.  And blind zealots run polling companies that deploy the doctrine of self-oriented rationalism when they tell us that the preferences of individuals exist in a meaningful way to be measured – with nary an inkling that the way polls are conducted might influence how people respond.

Is all this self-interest fundamentalism finally beginning to die?  Cracks are spreading through its foundations. The questions we need to grapple with are whether it should die away and if so, with what should we replace it? 

Rationalist fundamentalism still has a stranglehold on society.  It’s meteoric rise to dominance goes back to the nuclear arms race that poured truckloads of cash from public coffers into defense contractor piggy banks, through the “game” of mutually assured destruction (MAD) during the Cold War.  We saw it clearly during the Vietnam War when “body counts’ laid the foundation for an entire generation of video game players to score points by killing more enemies – never mind that we were slaughtering innumerable civilians.

And, of course, it was only a matter of time before schools fell under the knife of test-based book-keeping to “hold students accountable” to rationalist ideals of performance measurement – at the expense of actual learning.  A web of trans-national organizations have come into existence – the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank being the best known – that push the ideology of self-interest into the centre stage of world affairs.

Theory of Self-Interest: A Creation Story
How could an impoverished model of the human-as-self-focused-calculating-machine have ever come into being?  A common myth is that self-interest theories rose out of behavioural studies conducted by psychologists.  It's a nice bedtime story perhaps, but it isn’t true.  Would you believe me if I told you the behavioural model underlying the global economy came, not from the human sciences, but from mathematics?

Back in the 1940’s and 50’s, a research center was created to explore fundamental issues of concern to the US Air Force.  This Research ANdDevelopment institute was aptly named the RAND Corporation.  Within the high security walls of this military think tank, mathematicians developed abstract principles for nuclear strategy during the Cold War.  In the midst of this particular, historically contingent environment – and motivated by concerns of defense contractors in the air combat arena – the notion of self-interested rational action was born. It's proof positive that the most bizarre stories are found in the non-fiction section of your local library.

So the birth place of modern market fundamentalism, in the guise of “rational choice theory”, was the military think tank that gave us the disastrous arms race.  Untested and theoretical, it quickly spread throughout the highest levels of government during the tenure of Robert McNamara at the Department of Defense, then whipped through the economics departments of many prominent universities, spurred the creation of public policy analysis as a “scientific” field, and undergirded today’s global institutions of economic governance. But things are starting to change.



Close-up detail of Chris Jordan's Barbies

Looking Forward: 21st Century Institutions
The first experimental studies of rational choice theory by behavioral scientists, principally Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, showed that a foundational premise of the theory was wrong.  (As a technical point, they showed that preferences can be reversed by merely framing the question differently.)  The “prospect theory” that arose through these experiments became the bedrock of a new field – behavioural economics – that has grown in prominence since its birth in the 1970’s.

Throughout the subsequent decades, researchers found more damning evidence against self-interest.  Paul Slovic and collaborators at Decision Research have systematically explored how risk perception influences our decisions in many ways that fly in the face of rational choice theory.  Human beings depend on emotional cues to make decisions.  And many of these cues are associative, rather than based on inferences. They do not fit the paradigm of rationality presumed by rational choice theory.  In fact, human beings cannot manage risk – especially in the highly complex social situations we often find ourselves in – when regions of our brains that process emotional information are damaged.  Antonio Damasio sealed this argument in his 1994 book, "Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain".

A new view of human reason is on the rise in academia.  Unlike its predecessor, the new paradigm is profoundly based in the workings of our bodies.  This “embodiment” view incorporates insights from computer science, linguistics, neuroscience, philosophy, psychology, and robotics.  Its adherents include people like Gilles Fauconnier, Raymond Gibbs,  Mark Johnson, George Lakoff, Eleanor Rosch, Mark Turner, and Drew Westen.

Arising with this new view is a profound shift in how we understand human thought and behaviour.  Just as the institutions of yesteryear grew out of the old paradigm, research in the cognitive sciences beckons us to think differently about the institutions of tomorrow. 




I’ve seen how methods like cost-benefit analysis fail utterly when applied to environmental challenges.  Future costs are weighed against current gains in a false choice between short-term profit seeking and long-term sustainability. I’ve also watched as public policies built on outdated performance measures undermine that which they are meant to improve.  A key example is the educational paradigm that gave America No Child Left Behind – high-stakes testing – which flies in the face of what our teachers know about real learning.  Any effort to treat moral pursuits – like making the world safe for future generations or educating a child – will demand broader measures of success than numbers alone can describe. There are some things we’ll need our institutions to do in the 21st Century. In a world based on this new perspective, things will work very differently:

* Citizens will recognize fear-inducing news reports intended to inflate manufactured risks and hide awareness of genuine threats, thereby reducing the effectiveness of manipulative tactics. 

* Journalists will understand the consequences of how facts are presented and beliefs are promoted in the structure of news reporting, resulting in coverage that enhances, rather than erodes, the democratic process. 

* Policy-makers will abandon contrived and faulty presumptions about “economic rational actors” and craft solutions to societal challenges that improve of real peoples' lives. Deeper insights into the human condition will lead to policies that stand the test of time. 

* Advocates will articulate clear and compelling calls to action that resonate deeply with the values of the citizenry, promoting greater civic engagement and community empowerment. 

What’s more, we’ll need to build a new foundation for our economic institutions.  A recent example shows that the old approach is inadequate.  Amartya Sen and Joseph Stiglitz, two Nobel prize winning economists, led a commission to improve upon the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) when measuring economic well-being.  They spent most of the 79 pages of their personal reflections describing a long history of criticisms that show GDP to be grossly inadequate.  Yet, very little of substance was offered to take its place. What does it mean that leading economists don’t know how to measure economic progress?  In the words of Sen, when talking about the limits of rational choice theory:

It seems easy to accept that rationality involves many features that cannot be summarized in terms of some straightforward formula, such as binary consistency.  But this recognition does not immediately lead to alternative characterizations that might be regarded as satisfactory, even though the inadequacies of the traditional assumptions of rational behavior standardly used in economic theory have become hard to deny.

This tells us that many economists recognize the limitations of rational choice, but they don’t have ready-made alternatives.  Yet the old tools are well-known and ready for use so they pick them up again and again.  They are looking for something better, but haven’t found it yet.

I’d like to offer that the alternatives are starting to emerge in the unexpected corner of academia where researchers study the human mind.  New tools cannot be found so long as the old paradigm of human nature remains.  My colleagues and I are in the process of developing these new tools.  What does our paradigm look like?  Here are the key features:

* Human beings are profoundly social. We are wired for empathy and we learn how to act in the world through interactions with other human beings and the natural world; 

* Human reason is embodied. We think and act through the interplay of brain, body, and environment.  Emotions are vital to effective decision-making.  And our understandings are shaped by the contexts we operate in; 

* Human thought is evaluative. We interpret the world through core values, our sense of identity, and conceptual models for how we believe the world works. There’s no such thing as “an objective world” when dealing with social and political issues because we are co-creators of the realities we experience. 

Each of these features tells us something about how a human-based economyshould work.  It should recognize the value of community in our dealings with one another.  It should be designed around our biological needs for survival in a world where things like potable water and fossil fuels are becoming limited and the planetary climate system has been disrupted in a manner that threatens us all.  And it should acknowledge that interpretations of human well-being are perpetually contested by competing perspectives.

Yes, it is time to let self-interest fundamentalism go the way of monarchy and feudalism.  It may not go silently into the night, but the end is nigh.  Pretty soon we will have laid the foundation for a sustainable future – both ecologically and financially.  In order to do so, we’ll have to acknowledge how human beings actually are, instead of how theorists engaged in military strategy presumed us to be 60 years ago. It is a huge undertaking.  It won’t be completed overnight.  Nor will it be the sole effort of a few visionary thinkers.  But it must start somewhere.  My suggestion is that you’ll see it starting to take shape at the boundary between cognitive science and the world of expert practitioners at all levels of governance. 

Joe Brewer is founder-director of Cognitive Policy Works, from which the above article was slightly modified. He works at the intersection of advocacy, policy, and technology. His view of human values & behaviour is based on cognitive semantics and complex systems. His goal is helping build livable communities for the 21st Century, by training people through insight into the political, cultural, and psychological aspects of social change. 

Deepwater Horizon oil spillFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThis article is about the oil spill. For the oil rig explosion, see Deepwater Horizon explosion."2010 oil spill", "BP oil spill", and "Gulf of Mexico oil spill" redirect here. For other oil spills in 2010, see 2010 oil spill (disambiguation), for the 2006 BP oil spill, see Prudhoe Bay oil spill, and for the 1979 Gulf of Mexico oil spill, see Ixtoc I oil spill. Deepwater Horizon oil spill
The oil slick as seen from space by NASA's Terrasatellite on May 24, 2010. Location Gulf of Mexico near Mississippi River Delta Coordinates 28.73667°N 88.38716°WCoordinates: 28.73667°N 88.38716°W Date April 20, 2010 – present (62 days) Cause Cause Wellhead blowout Casualties 11 dead
17 injured Operator Transocean under contract for BP[1] Spill characteristics Volume up to 6,200,000 barrels (260,000,000 US gallons; 986,000 cubic metres) Area 2,500 to 9,100 sq mi (6,500 to 24,000 km2) [2]

The Deepwater Horizon oil spill (also referred to as the BP oil spill, the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, the BP oil disaster or the Macondo blowout)[3][4][5][6] is a massive ongoing oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico that is now considered the largest offshore spill in U.S. history.[7]Some estimates placed it by late May or early June, 2010, as among the largest oil spills in the world with tens of millions of gallons spilled to date.[8] The spill stems from a sea floor oil gusher that resulted from the April 20, 2010 Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion. The explosion killed 11 platform workers and injured 17 others.[9]

The gusher, now estimated by the quasi-official Flow Rate Technical Group to be flowing at 35,000 to 60,000 barrels (1,500,000 to 2,500,000 US gallons; 5,600 to 9,500 cubic metres) of crude oil per day,[10][11] originates from a deepwater wellhead 5,000 feet (1,500 m) below the ocean surface.[12] The exact spill flow rate is uncertain due to the difficulty of installing measurement devices at that depth and is a matter of ongoing debate.[13] The resulting oil slick covers a surface area of at least 2,500 square miles (6,500 km2), with the exact size and location of the slick fluctuating from day to day depending on weather conditions.[14] Scientists have also reported immense underwater plumes of oil not visible at the surface.[13]

Experts fear that the spill will result in an environmental disaster, with extensive impact already on marine and wildlife habitats.[15][16]The spill has also damaged the Gulf of Mexico fishing and tourism industries. There have been a variety of ongoing efforts to stem the flow of oil at the wellhead. Crews have been working to protect hundreds of miles of beaches, wetlands and estuaries along the northern Gulf coast, using skimmer ships, floating containment booms, anchored barriers, and sand-filled barricades along shorelines. The U.S. Government has named BP as the responsible party in the incident, and officials have said the company will be held accountable for all cleanup costs resulting from the oil spill.[17][18]

Contents [hide]

• 1 Background
  • 1.1 Deepwater Horizon drilling rig
  • 1.2 Explosion
• 2 Volume and extent of oil spill
  • 2.1 Spill flow rate
  • 2.2 Spill area
  • 2.3 Underwater oil plumes
  • 2.4 Expansion predictions
  • 2.5 Independent monitoring of contamination
• 3 Efforts to stem the flow of oil
  • 3.1 Short-term efforts
  • 3.2 Long-term efforts
• 4 Containment and cleanup
  • 4.1 Dispersants
  • 4.2 Additional technologies for cleanup
• 5 Consequences
  • 5.1 Ecology
  • 5.2 Fisheries and tourism
  • 5.3 Other economic consequences
  • 5.4 Litigation
  • 5.5 Health consequences
  • 5.6 U.S. and Canadian offshore drilling policy
  • 5.7 Spill response fund
• 6 Reactions
  • 6.1 U.S. government
  • 6.2 International governments
  • 6.3 BP public relations
  • 6.4 Public reaction
    • 6.4.1 Public opinion
  • 6.5 Charity
• 7 Investigations
• 8 See also
• 9 References
• 10 External links

[edit]Background[edit]Deepwater Horizon drilling rigMain article: Deepwater HorizonDeepwater Horizon prior to explosion.
Location of the Deepwater Horizon on April 20, 2010

The Deepwater Horizon was a 9-year-old semi-submersible Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit(MODU), a massive floating, dynamically positioned drilling rig built by Hyundai Heavy Industries[19] that could operate in waters up to 8,000 feet (2,400 m) deep and drill down to 30,000 feet (9,100 m).[20] It was owned by Transocean, operated under the Marshalese flag of convenience, and was under lease to BP until September 2013.[21] At the time of the explosion, the Deepwater Horizon was drilling an exploratory well at a water depth of approximately 5,000 feet (1,500 m) in the Macondo Prospect located in the Mississippi Canyon Block 252, in the United Statesexclusive economic zone about 41 miles (66 km) off the Louisiana coast in the Gulf of Mexico.[22][23][24][25][26] Production casing was being run and cemented by Halliburton Energy Services. Once the cementing was complete, it was due to be tested for integrity and a cement plug set to temporarily abandon the well for later completion as a subsea producer.[23][27] BP is the operator and principal developer of the Macondo Prospect with 65% of interest, while 25% is owned by Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, and 10% by MOEX Offshore 2007, a unit ofMitsui.[28] BP purchased the mineral rights to drill for oil in Macondo at the Minerals Management Service's lease sale in March 2008.[29]

[edit]ExplosionMain article: Deepwater Horizon explosionAHTS and PS vessels combat the fire on the Deepwater Horizon while the United States Coast Guard searches for missing crew.

During March and April 2010, several platform workers and supervisors expressed concerns with well control. At approximately 9:45 p.m. CDTon April 20, 2010, methane gas from the well, under high pressure, shot up and out of the drill column marine riser, expanded onto the platform, and then ignited and exploded.[27][30] Fire then engulfed the platform.[31] Most of the workers were evacuated by lifeboats or were airlifted out by helicopter,[32][33] but eleven workers were never found despite a three-day Coast Guard search operation, and are presumed to have died in the explosion.[30][34] Efforts by multiple ships to douse the flames were unsuccessful. After burning furiously for approximately 36 hours, the Deepwater Horizon sank on the morning of April 22, 2010.[35]

On the afternoon of April 22, a large oil slick began to spread at the former rig site.[36] Two remotely operated underwater vehicles (ROVs) unsuccessfully attempted to cap the well.[37] BP announced that it was deploying a ROV to the site to assess whether oil was flowing from the well.[38] On April 23, a ROV reportedly found no oil leaking from the sunken rig and no oil flowing from the well.[39] Coast Guard Rear AdmiralMary Landry expressed cautious optimism of zero environmental impact, stating that no oil was emanating from either the wellhead or the broken pipes and that oil spilled from the explosion and sinking was being contained.[40][41][42][43] The following day, April 24, Landry announced that a damaged wellhead was indeed leaking oil into the Gulf and described it as "a very serious spill".[44]

As of June 19, BP has not given a cause for the explosion.[45]

[edit]Volume and extent of oil spillMain article: Timeline of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill

The Deepwater Horizon spill has surpassed in volume the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill as the largest ever to originate in U.S.-controlled waters; it is comparable to the 1979 Ixtoc I oil spill in total volume released (Ixtoc discharged 140 to 148 million gallons; as of June 16, Deepwater Horizon has discharged 73 to 126 million gallons).[46]

[edit]Spill flow ratePhoto of oil spill live video, May 11, 2010

In their permit to drill the well, BP estimated the worst case flow at 162,000 barrels (6,800,000 US gallons; 25,800 cubic metres) per day.[47]BP initially estimated that the wellhead was leaking only 1,000 barrels (42,000 US gallons; 160 cubic metres) a day.[44] On April 28, based on satellite pictures, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration estimated that the leak was likely 5,000 barrels (210,000 US gallons; 790 cubic metres) a day.[48][49] Geologist and oil industry consultant Simon James Hesketh said a more realistic figure was 20,000 barrels (840,000 US gallons; 3,200 cubic metres) a day and oceanographer Ian MacDonald and other sources using satellite imagery put the number as high as 25,000 barrels (1,100,000 US gallons; 4,000 cubic metres) a day.[44][50][51][52][53] According to BP, estimating the flow is very difficult as there is no metering of the flow underwater and because of the presence of natural gas in the outflow.[48] The company initially refused to allow scientists to perform more accurate, independent measurements of the flow, claiming that it is not relevant to the response and that such efforts might distract from efforts to stem the flow.[13] Former Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency Carol Browner and Congressman Ed Markey (D-MA) both accused BP of having a vested financial interest in downplaying the size of the leak.[54]

On May 12, BP released a 30 second video of the spill at the site of the broken pipe. Experts contacted by National Public Radio and shown the footage put the leak rate substantially higher than the early estimate.[55] Timothy Crone, an associate research scientist at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, estimated at least 50,000 barrels (2,100,000 US gallons; 7,900 cubic metres) a day was leaking from the well by using another well-accepted method to calculate fluid flows.[56] Eugene Chaing, a professor of astrophysics at the University of California, Berkeley, estimated the leak to be 20,000–100,000 barrels (840,000–4,200,000 US gallons; 3,200–16,000 cubic metres) a day.[55][57] Steven Wereley, an associate professor at Purdue University used particle image velocimetry to initially arrive at a rate of 70,000 barrels (2,900,000 US gallons; 11,000 cubic metres) per day, with a margin of error of 20 percent.[58]

On May 24, U.S. Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen, who is coordinating the government response, announced that the director of the United States Geological Survey (USGS), Marcia McNutt, is leading the Flow Rate Technical Group — scientists from the U.S. Coast Guard, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Minerals Management Service, the United States Department of Energy and academics outside government tasked with providing the government with an independent scientific assessment of the scope of the disaster and of BP's efforts to stop the flow of oil.[59][60][61] The Flow Rate Technical Group initially put the volume of oil flowing from the blown-out well at 12,000 to 19,000 barrels (500,000 to 800,000 US gallons; 1,900 to 3,000 cubic metres) per day,[62] and the government increased its official estimate to that range on May 27.[63][64][65] While the United States Geological Survey put forth that range as the best estimate for the lower and upper boundaries of flow rate, other scientists involved in drafting the figure viewed it as an estimated minimum.[66] According to Ira Leifer, a member of the Flow Rate Technical Group, the group was only provided a seven minute segment of low-quality video selected by BP, which showed a lot of variability from very low to very high flows.[67]

On June 10, based on additional video, members of the Flow Rate Technical Group calculated updated estimates for the period prior to the cutting of the riser pipe and the insertion of the Riser Insertion Tube Tool (RITT).[68] The majority concluded that, given the limited data available and the small amount of time to process that data, the best estimate for the average flow rate was likely between 25,000 and 30,000 barrels (1,100,000 and 1,300,000 US gallons; 4,000 and 4,800 cubic metres) per day, with a lower limit of 20,000 barrels (840,000 US gallons; 3,200 cubic metres) per day and an upper limit of 40,000 barrels (1,700,000 US gallons; 6,400 cubic metres) per day.[68] The new calculation suggested that an amount of oil equivalent to the Exxon Valdez disaster could have been flowing into the Gulf of Mexico every 8 to 10 days.[68][69][10] On June 15, after taking into account the increased flow rate after the riser was cut, McNutt estimated that the leak spilled between 35,000 and 60,000 barrels (1,500,000 and 2,500,000 US gallons; 5,600 and 9,500 cubic metres) a day.[70][71] The updated estimates are believed to be more accurate because it was no longer necessary to measure multiple leaks, and detailed pressure measurements were available as was more than a week of high-resolution newly-released video by BP.[72]

On June 18, oceanographer John Kessler said that the crude gushing from the well contains 40 percent methane, compared to about 5 percent found in typical oil deposits. Methane is a natural gas that could potentially suffocate marine life and create "dead zones" where oxygen is so depleted that nothing lives. "This is the most vigorous methane eruption in modern human history," Kessler said.[73] On June 20 an internal BP document was released by Congress revealing that BP estimated the flow could be as much as 100,000 barrels (4,200,000 US gallons; 16,000 cubic metres) per day, "if BOP (blowout preventer) and wellhead are removed and if we have incorrectly modeled the restrictions".[74][75]

[edit]Spill areaOil slicks surround the Chandeleur Islands, Louisiana in this aerial photo

The spread of the oil was initially increased by strong southerly winds caused by an impending cold front. By April 25, the oil spill covered 580 square miles (1,500 km2) and was only 31 miles (50 km) from the ecologically sensitive Chandeleur Islands.[76] An April 30 estimate placed the total spread of the oil at 3,850 square miles (10,000 km2).[77] The spill quickly approached the Delta National Wildlife Refuge andBreton National Wildlife Refuge, where dead animals, including a sea turtle, were found.[78][79][80] On May 14, the AP reported that a publicly available model called the Automated Data Inquiry for Oil Spills indicates about 35 percent of a hypothetical 114,000 barrels (4,800,000 US gal; 18,100 m3) spill of light Louisiana crude oil released in conditions similar to those found in the Gulf now would evaporate, that between 50 and 60 percent of the oil would remain in or on the water, and the rest would be dispersed in the ocean. In the same report, Ed Overton says he thinks most of the oil is floating within 1 foot (30 cm) of the surface.[81] The New York Times is tracking the size of the spill over time using data from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the US Coast Guard and Skytruth.[82] By June 4, the oil spill had landed on 125 miles (201 km) of Louisiana’s coast, had washed up along Mississippi and Alabama barrier islands, and was found for the first time on a Florida barrier island at Pensacola Beach.[83][84][85] On June 9, oil sludge began entering the Intracoastal Waterway through Perdido Pass after floating booms across the opening of the pass failed to stop the oil.[86]

[edit]Underwater oil plumes

University of California, Berkeley engineering professor Robert Bea argued there was "an equal amount that could be subsurface", subsurface oil being "near impossible to track".[87] On May 13, tarballs began washing up on the shores of three Louisiana parishes.[88] On May 15, researchers from the University of Southern Mississippi, aboard the research vessel RV Pelican, identified oil plumes in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico, including one as large as 10 miles (16 km) long, 3 miles (4.8 km) wide and 300 feet (91 m) thick in spots. The shallowest oil plume the group detected was at about 2,300 feet (700 m), while the deepest was near the seafloor at about 4,200 feet (1,300 m). Other researchers from the University of Georgia have found that the oil may occupy multiple layers. The undetermined amount of hydrocarbons in these underwater plumes may explain why satellite images of the ocean surface have calculated a flow rate of only 5,000 barrels (210,000 US gallons; 790 cubic metres) a day, whereas studies of video of the gushing oil well have variously calculated that it could be flowing at a rate of 25,000–80,000 barrels (1,100,000–3,400,000 US gallons; 4,000–13,000 cubic metres) a day.[13] On May 27, marine scientists discovered a second oil plume, stretching 22 miles (35 km) from the leaking wellhead toward Mobile Bay, Alabama. The oil has dissolved into the water and is no longer visible, and researchers say they are worried these undersea plumes may be the result of the use of chemical dispersants to break up the oil.[89]

Marine biologist Rick Steiner said that the likelihood of extensive undersea plumes of oil droplets should have been anticipated from the moment the spill began, given that such an effect from deepwater blowouts had been predicted in the scientific literature for more than a decade and had been confirmed in a test off the coast of Norway. He criticized NOAA for not setting up an extensive sampling program to map and characterize the plumes in the first days of the spill.[90] BP has challenged the validity of the multiple reports from scientists that vast plumes of oil from the spill were spreading underwater, stating its sampling showed no evidence that oil was massing and spreading in the gulf water column.[91]

[edit]Expansion predictions

Scientists monitoring the spill with the European Space Agency Envisat radar satellite stated that oil had reached the Loop Current, which flows clockwise around the Gulf of Mexico towards Florida and becomes the Gulf Stream.[92] The scientists warn that because the Loop Current is a very intense deep ocean current, its turbulent waters will accelerate the mixing of the oil and water.[92] Ruoying He of North Carolina State University, head of the Ocean Observing and Monitoring Group, said if the oil reached the Gulf Stream, then south Florida, including the Keys, would likely be affected. On May 19, NOAA acknowledged that a small portion of the oil slick has reached the Loop Current.[93] On June 3, a computer modelshowed that oil would likely reach the Loop Current and travel to Atlantic Seaboard beaches by July.[94] Changes in weather as well as the Loop Current itself could affect the outcome, but the maximum possible speed would be 100 miles (160 km) per day.[94] The main stream would likely stay 50 to 60 miles (80 to 100 km) offshore, but pockets of oil could reach the coast.[94] Whether oil comes ashore farther north depends on local winds, but the Gulf Stream moves away from the coast southeast of Charleston, South Carolina, at the Charleston Bump.[95] Few tar balls would be likely to reach the Carolinas, and significant environmental damage appeared very unlikely because oil would be heavily diluted.[96]

James H. Cowan, a biological oceanographer at Louisiana State University, said a hurricane could result in oil reaching farther inland, even affecting rice and sugar cane crops.[97] A hurricane could also delay actions that would lead to a permanent solution, and it could spread the oil further or deeper in the ocean.[97] Jeff Masters, founder of Weather Underground, indicated that a hurricane's passage over a sandy beach might help in the cleanup efforts, such as what happened during Hurricane Henri's passage over the Ixtoc I spill area; however, it would likely not have such a beneficial effect in marshlands and rocky beaches. Additionally, Masters pointed out the possibility of more widespread damage to coastal areas, airborne oil droplets immersed in hurricane winds, and a chance that the oil spill may cause explosive deepening of hurricanes in the Gulf.[98]

[edit]Independent monitoring of contamination

Wildlife and environmental groups accused BP of holding back information about the extent and impact of the growing slick, and urged the White House to order a more direct federal government role in the spill response. In prepared testimony for a congressional committee, National Wildlife Federation President Larry Schweiger said BP had failed to disclose results from its tests of chemical dispersants used on the spill, and that BP had tried to withhold video showing the true magnitude of the leak.[99] On May 19 BP established a live feed of the oil spill after hearings in Congress accused the company of withholding data from the ocean floor and blocking efforts by independent scientists to come up with estimates for the amount of crude flowing into the Gulf each day.[100][101] On May 20 United States Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar indicated that the U.S. government would verify how much oil has leaked into the Gulf of Mexico.[102] Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson and United States Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano asked for the results of tests looking for traces of oil and dispersant chemicals in the waters of the gulf.[103]

Journalists attempting to document the impact of the oil spill have been repeatedly refused access to public areas by BP and its contractors, local law enforcement, the Coast Guard and government officials.[104][105] Scientists have also complained about prevention of access to information controlled by BP and government sources.[104] Airplanes carrying photojournalists have been prevented from flying over areas of the gulf to document the scope of the disaster.[104] BP states that it has been their policy to allow the media and other parties as much access as possible, however reporters and photographers continue to claim that they have been blocked from covering some aspects of the spill.[104]

[edit]Efforts to stem the flow of oilSee also: Offshore oil spill prevention

The rig's blowout preventer, a fail-safe device fitted at the source of the well and built by Cameron International,[106] did not automatically cut off the oil flow as intended when the explosion occurred. BP attempted to use remotely operated underwater vehicles to close the blowout preventer valves on the well head 5,000 feet (1,500 m) below sea level, a valve-closing procedure taking 24–36 hours.[76][107] BP engineers predicted it would take six attempts to close the valves.[108] As of May 2 they had sent six remotely operated underwater vehicles to close the blowout preventer valves, but all attempts were ultimately unsuccessful.[109] Oil was known to be leaking into the gulf from three different locations. On May 5 BP announced that the smallest of three known leaks had been capped. This did not reduce the amount of oil flowing out, but it did allow the repair group to focus their efforts on the two remaining leaks.[110]

Frustrated with the lack of progress three weeks into the crisis, the U.S. sent in a team of nuclear physicists assembled by President Obama's energy secretary Steven Chu, includingRichard Garwin who designed the first hydrogen bomb and Sandia National Laboratories director Tom Hunter. The team visited BP's main crisis centre in Houston, where they worked with BP scientists to reach an answer.[111] On May 24 BP ruled out conventional explosives, saying that if the company tried blasts to crimp the well and failed, “We would have denied ourselves all other options.”[112]

Federal officials also confirmed neither Energy Secretary Steven Chu nor anyone else ever considered using a nuclear device under the gulf because of both environmental and political risks: doing so would violate the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty signed (but not yet ratified) by the United States.[113] In addition, Admiral Thad Allen was quoted in a May 30 article in the Washington Post as stating, "My view is since we don't know the condition of that well bore or the casings, I would be cautious about putting any kind of kinetic energy on that well head, because what you may do is create open communication between the reservoir and the sea floor."[114] Allen made a similar remark during a C-span interview on May 26, adding that the result could be oil seeping through cracks and through the seafloor, "and then be uncontrolled until the reservoir pressure equalized with the hydrostatic pressure; I think that's a risk that's too great to take a chance on, myself."[115]

[edit]Short-term effortsOil containment dome under construction in Port Fourchon, Louisiana at Wild Well Control on April 26.

BP engineers have attempted a number of techniques to control or stop the oil spill. The first and fastest was to place a 125-tonne (280,000 lb) container dome over the largest of the well leaks and pipe the oil to a storage vessel on the surface.[116] BP deployed the system on May 7–8 but it failed when gas leaking from the pipe combined with cold water to form methane hydrate crystals that blocked up the steel canopy at the top of the dome.[117] The excess buoyancy of the crystals clogged the opening at the top of the dome where the riser was to be connected.

Following the failure, on May 11 a smaller containment dome, dubbed a "top hat", was lowered to the seabed.[118] Like the first containment dome, the dome has been deployed successfully in the past but not at such a depth.[118] The "top hat" dome originally was planned as BP's next attempt to control the spill and there has been no explanation for why BP engineers decided to try the insertion tube first.[117]

On May 14 engineers began the process of positioning a 4-inch (100 mm) wide riser insertion tube tool into the 21-inch (530 mm) wide burst pipe.[117]After three days, BP reported the tube was working.[119] Collection rates varied daily between 1,000 and 5,000 barrels (42,000 and 210,000 US gallons; 160 and 790 cubic metres), the average being 2,000 barrels (84,000 US gallons; 320 cubic metres) a day, as of May 21.[120][121] The collected gas rate ranged between 4 and 17 million cubic feet per day (110×103 and 480×103 m3/d). The gas was flared and oil stored on the board of drillship Discoverer Enterprise.[122] 924,000 US gallons (22,000 barrels) of oil was collected before removal of the tube so shutdown efforts could begin.[123]

BP next tried to shut down the well completely using a technique called "top kill".[124] The process involves pumping heavy drilling fluids through two 3-inch (7.6 cm) lines into the blowout preventer that sits on top of the wellhead. This would first restrict the flow of oil from the well, which then could be sealed permanently with cement.[125] The top kill procedure, approved by the Coast Guard on May 25, commenced on May 26 and, according to BP sources, while failure could be evident in minutes or hours it might take "a day or two" before its success could be determined.[126] On May 27 Admiral Thad Allen indicated that engineers had succeeded in stopping the flow of oil and gas into the Gulf of Mexico. He further stated that the well still had low pressure, but cement would be used to cap the well permanently as soon as the pressure hit zero.[127] However, BP officials said it was not possible to tell how far down the well the mud may have reached and declined to speculate on the odds of actually stopping the flow. "We have some indications of partial bridging which is good news. I think it's probably 48 hours before we have a conclusive view."[128] On May 29 BP announced that the attempt to clog the ruptured oil well with "junk" had failed.[129]

The Q4000 and the Discoverer Enterprise during the failed top kill procedure

After three consecutive failed attempts at the top kill, on May 29 BP moved on to their next contingency option, the Lower Marine Riser Package (LMRP) Cap Containment System. The operational plan first involved cutting and then removing the damaged riser from the top of the failed blowout preventer to leave a cleanly-cut pipe at the top of the BOP's LMRP. The cap is designed to be connected to a riser from theDiscoverer Enterprise drillship and placed over the LMRP with the intention of capturing most of the oil and gas flowing from the well. During the cutting of the pipe, the diamond blade saw became stuck and was later freed, but BP had to use shears instead and the cut is "ragged",[130][131][132][133] meaning the cap would be harder to fit.[84] The cap was finally attached on June 3.[134] By June 7, Adm. Thad Allen estimated that the amount of oil captured had increased to 620,000 US gallons (15,000 bbl) per day.[135] BP's CEO Tony Hayward stated his opinion that the amount captured was "probably the vast majority of the oil."[136] However, the live stream of the oil escaping from the capped pipe did not appear to be substantially reduced and Ira Leifer, a member of the government team that estimated the flow rate, claimed that the well pipe was clearly gushing more oil than before the cutting of the pipe to put the cap in place.[137]

On June 16 oil and gas started to flow through a second containment system connected directly to the blow out preventer that carried oil and gas through a a subsea manifold to the Q4000 service platform operated by Helix Energy Solutions Group. Q4000 has a processing capacity for about 5,000 barrels (210,000 US gallons; 790 cubic metres) of oil per day. Oil and gas is burnt on the board of Q4000 by using a specialized clean-burning system.[138]

As the processing capacity of Discoverer Enterprise (18,000 barrels (760,000 US gallons; 2,900 cubic metres) of oil per day) is not sufficient if the amount of oil collected continues to increase, BP plans for processing also to bring the Transocean drillship Discoverer Clear Leader.[139][140] BP also announced that the company would bring in a floating production, storage and offloading (FPSO) vessel Helix Producer 1 that could then be offloaded with tankers Evi Knutsen, operated by Knutsen O.A.S. Shipping AS, and Juanita, operated byUgland Marine Services, both having storage capacity of 750,000 barrels (32,000,000 US gallons; 119,000 cubic metres).[138] In addition, BP plans to bring the FPSO Seillean, operated by Frontier Drilling, and Sealion Shipping owned well testing vessel Toisa Pisces, that would then be offloaded with a shuttle tanker Loch Rannoch which normally services theSchiehallion oilfield.[138]

BP has a call center with 120 employees listening to suggestions. As of June 19, 70,000 have called and 10,000 emailed.[141]

[edit]Long-term efforts

BP is drilling relief wells into the original well to enable them to block it. Once the relief wells reach the original borehole, the operator will pump drilling fluid into the original well to stop the flow of oil. Transocean's Development Driller III started drilling a first relief well on May 2 and was at 13,978 feet (4,260 m) out of 18,000 feet (5,500 m) as of June 14. GSF Development Driller II also started drilling a second relief on May 16 and was halted at 8,576 feet (2,614 m) out of 18,000 feet (5,500 m) as of June 14 while BP engineers verified the operational status of the second relief well's blowout preventer.[142][143][144][145][146][147] This operation will take two to three months to stop the flow of oil (BP also confirmed in late May that they did not expect the relief well to operate before August 2010)[148] and will cost about $100 million per well.[149][150]

[edit]Containment and cleanupUnited States Environmental Services' workers prepare oil containment booms for deployment.

BP, which was leading the cleanup, initially employed remotely operated underwater vehicles, 700 workers, four airplanes and 32 vessels to contain the oil.[44] After the discovery that the undersea wellhead was leaking, the oil cleanup was hampered by high waves on April 24 and 25.[76] According to Hayward, BP will compensate all those affected by the oil spill saying that "We are taking full responsibility for the spill and we will clean it up and where people can present legitimate claims for damages we will honor them. We are going to be very, very aggressive in all of that."[151] On May 6 BP launched a section on their corporate web site devoted to the daily response efforts.[152]

On April 28 the US military announced it was joining the cleanup operation.[48] Doug Suttles, chief operating officer of BP, welcomed the assistance of the US military.[48] The same day, the US Coast Guard announced plans to corral and burn off up to 1,000 barrels (42,000 US gallons; 160 cubic metres) of oil on the surface each day. It tested how much environmental damage a small, controlled burn of 100 barrels (4,200 US gallons; 16 cubic metres) did to surrounding wetlands, but could not proceed with an open seas burn due to poor conditions.[153][154]By April 29 69 vessels including skimmers, tugs, barges and recovery vessels were active in cleanup activities. On April 30 President Barack Obama announced that he had dispatched the Secretaries of the Department of Interior and Homeland Security, as well as the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and NOAA to the Gulf Coast to assess the disaster.[155]

Clouds of smoke billow up from controlled burns taking place in the Gulf of Mexico.

In an attempt to minimize impact to sensitive areas in the Mississippi River Delta area more than 100,000 feet (30 km) of containment boomswere deployed along the coast.[150] By the next day, this nearly doubled to 180,000 feet (55 km) of deployed booms, with an additional 300,000 feet (91 km) staged or being deployed.[153][156] On May 2 high winds and rough waves rendered oil-catching booms largely ineffective.[157]

As of April 30, approximately 2,000 people and 79 vessels were involved in the response and BP claimed that more than 6,300,000 US gallons (150,000 barrels; 23,800 cubic metres) of oil-water mix had been recovered.[77] On May 4 the US Coast Guard estimated that 170 vessels, and nearly 7,500 personnel were involved in the cleanup efforts, with an additional 2,000 volunteers assisting.[158] On May 26 all of the commercial fishing boats helping in the clean up and recovery process were ordered ashore. A total of 125 commercial vessels which had been outfitted with equipment for oil recovery operations were recalled after some workers began experiencing health problems.[159]

The type of oil involved is also a major problem. While most of the oil drilled off Louisiana is a lighter crude, because the blown well is deep under the ocean, the gushing oil is a heavier blend which contains asphalt-like substances. According to Ed Overton, who heads a federal chemical hazard assessment team for oil spills, this type of oil emulsifies well, making a "major sticky mess". Once it becomes that kind of mix, it no longer evaporates as quickly as regular oil, does not rinse off as easily, cannot be eaten by microbes as easily, and does not burn as well. "That type of mixture essentially removes all the best oil clean-up weapons", Overton and others said.[160]

On May 21 Plaquemines Parish president Billy Nungesser publicly complained about the federal government's hindrance of local mitigation efforts. State and local officials had proposed building sand berms off the coast to catch the oil before it reached the wetlands, but the emergency permit request had not been answered for over two weeks. The following day Nungesser complained that the plan had been vetoed, while Army Corps of Engineers officials claimed that the request was still under review.[161] Gulf Coast Government officials have released water via the Mississippi River diversions in effort to create an outflow of water that would keep the oil off the coast. The water from these diversions comes from the entireMississippi watershed. Even with this approach, NOAA is predicting a "massive" landfall to the west of the Mississippi River at Port Fourchon.[162]

On May 23 Louisiana Attorney General Buddy Caldwell wrote a letter to Lieutenant General Robert L. Van Antwerp of the US Army Corps of Engineers,[163] stating that Louisiana has the right to dredge sand to build barrier islands to keep the oil spill from its wetlands without the Corps' approval, as the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prevents the federal government from denying a state the right to act in an emergency.[164][165] He also wrote that if the Corps "persists in its illegal and ill-advised efforts" to prevent the state from building the barriers that he would advise Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal to proceed with the plans and challenge the Corps in court.[166]

On June 3 BP said barrier projects ordered by Adm. Thad Allen would cost $360 million.[84]

On June 4 Ecosphere Technologies, a diversified water engineering and environmental services company, deployed a non-chemical water treatment system to assist in the remediation efforts.[167]

On June 16 Great Lakes Dredge and Dock Company under the Shaw Environmental and Infrastructure Group began constructing sand berms off the Louisiana coast to limit the amount of approaching oil in the Gulf of Mexico.[168]

[edit]Dispersants

On May 1 two United States Department of Defense C-130 Hercules aircraft were employed to spray oil dispersant.[169] Corexit EC9500A and Corexit EC9527A are the main oil dispersants being used.[170] These contain propylene glycol, 2-butoxyethanol and dioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate.[171][172] On May 7 Secretary Alan Levine of the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals, Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality Secretary Peggy Hatch, and Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Secretary Robert Barham sent a letter to BP outlining their concerns related to potential dispersant impact on Louisiana's wildlife and fisheries, environment, aquatic life, and public health. Officials are also requesting BP release information on the effects of the dispersants they are using to combat the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.[173]

A C-130 Hercules drops an oil-dispersing chemical into the Gulf of Mexico.

The Environmental Protection Agency approved the injection of dispersants directly at the leak site, to break up the oil before it reaches the surface, after three underwater tests.[174] Corexit EC9500A and EC9527A are neither the least toxic, nor the most effective, among the dispersants approved by the Environmental Protection Agency,[175] and they are banned from use on oil spills in the United Kingdom.[176]Twelve other products received better toxicity and effectiveness ratings,[177] but BP says it chose to use Corexit because it was available the week of the rig explosion.[175] Critics contend that the major oil companies stockpile Corexit because of their close business relationship with its manufacturer Nalco.[175][178] By May 20, BP had applied 600,000 US gallons (2,300,000 l) of Corexit on the surface and 55,000 US gallons (210,000 l) underwater.[179]

Independent scientists have suggested that the underwater injection of Corexit into the leak might be responsible for the plumes of oil discovered below the surface.[177] However, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration administrator Jane Lubchenco said that there was no information supporting this conclusion, and indicated further testing would be needed to ascertain the cause of the undersea oil clouds.[177]

On May 19 the Environmental Protection Agency gave BP 24 hours to choose less toxic alternatives to Corexit. The alternative(s) had to be selected from the list of Environmental Protection Agency-approved dispersants on the National Contingency Plan Product Schedule with application beginning within 72 hours of Environmental Protection Agency approval of their choices, or provide a "detailed description of the alternative dispersants investigated, and the reason they believe those products did not meet the required standards."[180][181] On May 20 US Polychemical Corporation reportedly received an order from BP for Dispersit SPC 1000, a dispersant it manufactures. US Polychemical stated it was able to produce 20,000 US gallons (76,000 l) a day in the first few days and increasing up to 60,000 US gallons (230,000 L) a day thereafter.[182] BP spokesman Scott Dean said May 20 that BP had responded to the Environmental Protection Agency directive with a letter "that outlines our findings that none of the alternative products on the Environmental Protection Agency 's National Contingency Plan Product Schedule list meets all three criteria specified in yesterday's directive for availability, toxicity and effectiveness."[183] BP has so far refused to offer an acceptable "detailed description of the alternatives investigated and the reason they believe those products did not meet the required standards" on a public Web site, as called for in a letter sent on May 20 by Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa P. Jackson to BP CEO Tony Hayward, claiming such full disclosure would compromise its confidential business information.[184][185] In a press conference on May 24, EPA administrator Lisa P. Jackson said the 700,000 US gallons (2,600,000 l) of dispersants already used was "approaching a world record" and that “dissatisfied with BP’s response” she was ordering the EPA to conduct their own evaluation of alternatives to Corexit, while ordering BP to take “immediate steps to scale back the use of dispersants.”[186][187][188]

The EPA released further data on the chemical composition of Corexit, including 2-butoxyethanol, identified as a causal agent in the health problems experienced by cleanup workers after the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill.[189] Nalco has added a webpage to their site titled, Nalco Releases Additional Technical Information About COREXIT. They claim that COREXIT 9500 "is a simple blend of six well-established, safe ingredients that biodegrade, do not bioaccumulate and are commonly found in popular household products". They state, "The COREXIT products do not contain carcinogens or reproductive toxins. All the ingredients have been extensively studied for many years and have been determined safe and effective by the EPA".[190]

[edit]Additional technologies for cleanup

BP has ordered 32 machines from Ocean Therapy Solutions following owner Kevin Costner's testimony before the United States Congress. The machines separate oil and water, and each machine can extract up to 2,000 barrels of oil per day from the Gulf.[191][192] BP spokesman Bill Salvin confirmed the company has contracted with Costner and Ocean Therapy Solutions to use the machines.[191]

BP agreed to use the technology after testing machines during the past week.[193] "We are very pleased with the results and today we have placed a significant order with OTS (Costner's Ocean Therapy Solutions) and will be working with them to rapidly manufacture and deploy 32 of their machines," said Doug Suttles, BP's chief operating officer.[194]

[edit]ConsequencesSee also: Global industry and economic impact of the Deepwater Horizon disaster[edit]Ecology This section may contain previously unpublished synthesis of published material that conveys ideas not attributable to the original sources. See the talk page for details. (June 2010) Heavily oiled Brown Pelicans wait to be cleaned of Gulf spill crude.

In their environmental analysis of the proposed well BP stated that in the unlikely event of an accidental spill "water quality would be temporarily affected by the decomposed components and small droplets", but that "currents and microbial degradation would remove the oil from the water column or dilute the constituents to the background level". They saw "no adverse activities to fisheries" and no danger to endangered or threatened marine mammals and no adverse impact to birds.[47]

The spill threatens environmental disaster due to factors such as petroleum toxicity and oxygen depletion.[195] More than 400 species live in the islands and marshlands at risk, including the endangered Kemp's Ridley turtle. In the national refuges most at risk, about 34,000 birds have been counted, including gulls, pelicans, roseate spoonbills, egrets, terns, and blue herons.[77] A comprehensive inventory of offshore species in the Gulf of Mexico completed in 2009 counted 15,700 species of sea life, with those in the area of the oil spill numbering 8,332 plant and animal species, including more than 1,200 fish, 200 bird, 1,400 mollusk, 1,500 crustacean, 4 sea turtle, and 29 marine mammal species[196][197] As of June 15, there had been 1152 dead animals found in the spill zone including 770 dead birds, 341 sea turtles, and 41 dolphins and other mammals, with some reports of dolphins being spotted running low on food, and 'acting drunk' apparently from effects of the spill[198]. There may be other dead animals that go unfound. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, it has not yet been determined if these animals were killed by the oil.[199]Samantha Joye of the University of Georgia indicated that the oil could harm fish directly, and microbes used to consume the oil would also add to the reduction of oxygen in the water, with effects being felt higher up the food chain.[119] According to Joye, it could take the ecosystem years and possibly decades to recover from such an infusion of oil and gas.[200]Oceanographer Ian MacDonald believes the natural gas dissolving below the surface has the potential to reduce the Gulf oxygen levels and carry forth huge amounts of benzene and other toxic compounds.[72] On May 18 BP CEO Tony Hayward insisted the environmental impact of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico would be "very, very modest".[201] Harry Roberts, a professor of Coastal Studies at Louisiana State University has told Bloomberg in early June 2001 that a hypothetical total of 4 million barrels of oil released would be enough to "wipe out marine life deep at sea near the leak and elsewhere in the Gulf" as well as "along hundreds of miles of coastline," while Mak Saito, an Associate Scientist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts indicated that such an amount of oil "may alter the chemistry of the sea, with unforeseeable results."[202]

It is possible the Gulf Stream sea currents may spread the oil into the Atlantic Ocean.[203] If oil follows the Loop Current to the East Coast of the United States, it could impact wildlife even without the oil reaching the beaches. Duke University marine biologist Larry Crowder said threatened loggerhead turtles on Carolina beaches could swim out into contaminated waters. Sea birds, mammals, and dolphins could also be affected. Ninety percent of North Carolina's commercially valuable sea life spawn off the coast and could be contaminated if oil reaches the area. Douglas Rader, a scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund, said prey could be negatively affected as well. Steve Ross of UNC-Wilmington said coral reefs off the East Coast could be smothered by too much oil.[204] Eight U.S. national parks are threatened by the spill,[205] with oil washing up on the beaches of Gulf Islands National Seashorebeginning on June 1.[206] Damage to the ocean floor is as yet unknown, and marine life between the ocean floor and the surface could be affected.[97] Adm Thad Allen, coordinator of the clean-up operation, has said it would take "a couple of months" to clear the oil slick from the surface of the Gulf, but "long-term issues of restoring environments and habitats will be years".[207] Many other oil spills, including spills in environments similar to the US Gulf coast, continue to cause great environmental damage for years, or even decades.[208]

[edit]Fisheries and tourismAs of June 2, 2010, the area closed to fishing encompassed 88,522 square miles (229,270 km2), or about 37% of Gulf of Mexico federal waters.

In BP's Initial Exploration Plan, dated March 10, 2009, they said that "it is unlikely that an accidental spill would occur" and "no adverse activities are anticipated" to fisheries or fish habitat.[47] On April 29, 2010, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal declared a state of emergency in the state after weather forecasts predicted the oil slick would reach the Louisiana coast.[209] An emergency shrimping season was opened on April 29 so that a catch could be brought in before the oil advanced too far.[210] By April 30 the Coast Guard received reports that oil had begun washing up to wildlife refuges and seafood grounds on the Louisiana Gulf Coast.[211] On May 22 The Louisiana Seafood Promotion and Marketing Board stated said 60 to 70 percent of oyster and blue crab harvesting areas and 70 to 80 percent of fin-fisheries remained open.[212]The Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals closed an additional ten oyster beds on May 23, just south of Lafayette, Louisiana, citing confirmed reports of oil along the state's western coast.[213]

On May 2 the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration closed commercial and recreational fishing in affected federal waters between the mouth of the Mississippi River and Pensacola Bay. The closure initially incorporated 6,814 square miles (17,650 km2).[214][215] By June 2 the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration had increased the area under closure thirteen times in a month, finally encompassing 88,522 square miles (229,270 km2).[216][217] On May 24 the federal government declared a fisheries disaster for the states of Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana.[218] Initial cost estimates to the fishing industry were $2.5 billion.[211]

Although many people cancelled their vacations at first, hotels close to the coasts of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama reported dramatic increases in business from 2009 during the first half of May 2010. On May 25 BP gave Florida $25 million to promote its beaches, which the oil had not reached, and the company planned $15 million each for Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi. The Bay Area Tourist Development Council bought digital billboards showing recent photos from the beaches as far north as Nashville, Tennessee and Atlanta. Along with these and other assurances that the beaches are so far unaffected, hotels have cut rates and offered deals such as free golf. Also, cancellation policies have changed, and refunds have been promised to those where oil arrives. However, 2009 was a slow year, and those working to deal with the spill have rented rooms in the area. Revenues remain below 2009 levels due to the special deals.[219] By June many people were cancelling vacations while they could do so, fearing the arrival of oil on the beaches.[94] University of Central Florida economist Abraham Pizam said the oil slick may become "the worst disaster in the history of Florida tourism."[220] Initial cost estimates were that the impact on tourism along Florida's Paradise Coast could be $3 billion.[211]

[edit]Other economic consequences

On June 14 BP reported that its own expenditures on the oil spill had reached $1.6 billion, which includes the costs of the spill response, containment, relief well drilling, grants to U.S. Gulf states, claims paid and federal costs.[221] The United States Oil Pollution Act of 1990 limits BP's liability for non-cleanup costs to $75 million unless gross negligence is proven.[222]BP has said it would pay for all cleanup and remediation regardless of the statutory liability cap. Nevertheless, some Democratic lawmakers are seeking to pass legislation that would increase the liability limit to $10 billion.[223] Analysts for Swiss Re have estimated that the total insured losses from the accident could reach $3.5 billion. According to UBS, final losses could be $12 billion.[224] According to Willis Group Holdings, total losses could amount to $30 billion, of which estimated total claims to the market from the disaster, including control of well, re-drilling, third-party liability and seepage and pollution costs, could exceed $1.2 billion.[225] As of June BP's stock had lost more than 40% of its value compared to the period before the accident, equivalent to $80 billion in market capitalization.[226] BP is reportedly vulnerable to a corporate takeover as a result of the fall of its stock value and potential for continuing decline.[226]

Local officials in Louisiana have expressed concern that the offshore drilling moratorium imposed in response to the spill will further harm the economies of coastal communities.[227]The oil industry employs about 58,000 Louisiana residents and has created another 260,000 oil-related jobs, accounting for about 17 percent of all Louisiana jobs.[227]

BP has announced that it is setting up a new unit to oversee management of the oil spill and its aftermath, which will be headed by former TNK-BP chief executive Robert Dudley.[139]

[edit]LitigationMain article: Deepwater Horizon litigation

By May 26 over 130 lawsuits relating to the spill had been filed[224] against one or more of BP, Transocean, Cameron International, and Halliburton Energy Services,[228] although it is considered likely by observers that these will be combined into one court as a multidistrict litigation.[228] By June 17 over 220 lawsuits were filed against BP alone.[229] Because the spill has been largely lingering offshore, the plaintiffs who can claim damages so far are mostly out-of-work fishermen and tourist resorts that are receiving cancellations.[230] The oil company says 23,000 individual claims have already been filed, of which 9,000 have so far been settled.[224] BP and Transocean want the cases to be heard in Houston, seen as friendly to the oil business. Plaintiffs have variously requested the case be heard in Louisiana, Mississippi or Florida.[230] Five New Orleans judges have recused themselves from hearing oil spill cases because of stock ownership in companies involved or other conflicts of interest.[231] BP has retained law firm Kirkland & Ellis to defend most of the lawsuits arising from the oil spill.[232]

[edit]Health consequences

As of May 29, ten oil spill clean-up workers had been admitted to West Jefferson Medical Center in Marrero, Louisiana. All but two had been hospitalized suffering from symptoms emergency room doctors thought were caused by dehydration. At a press briefing about the May 26th medical evacuation of seven crewmembers from Vessels of Opportunity working in the Breton Sound area, Coast Guard Captain Meredith Austin, Unified Command Deputy Incident Commander in Houma, LA, said that air monitoring done in advance of beginning work showed no volatile organic compounds above limits of concern. No respiratory protection was issued, said Austin “because air ratings were taken and there were no values found to be at an unsafe level, prior to us sending them in there.”[233] Crude oil contains a mixture of volatile hydrocarbon compounds, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons that typically include benzene, toluene, and xylene, which are known carcinogens. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) have caused tumors in laboratory animals when they breathed these substances. Symptoms of exposure to these petroleum compounds include dizziness, headaches, nausea, and rapid heart beat. Kerosene (a component of the dispersants being used in the Gulf) exposure causes similar symptoms.[234]

On June 15 Marylee Orr, Executive Director for Louisiana Environmental Action Network (LEAN),[235] said on MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann that people along the Gulf Coast are getting very sick, with symptoms of dizziness, vomiting, nausea, headaches, and chest pains, not only from the first responders to the crisis, but residents living along the coast as well. LEAN has been distributing protective gear to the first responders, however LEAN's director reported that BP has threatened to fire their workers if they use them.[236] By June 13, 109 oil spill exposure-related cases had been reported to the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals (DHH)[237] since the crisis began. Seventy-four of those cases involved workers in the oil spill clean-up efforts, while thirty-five were reported by the general public.[238]

[edit]U.S. and Canadian offshore drilling policyMain article: United States offshore drilling debate

Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar stated that the disaster would have huge ramifications for energy development in the oceans all around the world.[154] Salazar ordered immediate inspections of all deep-water operations in the Gulf of Mexico. An Outer Continental Shelf safety review board within the Department of the Interior will provide recommendations for conducting drilling activities in the Gulf.[149]

On April 28 the National Energy Board of Canada, which regulates offshore drilling in the Canadian Arctic and along the British Columbia Coast, issued a letter to oil companies asking them to explain their argument against safety rules which require same-season relief wells.[239] Five days later, the Canadian Minister of the Environment Jim Prentice said the government would not approve a decision to relax safety or environment regulations for large energy projects.[240] On May 3 Governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger withdrew his support for a proposed plan to allow expanded offshore drilling projects in California.[241][242]

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), offshore drilling, just in the Gulf of Mexico, accounts for 23.5% of U.S. oil production.[243] The chief argument in the U.S. offshore drilling debate has been to make the United States less dependent on imported oil.[244][245] American dependence on imports grew from 24% in 1970[246] to 66% in 2008.[247]

[edit]Spill response fund

On June 16, after meeting with President Obama, BP executives agreed to create a $20 billion spill response fund.[138][248][249] BP has said it will pay $3 billion in third quarter of 2010 and $2 billion in fourth quarter into the fund followed by a payment of $1.25 billion per quarter until it reaches $20 billion. In the interim, BP posts its US assets worth $20 billion as bond. The amount of this fund is not a cap on BP's liabilities. For the fund's payments, BP will cut its capital spending budget, sell $10 billion in assets, and drop its dividend.[138][250] The fund will be administered by Kenneth Feinberg.[138][248][249] According to BP's officials the fund can be used for natural resource damages, state and local response costs and individual compensation but cannot be used for fines or penalties.[138] In addition, BP has agreed to allocate $100 million for payments to offshore oil workers who are unemployed due to the six-month moratorium on drilling in the deep-water Gulf of Mexico.[138]

[edit]Reactions[edit]U.S. governmentObama speaking in the Oval Office about the spill.

On April 30 President Barack Obama issued an order for the federal government to hold issuing new offshore drilling leases until a thorough review determines whether more safety systems are needed[251] and authorized SWAT teams to investigate 29 oil rigs in the Gulf in an effort to determine the cause of the disaster.[252] On May 11 Department of the Interior released a press release, announcing that the inspection of deepwater drilling rigs in the Gulf of Mexico found no major violations.[253] On June 9 the FAA issued a no-fly zone over the Gulf of Mexico oil spill and the affected area, effective until further notice.[254] According to the New York Times, the Department of Homeland Security is denying media access to the area.[255]

The Obama administration sent a $69 million bill to BP for the U.S. government's clean up effort. The bill was also sent to Transocean, Andarko, Moex Offshore and QBE Underwriting.[256] On June 15 President Obama made his first speech from the Oval Office, addressing the BP oil spill crisis, saying, "This oil spill is the worst environmental disaster America has ever faced... Make no mistake: we will fight this spill with everything we've got for as long as it takes. We will make BP pay for the damage their company has caused. And we will do whatever's necessary to help the Gulf Coast and its people recover from this tragedy."[257]

[edit]International governments

As of May 6, the United Nations and fourteen countries offered their assistance, but the U.S. government refused the offer, with a State Department email to reporters stating "there is no need right now that the U.S. cannot meet." The countries offering help were Canada, Croatia, France, Germany, Iran, Ireland, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Romania, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.[258][259] On June 14 it was reported that State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said the U.S. has received 21 aid offers from 17 countries and four international groups. "We are maintaining contact with these countries, we are grateful for the offers, and we will take them up on these offers."[260] That same day the U.K. Secretary of State for the Department of Energy and Climate Change, Chris Huhne, made a formal statement to the House of Commons in London about the implications of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill for the U.K. In it he expressed the U.K. Government’s sympathy to those affected by this crisis. He further said that the priority must be to address the environmental consequences of the spill, and that the U.K. Government will remain focused on practical measures that can help to achieve this, including offering the U.S. dispersant chemicals.[261]

[edit]BP public relations

Initially BP downplayed the incident; CEO Tony Hayward called the amount of oil and dispersant "relatively tiny" in comparison with the "very big ocean."[262] Hayward also initially stated that the environmental impact of the Gulf spill would likely be "very very modest."[263] Later, he said that the spill was a disruption to Gulf Coast residents and himself adding, “You know, I’d like my life back.” He later apologized for his statements.[264] BP’s chief operating officer Doug Suttles contradicted the underwater plume discussion noting, "It may be down to how you define what a plume is here… The oil that has been found is in very minute quantities." [265] On June 16 BP Chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg, speaking to reporters after meeting with President Obama at the White House said, "I hear comments sometimes that large oil companies are greedy companies who don't care. But that is not the case in BP. We care about the small people."[266]

Google search result for "oil spill" showing sponsored link by BP, followed by link to news for oil spill

On May 30 BP hired Anne Kolton, former head of public affairs at the U.S. Department of Energy and former spokesperson for Dick Cheney, as head of U.S. media relations.[267][268] BP established a new division, headed by board member and managing director Bob Dudley to handle the company's response.[269] On June 4 BP began running TV ads featuring CEO Tony Hayward as he apologized for the disaster, adding "We will make this right."[270] The company also ran print ads in newspapers including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal,USA Today and The Washington Post.[270] According to Jon Bond, co-founder of the Kirshenbaum Bond Senecal agency, the cost for the BP public relations campaign was about $50 million.[270] BP spokesperson Toby Odone told ABC News that BP had successfully bid for several search terms related to the oil spill on Google and other search engines so that the first sponsored search result links directly to the company's website. This is "a great PR strategy" commented Kevin Ryan, CEO of an internet communications firm, and one not used before by other firms facing similar public relations "nightmares," adding that research suggests most people cannot distinguish between sponsored links and actual news sites.[271][272]

[edit]Public reactionPublic protest in New Orleans following the oil spill.

There has been a great deal of criticism of BP both in the US and worldwide for its role in the oil spill. By June 5, a Facebook page called "Boycott BP" had obtained 384,000 fans and generated media stories[273][274] and by June 14 "Boycott BP" had nearly doubled its fan base to more than 610,000 members. The Public Citizen consumer advocacy group has had more than 15,500 people sign an online petition pledging not to buy any BP products for three months.[275] Across the US, thousands of people participated in dozens of protests at BP gas stations and other locations.[276][277][278] Alternative metal band Korn is boycotting the use of BP fuel in their tour bus for all upcoming tour dates, and also encouraged the other bands to do the same.[279][280] Korn eventually got the entire 2010 Mayhem Festival to join the boycott, and several other recording artists including Lady Gaga, Creed, Disturbed and Rise Against among others.[281] While BP does not own any gas stations in the US, it does sell gasoline to BP, ARCO and other gas stations in the US and internationally.[282] In late May, Greenpeace activists in London scaled BP's company headquarters in St. James's Square and unfurled mock BP logo banners imprinted with oil stains reading "british polluters".[283]

[edit]Public opinion

Regarding the handling of the situation, according to a USA Today-Gallup poll conducted in late May, 53 percent of Americans rated President Obama's performance as poor or very poor, while 43 percent rated it as good or very good.[284] Approximately 60 percent said the federal government had done a poor or very poor job, while 35 percent rated the government's performance as good or very good.[284] A CBS News poll also conducted in late May likewise found a negative evaluation of Obama, with 45 percent disapproving of his performance, 35 percent approving, and 20 percent undecided.[284] 73 percent in the Gallup poll describing BP's response as poor or very poor, while 24 percent said it had been good or very good.[284] In the CBS survey, 70 percent disapproved of BP's response, with only 18 percent approving and 12 percent undecided.[284] An opinion poll conducted by Washington Post-ABC News in early June found that nearly three-fourths of Americans considered the spill a major environmental disaster.[285] Of those polled, 81 percent viewed the BP response negatively and 69 percent viewed the federal government response negatively.[285] Sixty-four percent of those polled expressed support for criminal prosecution of BP.[285]

[edit]Charity

More than $4 million has been donated to offset economic and environmental damage. Almost half of that amount has been from oil companies. BP America made a $1 million donation to Second Harvest Food as requests for food assistance have increased as a result of the spill.[286]

[edit]Investigations

On April 22 the United States Coast Guard and the Minerals Management Service launched an investigation of the possible causes of the explosion.[27] On May 11 the Obama administration requested the National Academy of Engineering conduct an independent technical investigation to determine the root causes of the disaster so that corrective steps could be taken to address the mechanical failures underlying the accident.[287] The United States House Committee on Energy and Commerce asked Halliburton to brief it as well as provide any documents it might have related to its work on the Macondo well.[149]

Attention has focused on the cementing procedure and the blowout preventer, which failed to fully engage.[288] A number of significant problems have been identified with the blowout preventer: There was a leak in the hydraulic system that provides power to the shear rams. The underwater control panel had been disconnected from the bore ram, and instead connected to a test hydraulic ram. The blowout preventer schematic drawings, provided by Transocean to BP, do not correspond to the structure that is on the ocean bottom. The shear rams are not designed to function on the joints where the drill pipes are screwed together or on tools that are passed through the blowout preventer during well construction. The explosion may have severed the communication line between the rig and the sub-surface blowout preventer control unit such that the blowout preventer would have never received the instruction to engage. Before the backup dead man's switch could engage, communications, power and hydraulic lines must all be severed, but it is possible hydraulic lines were intact after the explosion. Of the two control pods for the deadman switch, the one that has been inspected so far had a dead battery.[289]

Just hours before the explosion, a BP representative overruled Transocean employees and insisted on displacing protective drilling mud with seawater.[290] One of the BP representatives on the board responsible for making the final decision, Robert Kaluza, refused to testify on the Fifth Amendment grounds that he might incriminate himself; Donald Vidrine, another BP representative, cited medical reasons for his inability to testify, as did James Mansfield, Transocean's assistant marine engineer on board.[291][292][293]

On May 22 President Obama announced that he had issued Executive Order 13543 establishing the bipartisan National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling, with former Florida Governor and Senator Bob Graham and former Environmental Protection Agency Administrator William K. Reilly serving as co-chairs. The purpose of the commission is to "consider the root causes of the disaster and offer options on safety and environmental precautions."[294][295]

On June 1 U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that he has opened a criminal investigation of the BP oil spill. "There are a wide range of possible violations, and we will closely examine the actions of those involved in this spill," Holder said.[296]

The House Energy and Commerce Committee is investigating the incident. In a statement made in June they noted that in a number of cases leading up to the explosion, BP appears to have chosen riskier procedures to save time or money, sometimes against the advice of its staff or contractors.[297]

Rolling Stone and Newsweek magazines have suggested that corner cutting by BP and lax oversight by the government may have led to the disaster.[298][299]

In a June 18 statement, Jim Hackett, the CEO of Anadarko Petroleum Corp., owner of one-fourth of the Deepwater Horizon well, said research "indicates BP operated unsafely and failed to monitor and react to several critical warning signs during the drilling. ... BP's behavior and actions likely represent gross negligence or willful misconduct."[45] BP responded strongly disagreeing with the Anadarko statement, and said that, despite being contractually liable for sharing clean-up costs, Anadarko is "refusing to accept responsibility for oil spill removal costs and damages".[300]

[edit]See also United States portal Environment portal

• Timeline of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill
• List of industrial disasters
• List of oil spills
• Largest oil spills
• Exxon Valdez oil spill (1989)
• Ixtoc I oil spill (1979)
• Piper Alpha (1988)
• Offshore oil and gas in the US Gulf of Mexico
• Oil Pollution Act of 1990
• Unified Command (Deepwater Horizon oil spill)

[edit]

Macondo ProspectFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Macondo field Country: United States Region: Gulf of Mexico Location: Mississippi Canyon Block(s): 252 Offshore/onshore: offshore Operator: BP Partners: BP (65%)
Anadarko (25%)
MOEX Offshore 2007 (10%) Field history Discovery: 2010 Production Estimated oil in place: 50 million barrels (~6.8×106 t)

The Macondo Prospect (Mississippi Canyon Block 252, abbreviated MC252) is an oil and gas prospect in the Gulf of Mexico, which was the site of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion in April 2010 that led to a major, ongoing oil spill in the region.

Contents [hide]

• 1 Name
• 2 Location
• 3 History
• 4 Deepwater Horizon explosion and blowout
• 5 See also
• 6 References
• 7 External links

[edit]Name

The name Macondo is the same name as the fictitious cursed town in the novel "One Hundred Years of Solitude" by Colombian nobel-prize winning writer Gabriel Garcia Marquez.[1] Oil companies routinely assign code names to offshore prospects early in the exploration effort. This practice helps ensure secrecy during the confidential pre-sale phase, and later provides convenient names for casual reference rather than the often similar-sounding official lease names denoted by, for example, the Minerals Management Service in the case of federal waters in the USA. Names in a given year or area might follow a theme such as beverages (e.g., Cognac), heavenly bodies (e.g., Mars), or even cartoon characters (e.g., Bullwinkle), but usually have no geological or geographical significance to the prospect itself.

[edit]Location

The prospect is located in Mississippi Canyon Block 252 of the Gulf of Mexico. Multinational oil company BP is the operator and principal developer of the oil field with 65% of interest, while 25% is owned by Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, and 10% by MOEX Offshore 2007, a unit of Mitsui.[2] The prospect may have held 50 million barrels (7.9×106 m3) producible reserves of oil.[3]

[edit]History

A regional shallow hazards survey and study was carried out at the Macondo area by KC Offshore in 1998. High resolution, 2D seismic data along with 3D exploration seismic data of the MC 252 was collected by Fugro Geoservices in 2003. BP purchased the mineral rights to drill for oil in the Macondo Pospect at the Minerals Management Service's lease sale in March 2008.[4]

Mapping of the block was carried out by BP America in 2008 and 2009.[5] BP secured approval to drill the Macondo Prospect from MMS in March 2009 without MMS requiring use of an acoustic blowout preventer actuation alternative. An exploration well was scheduled to be drilled in 2009.[2]

On 7 October 2009 the Transocean Marianas semi-submersible rig commenced drilling, but operations were halted at 4,023 feet (1,226 m) below the sea floor on 29 November 2009, when the rig was damaged by Hurricane Ida.[6] The Transocean's Deepwater Horizon rig resumed drilling operations in February 2010.[2]

[edit]Deepwater Horizon explosion and blowoutMain articles: Deepwater Horizon explosion and Deepwater Horizon oil spill

An explosion on the drilling rig Deepwater Horizon occurred on April 20, 2010. The Deepwater Horizon sank on April 22, 2010, in water approximately 5,000 feet (1,500 m) deep, and has been located resting on the seafloor approximately 1,300 feet (400 m) (about a quarter of a mile) northwest of the well.[7][8][9]

Following the rig explosion and subsea blowout, BP started a relief well using Transocean's Development Driller III on May 2, 2010. The relief well could potentially take up to three months to drill. BP started a second relief well using Transocean's GSF Development Driller II on 16-May-2010.[10]

Starting from May 17, some oil and gas is collected through the riser insertion tube tool inserted to the blowout well. The oil is being stored and gas is being flared on the board of drillship Discoverer Enterprise.[10]

[edit]See also

• List of oil spills
• Deepwater Horizon

[edit]References

1. ^ Gold, Russell (2010-05-27). "Unlikely Decisions Set Stage for BP Disaster". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2010-05-28.
2. ^ a b c "Offshore Field Development Projects: Macondo". Subsea.Org. Retrieved 2010-05-18.
3. ^ Klump, Edward (2010-05-13). "Spill May Hit Anadarko Hardest as BP's Silent Partner". Bloomberg. Retrieved 2010-05-19.
4. ^ "Central Gulf of Mexico Planning Area Lease Sale 206 Information". US Minerals Management Service. 2008-08-08. Retrieved 2010-06-06.
5. ^ "Macondo Prospect, Gulf of Mexico, USA". offshore-technology.com. Net Resources International. Retrieved 2010-05-18.
6. ^ "Documents show BP chose a less-expensive, less-reliable method for completing well in Gulf oil spill". Orlando Sentinel. Retrieved 2010-05-23.
7. ^ Robertson, Cambell; Robbins, Liz (2010-04-22). "Oil Rig Sinks in the Gulf of Mexico". The New York Times. Retrieved 2010-04-22.
8. ^ Resnick-Ault, Jessica; Klimasinska, Katarzyna (April 22, 2010). "Transocean Oil-Drilling Rig Sinks in Gulf of Mexico". Bloomberg. Retrieved April 22, 2010.
9. ^ "Deepwater Horizon Incident, Gulf of Mexico". National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Response and Restoration. 2010-04-24. Retrieved 2010-04-25.
10. ^ a b BP (2010-05-24). "Update on Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Response - 24 May". Press release. Retrieved 2010-05-24.

[edit]External links

• Griffitt, Michelle. "Initial Exploration Plan Mississippi Canyon Block 252 OCS-G 32306" (PDF). BP Exploration and Production (New Orleans, Louisiana: Minerals Management Service).

[hide] v • d • e Deepwater Horizon oil spill Owners Anadarko Petroleum Corporation · BP plc · Mitsui Oil Exploration Co. Exploration Macondo Prospect · Mississippi Canyon · Deepwater Horizon · Deepwater Horizon explosion Timeline Timeline of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill Relief ships/rigs Development Driller III · Discoverer Clear Leader · Discoverer Enterprise · GSF Development Driller II · Helix Producer 1 · Loch Rannoch · Mighty Servant 3 · Overseas Cascade · Q4000 ·Toisa Pisces Major contractors

Cameron International Corporation · Halliburton · Nalco Holding Company · Transocean · Wild Well Control

Impact

Wildlife Refuges at risk · Endangered species at risk

Long term impact

Litigation · Economic & Political

USCG people

Thad Allen · Mary Landry · James A. Watson

MMS people

S. Elizabeth Birnbaum · Michael R. Bromwich · Chris Oynes

Adhoc entities Flow Rate Technical Group · Unified Command · National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling Categories: Oil fields of the United States | Gulf of Mexico | BP | Deepwater Horizon oil spill

• New features
• Log in / create account

• Article
• Discussion

• Read
• Edit
• View history

  Search

• Main page
• Contents
• Featured content
• Current events
• Random article

Interaction

• About Wikipedia
• Community portal
• Recent changes
• Contact Wikipedia
• Donate to Wikipedia
• Help

ToolboxPrint/exportLanguages

• Deutsch

The Big Picture: Why Is It So Hard to Stop the Oil Gusher, and Why Was Such Extreme Deepwater Drilling Allowed in the First Place?

 

The government failed to properly ensure that BP used adequate safety measures, BP and their contractors were criminally negligent for the oil spill, and BP has tried to cover up the problem. See this.

But why hasn't BP stopped the leak?

Some people assume that BP hasn't stopped the oil leak because it's people are wholly incompetent.

Others have asked whether BP's $75 million liability cap is motivating it to stall by taking half-hearted measures until it's relief well drilling is complete.

But there is another possible explanation: the geology - as well the deepwater pressures - at the drilling site makes stopping the leak more difficult than we realize.

Does the Geology of the Spill Zone Make It Harder to Stop the Oil Spill?

We can't understand the big picture behind the Gulf oil spill unless we know the underwater geology of the seabed and the underlying rocks.

For example, if there is solid rock beneath the leaking pipes, with channels leading to various underground chambers, then it might be possible to seal the leaking risers and blowout preventer, with the oil flowing somewhere harmless under the floor of the ocean.

On the other hand, if there are hundreds of feet of sand or mud beneath the leaking pipes, then sealing the spill zone might not work, as the high-pressure oil flow (more than 2,000 pounds per square inch) might just shoot out into the water somewhere else.

We don't know the geology under the spill site. BP has never publicly released geological cross-sections of the seabed and underlying rock. BP's Initial Exploration Plan refers to "structure contour maps" and "geological cross sections", but all detailed geological information, maps and drawings have been designated "proprietary information" by BP, and have been kept under wraps.

However, Roger Anderson and Albert Boulanger of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory describe the basic geology of the oil-rich region of the Gulf:

 

Production in the deepwater province is centered in turbidite sands recently deposited from the Mississippi delta. Even more prolific rates have been recorded in the carbonates of Mexico, with the Golden Lane and Campeche reporting 100,000 barrel per day production from single wells. However, most of the deep and ultra-deepwater Gulf of Mexico is covered by the Sigsbee salt sheet that forms a large, near-surface “moonscape” culminating at the edge of the continental slope in an 800 meter high escarpment.

***

Salt is the dominant structural element of the ultra-deepwater Gulf of Mexico petroleum system. Large horizontal salt sheets, driven by the huge Plio-Pleistocene to Oligocene sediment dump of the Mississippi, Rio Grande and other Gulf Coast Rivers, dominate the slope to the Sigsbee escarpment. Salt movement is recorded by large, stepped, counter-regional growth faults and down-to-the-basin fault systems soling into evacuated salt surfaces. Horizontal velocities of salt movement to the south are in the several cm/year range, making this supposedly passive margin as tectonically active as most plate boundaries.

***

Porosities over 30 percent and permeabilities greater than one darcy in deepwater turbidite reservoirs have been commonly cited. Compaction and diagenesis of deepwater reservoir sands are minimal because of relatively recent and rapid sedimentation. Sands at almost 20,000 feet in the auger field (Garden Banks 426) still retain a porosity of 26% and a permeability of almost 350mdarcies. Pliocene and Pleistocene turbidite sands in the Green Canyon 205 field have reported porosities ranging from 28 to 32% with permeabilities between 400 mdarcies and 3 darcies. Connectivity in sheet sands and amalgamated sheet and channel sands is high for deepwater turbidite reservoirs and recovery efficiencies are in the 40-60% range.

 

See also this.

The BP oil spill leak is occurring in Block 252 of the "Macondo" Prospect in the Mississippi Canyon Area of the Gulf. The Mississippi Canyon Area is very typical of the Gulf oil region.

If the geology at Block 252 is like that described by Anderson and Boulanger for the Gulf oil region as a whole, then it might be difficult to stop the oil gusher without completing relief wells (which will take a couple of months). Again, if there are salt layers right under the sea floor, high porosity near the surface or salt movement, then sealing the leak by plugging the risers and blowout preventer might not work. The oil pressure is coming up at such high pressures that sealing the leaking equipment at the level of the seabed might just mean the oil will flow out somewhere else nearby.

The government must publicly release details of the geology under the spill site. The American people - and people in Mexico, Cuba and other countries which might be affected by the spill - have a right to know what we're dealing with.

Until it does so, people will not have be understand what is going on. And failing to release such information may prevent creative scientists from around the world from coming up with a workable solution.

Moreover, as the first draft of Anderson and Boulanger's paper - released in 2001 - noted:

 

No means currently exists to produce oil and gas to market from such water depths!

 

(exclamation point is Anderson and Boulanger's). In other words, the technology to drill in such deepwater conditions in the Gulf has only been developed after 2001.

While BP, its subcontractors, and the government were all negligent with regard to the Deepwater Horizon operation, it must be remembered that drilling at such depths is new technology, operating in largely uncharted conditions. As such, the dangers of deepwater drilling in general should not be underestimated. The geology of the oil-rich region in the Gulf - as well as the deep, high-pressure conditions - makes drilling difficult, and containing oil spills challenging.

Oil Is Considered A National Security Issue

So why are oil companies being allowed to drill so deeply under the Gulf in the first place? In other words, why has the government been so supportive of deepwater drilling in the Gulf?

The answer - as Anderson and Boulanger note - is that there is a tremendous amount of more oil deep under the Gulf, and that the United States government considers oil drilling in the deep waters of the Gulf as a national security priority:

The oil and gas industry and the United States government both face tremendous challenges to explore discover, appraise, develop, and exploit vast new hydrocarbon reserves in waters deeper than 6000 feet in the ultra-deepwater of the Gulf of Mexico. Yet these new reserves of hydrocarbons are needed to offset the economically detrimental, long-term decline in production from within the borders of the United States

***

If successfully developed, the new play concept would fill an essential gap in the overall strategic defenses of the United States by decreasing the gap that results in the nation's dependence on foreign oil and gas reserves in this volatile and hostile, post 9/11 world. However, the successful production of oil and gas from this new carbonate play concept requires much more cost-efficient evaluation and appraisal technologies than exist today to economically conduct exploration, appraisal, and development activities. These new technologies must be developed before production can be practical in the ultra-deepwater operating environment.... The Ultra-Deepwater and Unconventional Gas Trust Fund of the DOE has as its mission to cut costs and time-to-market not incrementally, but radically, so that the United States can optimally utilize these strategic hydrocarbon reserves. The DOE, with extensive industry,academic and non-governmental assistance, developed an Offshore Technology Roadmap ...,

***

The U. S. Energy Bill of 2002 has allocated significant resources to fund innovative industry, academic, and national laboratory research initiatives to develop the new technologies necessary to explore and produce these new ultra-deepwater reserves economically. The purpose is not only to impact the national defense, but also to regain our international technological leadership in the deepwater, recently lost to the Brazilians, Norwegians, and Europeans.

***

Congress, never a big friend to energy interests, has acted to create the Ultra-deepwater Trust Fund that would add an astounding $200 billion by 2017, if successful at developing the new production technologies required.

So the Department of Energy and Congress have committed to development of the deepwater Gulf oil reserves in the name of national security. This also helps explain why Obama has been pro-drilling in the Gulf.

But let's take a step back and ask why the government considers oil a national security priority in the first place.

Well, as professor of national security affairs at the Naval War College Mackubin T. Owenswrites:

 

The concern of these lawmakers [regarding the BP oil spill] is understandable, but lest they overreact, they need to place their valid concerns within the broader context of the nation’s economic health and energy security.

***

Americans currently consume about 22 million barrels of oil daily, of which about two-thirds is imported. The Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) expects imports to reach 70% by 2025. This means we send billions of dollars abroad in payment for foreign oil. This makes little sense when, according to the U.S. Minerals Management Service (MMS), there are vast reserves of oil and gas beneath Federal lands and coastal waters. And it is likely that even these estimates are low. For instance, in 1987, MMS estimated that there were 9 billion barrels of oil in the Gulf of Mexico. By 2007, once drilling had begun in deeper waters, MMS had revised its estimate upward to 45 billion.

In addition, the U.S. military is the largest consumer of oil in the world. And the government is eager to ensure that the military maintains access to oil.

As NPR reported in 2007:

 

All the U.S. tanks, planes and ships guzzle 340,000 barrels of oil a day, making the American military the single-largest purchaser and consumer of oil in the world.

If the Defense Department were a country, it would rank about 38th in the world for oil consumption, right behind the Philippines.

As Reuters pointed out in 2008:

U.S. military fuel consumption dwarfs energy demand in many countries around the world, adding up to nearly double the fuel use in Ireland and 20 times more than that of Iceland, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.

And as I summarized last year:

Sara Flounders writes:

By every measure, the Pentagon is the largest institutional user of petroleum products and energy in general. Yet the Pentagon has a blanket exemption in all international climate agreements.

***

The Feb. 17, 2007, Energy Bulletin detailed the oil consumption just for the Pentagon's aircraft, ships, ground vehicles and facilities that made it the single-largest oil consumer in the world.

***

Even according to rankings in the 2006 CIA World Factbook, only 35 countries (out of 210 in the world) consume more oil per day than the Pentagon.

***

As I pointed out out last week:

Professor Michael Klare noted in 2007:

Sixteen gallons of oil. That's how much the average American soldier in Iraq and Afghanistan consumes on a daily basis -- either directly, through the use of Humvees, tanks, trucks, and helicopters, or indirectly, by calling in air strikes. Multiply this figure by 162,000 soldiers in Iraq, 24,000 in Afghanistan, and 30,000 in the surrounding region (including sailors aboard U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf) and you arrive at approximately3.5 million gallons of oil: the daily petroleum tab for U.S. combat operations in the Middle East war zone.
And in 2008, Oil Change International released a report showing that [b]etween March 2003 and October 2007 the US military in Iraq purchased more than 4 billion gallons of fuel from the Defense Energy Support Center, the agency responsible for procuring and supplying petroleum products to the Department of Defense.
Indeed, Alan Greenspan, John McCain, George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, a high-level National Security Council officer and others all say that the Iraq war was really about oil.

Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz says that the Iraq war alone will cost $3-5 trillion dollars.

And economist Anita Dancs writes:

Each year, our military devotes substantial resources to securing access to and safeguarding the transportation of oil and other energy sources. I estimate that we will pay $90 billion this year to secure oil. If spending on the Iraq War is included, the total rises to $166 billion.

Are you starting to get the picture?

In addition, experts say that the Iraq war has increased the threat of terrorism. See this,this, this, this, this, this and this.

Personally, I strongly believe that it is vital for our national security - and our economy - to switch from dependence on oil to a basket of alternative energies. As I pointed out Friday:

It's not just the one BP oil rig. For example, since the Deepwater Horizon oil drilling rig exploded on April 20th, the Obama administration has granted oil and gas companies at least 27 exemptions from doing in-depth environmental studies of oil exploration and production in the Gulf of Mexico. Then there are the 12 new oil and gas drilling rigs launched in the U.S. this week.

And a whistleblower who survived the Gulf oil explosion claims in a lawsuit that BP's operations at another oil platform risk another catastrophic accident that could "dwarf" the Gulf oil spill, partly because BP never even reviewed critical engineering designs for the operation. And see this.

***

And the Department of Defense also apparently has some issues with extensive off-shore drilling for security reasons.

Many still believe that alternative energy is an expensive, unrealistic pipe dream.

But that is no longer necessarily true, especially when the externalities of environmental and military costs are taken into account.

But existing national policy is to do whatever is necessary - drilling deep under the Gulf and launching our military abroad - to secure oil. Until we change our national security and energy policies, future mishaps - environmental, military and economic - may frequently occur.

Climate Change & the 
Integrity of Science 
Lead Letter from 255 Members of the US
National Academy of Sciences, including 11 Nobel LaureatesScience Magazine, May 2010

We are deeply disturbed by the recent escalation of political assaults on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular. All citizens should understand some basic scientific facts. There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions; science never absolutely proves anything. When someone says that society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before taking any action, it is the same as saying society should never take action. For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet. 

Scientific conclusions derive from an understanding of basic laws supported by laboratory experiments, observations of nature, and mathematical and computer modeling. Like all human beings, scientists make mistakes, but the scientific process is designed to find and correct them. This process is inherently adversarial— scientists build reputations and gain recognition not only for supporting conventional wisdom, but even more so for demonstrating that the scientific consensus is wrong and that there is a better explanation. That's what Galileo, Pasteur, Darwin, and Einstein did. But when some conclusions have been thoroughly and deeply tested, questioned, and examined, they gain the status of "well-established theories" and are often spoken of as "facts." 

For instance, there is compelling scientific evidence that our planet is about 4.5bn years old (the theory of the origin of Earth), that our universe was born from a single event about 14bn years ago (the Big Bang theory), and that today's organisms evolved from ones living in the past (the theory of evolution). Even as these are overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, fame still awaits anyone who could show these theories to be wrong. Climate change now falls into this category: there is compelling, comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend. 

Many recent assaults on climate science and, more disturbingly, on climate scientists by climate change deniers, are typically driven by special interests or dogma, not by an honest effort to provide an alternative theory that credibly satisfies the evidence. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other scientific assessments of climate change, which involve thousands of scientists producing massive and comprehensive reports, have, quite expectedly and normally, made some mistakes. When errors are pointed out, they are corrected.

There is nothing remotely identified in the recent events that changes the fundamental conclusions about climate change: 

(i) The planet is warming due to increased concentrations of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere. A snowy winter in Washington does not alter this fact.

(ii) Most of the increase in the concentration of these gases over the last century is due to human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation. 

(iii) Natural causes always play a role in changing Earth's climate, but are now being overwhelmed by human-induced changes. 

(iv) Warming the planet will cause many other climatic patterns to change at speeds unprecedented in modern times, including increasing rates of sea-level rise and alterations in the hydrologic cycle. Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide are making the oceans more acidic. 

(v) The combination of these complex climate changes threatens coastal communities and cities, our food and water supplies, marine and freshwater ecosystems, forests, high mountain environments, and far more. 

Much more can be, and has been, said by the world's scientific societies, national academies, and individuals, but these conclusions should be enough to indicate why scientists are concerned about what future generations will face from business- as-usual practices. We urge our policymakers and the public to move forward immediately to address the causes of climate change, including the unrestrained burning of fossil fuels. 

We also call for an end to McCarthy-like threats of criminal prosecution against our colleagues based on innuendo and guilt by association, the harassment of scientists by politicians seeking distractions to avoid taking action, and the outright lies being spread about them. Society has two choices: we can ignore the science and hide our heads in the sand and hope we are lucky, or we can act in the public interest to reduce the threat of global climate change quickly and substantively. 

The good news is that smart and effective actions are possible. But delay must not be an option. The signatories are all members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences but are not speaking on its behalf or on behalf of their institutions: 

Adams, Robert McCormick, University of California, San Diego 
Amasino, Richard M, University of Wisconsin 
Anders, Edward, University of Chicago 
Anderson, David J, California Institute of Technology 
Anderson, Wyatt W, University of Georgia 
Anselin, Luc E, Arizona State University 
Arroyo, Mary Kalin, University of Chile 
Asfaw, Berhane, Rift Valley Research Service 
Ayala, Francisco J, University of California, Irvine 
Bax, Adriaan, National Institutes of Health 
Bebbington, Anthony J, University of Manchester 
Bell, Gordon, Microsoft Research 
Bennett, Michael V L, Albert Einstein College of Medicine 
Bennetzen, Jeffrey L, University of Georgia 
Berenbaum, May R, University of Illinois 
Berlin, Overton Brent, University of Georgia 
Bjorkman, Pamela J, California Institute of Technology 
Blackburn, Elizabeth, University of California, San Francisco 
Blamont, Jacques E, Centre National d' Etudes Spatiales 
Botchan, Michael R, University of California, Berkeley 
Boyer, John S, University of Delaware 
Boyle, Ed A, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 
Branton, Daniel, Harvard University 
Briggs, Steven P, University of California, San Diego 
Briggs, Winslow R, Carnegie Institution of Washington 
Brill, Winston J, Winston J. Brill and Associates 
Britten, Roy J, California Institute of Technology 
Broecker, Wallace S, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory and Columbia University 
Brown, James H, University of New Mexico 
Brown, Patrick O, Stanford University School of Medicine 
Brunger, Axel T, Stanford University 
Cairns, Jr John, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University 
Canfield, Donald E, University of Southern Denmark 
Carpenter, Stephen R, University of Wisconsin 
Carrington, James C, Oregon State University 
Cashmore, Anthony R, University of Pennsylvania 
Castilla, Juan Carlos, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile 
Cazenave, Anny, Centre National d' Etudes Spatiales 
Chapin, III F, Stuart, University of Alaska 
Ciechanover, Aaron J, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology 
Clapham, David E, Harvard Medical School 
Clark, William C, Harvard University 
Clayton, Robert N, University of Chicago 
Coe, Michael D, Yale University 
Conwell, Esther M, University of Rochester 
Cowling, Ellis B, North Carolina State University 
Cowling, Richard M, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University 
Cox, Charles S, University of California, San Diego 
Croteau, Rodney B, Washington State University 
Crothers, Donald M, Yale University 
Crutzen, Paul J, Max Planck Institute for Chemistry 
Daily, Gretchen C, Stanford University 
Dalrymple, Brent G, Oregon State University 
Dangl, Jeffrey L, University of North Carolina 
Darst, Seth A, Rockefeller University 
Davies, David R, National Institutes of Health 
Davis, Margaret B, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis 
De Camilli, Pietro V, Yale University School of Medicine 
Dean, Caroline, John Innes Centre 
DeFries, Ruth S, Columbia University 
Deisenhofer, Johann, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas 
Delmer, Deborah P, University of California, Davis 
DeLong, Edward F, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 
DeRosier, David J, Brandeis University 
Diener, Theodor O, University of Maryland 
Dirzo, Rodolfo, Stanford University 
Dixon, Jack E, Howard Hughes Medical Center 
Donoghue, Michael J, Yale University 
Doolittle, Russell F, University of California, San Diego 
Dunne, Thomas, University of California, Santa Barbara 
Ehrlich, Paul R, Stanford University 
Eisenstadt, Shmuel N, Hebrew University of Jerusalem 
Eisner, Thomas, Cornell University 
Emanuel, Kerry A, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 
Englander, Walter S, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine 
Ernst, W, G, Stanford University 
Falkowski, Paul G, Rutgers, State University of New Jersey 
Feher, George, University of California, San Diego 
Ferejohn, John A, Stanford University 
Fersht, Sir Alan, University of Cambridge 
Fischer, Edmond H, University of Washington 
Fischer, Robert, University of California, Berkeley 
Flannery, Kent V, University of Michigan 
Frank, Joachim, Columbia University 
Frey, Perry A, University of Wisconsin 
Fridovich, Irwin, Duke University Medical Center 
Frieden, Carl, Washington University School of Medicine 
Futuyma, Douglas J, Stony Brook University 
Gardner, Wilford R, University of California, Berkeley 
Garrett, Christopher J R, University of Victoria 
Gilbert, Walter, Harvard University 
Gleick, Peter H, Pacific Institute, Oakland 
Goldberg, Robert B, University of California, Los Angeles 
Goodenough, Ward H, University of Pennsylvania 
Goodman, Corey S, venBio, LLC 
Goodman, Morris, Wayne State University School of Medicine 
Greengard, Paul, Rockefeller University 
Hake, Sarah, Agricultural Research Service 
Hammel, Gene, University of California, Berkeley 
Hanson, Susan, Clark University 
Harrison, Stephen C, Harvard Medical School 
Hart, Stanley R, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution 
Hartl, Daniel L, Harvard University 
Haselkorn, Robert, University of Chicago 
Hawkes, Kristen, University of Utah 
Hayes, John M, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution 
Hille, Bertil, University of Washington 
Hökfelt, Tomas, Karolinska Institutet 
House, James S, University of Michigan 
Hout, Michael, University of California, Berkeley 
Hunten, Donald M, University of Arizona 
Izquierdo, Ivan A, Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul 
Jagendorf, André T, Cornell University 
Janzen, Daniel H, University of Pennsylvania 
Jeanloz, Raymond, University of California, Berkeley 
Jencks, Christopher S, Harvard University 
Jury, William A, University of California, Riverside 
Kaback, H Ronald, University of California, Los Angeles 
Kailath, Thomas, Stanford University 
Kay, Paul, International Computer Science Institute 
Kay, Steve A, University of California, San Diego 
Kennedy, Donald, Stanford University 
Kerr, Allen, University of Adelaide 
Kessler, Ronald C, Harvard Medical School 
Khush, Gurdev S, University of California, Davis 
Kieffer, Susan W, University of Illinois 
Kirch, Patrick V, University of California, Berkeley 
Kirk, Kent C, University of Wisconsin 
Kivelson, Margaret G, University of California, Los Angeles 
Klinman, Judith P, University of California, Berkeley 
Klug, Sir Aaron, Medical Research Council 
Knopoff, Leon, University of California, Los Angeles 
Kornberg, Sir Hans, Boston University 
Kutzbach, John E, University of Wisconsin 
Lagarias, J Clark, University of California, Davis 
Lambeck, Kurt, Australian National University 
Landy, Arthur, Brown University 
Langmuir, Charles H, Harvard University 
Larkins, Brian A, University of Arizona 
Le Pichon, Xavier T, College de France 
Lenski, Richard E, Michigan State University 
Leopold, Estella B, University of Washington 
Levin, Simon A, Princeton University 
Levitt, Michael, Stanford University School of Medicine 
Likens, Gene E, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies 
Lippincott-Schwartz, Jennifer, National Institutes of Health 
Lorand, Laszlo, Northwestern University 
Lovejoy, Owen C, Kent State University 
Lynch, Michael, Indiana University 
Mabogunje, Akin L, Foundation for Development and Environmental Initiatives 
Malone, Thomas F, North Carolina State University 
Manabe, Syukuro, Princeton University 
Marcus, Joyce, University of Michigan 
Massey, Douglas S, Princeton University 
McWilliams, Jim C, University of California, Los Angeles 
Medina, Ernesto, Venezuelan Institute for Scientific Research 
Melosh, Jay H, Purdue University 
Meltzer, David J, Southern Methodist University 
Michener, Charles D, University of Kansas 
Miles, Edward L, University of Washington 
Mooney, Harold A, Stanford University 
Moore, Peter B, Yale University 
Morel, Francois M M, Princeton University 
Mosley-Thompson, Ellen, Ohio State University 
Moss, Bernard, National Institutes of Health 
Munk, Walter H, University of California, San Diego 
Myers, Norman, University of Oxford 
Nair, Balakrish G, National Institute of Cholera and Enteric Diseases 
Nathans, Jeremy, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine 
Nester, Eugene W, University of Washington 
Nicoll, Roger A, University of California, San Francisco 
Novick, Richard P, New York University School of Medicine 
O'Connell, James F, University of Utah 
Olsen, Paul E, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University 
Opdyke, Neil D, University of Florida 
Oster, George F, University of California, Berkeley 
Ostrom, Elinor, Indiana University 
Pace, Norman R, University of Colorado 
Paine, Robert T, University of Washington 
Palmiter, Richard D, University of Washington School of Medicine 
Pedlosky, Joseph, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution 
Petsko, Gregory A, Brandeis University 
Pettengill, Gordon H, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 
Philander, George S, Princeton University 
Piperno, Dolores R, Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute 
Pollard, Thomas D, Yale University 
Price Jr. Buford P, University of California, Berkeley 
Reichard, Peter A, Karolinska Institutet 
Reskin, Barbara F, University of Washington 
Ricklefs, Robert E, University of Missouri 
Rivest, Ronald L, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 
Roberts, John D, California Institute of Technology 
Romney, Kimball A, University of California, Irvine 
Rossmann, Michael G, Purdue University 
Russell, David W, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center of Dallas 
Rutter, William J, Synergenics, LLC 
Sabloff, Jeremy A, University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archeology and Anthropology 
Sagdeev, Roald Z, University of Maryland 
Sahlins, Marshall D, University of Chicago 
Salmond, Anne, University of Auckland 
Sanes, Joshua R, Harvard University 
Schekman, Randy, University of California, Berkeley 
Schellnhuber, John, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research 
Schindler, David W, University of Alberta 
Schmitt, Johanna, Brown University 
Schneider, Stephen H, Woods Institute for the Environment 
Schramm, Vern L, Albert Einstein College of Medicine 
Sederoff Ronald R, North Carolina State University 
Shatz, Carla J, Stanford University 
Sherman, Fred, University of Rochester Medical Center 
Sidman, Richard L, Harvard Medical School 
Sieh, Kerry, Nanyang Technological University 
Simons, Elwyn L, Duke University Lemur Center 
Singer, Burton H, Princeton University 
Singer, Maxine F, Carnegie Institution of Washington 
Skyrms, Brian, University of California, Irvine 
Sleep, Norman H, Stanford University 
Smith, Bruce D, Smithsonian Institution 
Snyder, Solomon H, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine 
Sokal, Robert R, Stony Brook University 
Spencer, Charles S, American Museum of Natural History 
Steitz, Thomas A, Yale University 
Strier, Karen B, University of Wisconsin 
Südhof, Thomas C, Stanford University School of Medicine 
Taylor, Susan S, University of California, San Diego 
Terborgh, John, Duke University 
Thomas, David Hurst, American Museum of Natural History 
Thompson, Lonnie G, Ohio State University 
Tjian, Robert T, Howard Hughes Medical Institute 
Turner, Monica G, University of Wisconsin 
Uyeda, Seiya, Tokai University 
Valentine, James W, University of California, Berkeley 
Valentine, Joan Selverstone, University of California, Los Angeles 
Van Etten, James L, University of Nebraska 
Van Holde, Kensal E, Oregon State University 
Vaughan, Martha, National Institutes of Health 
Verba Sidney, Harvard University 
Von Hippel, Peter H, University of Oregon 
Wake, David B, University of California, Berkeley 
Walker, Alan, Pennsylvania State University 
Walker John E, Medical Research Council 
Watson, Bruce E, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 
Watson, Patty Jo, Washington University, St. Louis 
Weigel, Detlef, Max Planck Institute for Developmental Biology 
Wessler, Susan R, University of Georgia 
West-Eberhard, Mary Jane, Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute 
White, Tim D, University of California, Berkeley 
Wilson, William Julius, Harvard University 
Wolfenden, Richard V, University of North Carolina 
Wood, John A, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics 
Woodwell, George M, Woods Hole Research Center 
Wright, Jr Herbert E, University of Minnesota 
Wu, Carl, National Institutes of Health 
Wunsch, Carl, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 
Zoback, Mary Lou, Risk Management Solutions, Inc  

John Francis: Walking Away From OilWhen an oil spill coated birds in San Francisco Bay 40 years ago, he quit driving. Then he quit speaking. Madeline Ostrander asked him what he learned in that process that can help us deal with the BP oil spill.Document Actions

•  Share 
•  Send this 
•  Print this 
•  RSS Feed

by Madeline Ostranderposted May 28, 2010

 

NASA's Terra satellite captured a visible satellite image of the Gulf oil spill on May 17, 2010. The oil slick appears as a dull gray on the water's surface and stretches south from the Mississippi Delta with what looks like a tail.

Photo courtesy NASA Goddard / Rob Gutro

When the Gulf oil disaster first hit the headlines, John Francis got a series of calls and messages from friends across the country offering condolences and apologies. Francis isn’t from the Gulf but he has spent years trying to answer the question that now looms large in public debate—what does it mean to end our addiction to oil?

It took an oil spill and a tragedy to get Francis to radically change his life. Francis grew up in a working-class African-American family in Philadelphia and moved to California as an adult. He was in his early 20s in 1971, when he witnessed the aftermath of a collision between two oil tankers in San Francisco Bay. The resulting spill coated shores from Berkeley to Marin with oil and killed thousands of birds and fish. That event and the death of a friend a year later profoundly shook Francis. He gave up driving and riding in motorized vehicles for 22 years.

One day, as an experiment, he stopped speaking and realized that the experience opened up deeper modes of communication with others. “From this new place [of silence] lessons come,” he writes in his memoir,Planetwalker. “The first is that most of my adult life I have not been listening fully.” He spent the next 17 years in silence, began a pilgrimage on foot across the country, pursued a Ph.D. in environmental studies in Wisconsin at one of the nation’s foremost graduate programs, and became an expert on oil regulations. He taught courses at the University of Wisconsin—Madison without speaking and took an oil regulations policy job with the U.S. Coast Guard without driving.

The journey has made Francis into a kind of moral, spiritual, and symbolic leader for the environmental movement. He considers himself to be living proof of the idea that a single person and simple actions can reach millions. He has since resumed driving, riding, and speaking, but continues to promote environmental education, walking, and personal empowerment, especially among children, youth, and college students, and through lectures across the country.

I caught up with Francis at a green building conference in Seattle. I wanted to find out what his life might teach us about how to confront a disaster like the BP spill in the Gulf.

John Francis delivers a TED Talk telling the story of his life.

Photo by TED.

Madeline Ostrander: What was it about the spill in San Francisco Bay that affected you so powerfully that you decided to stop talking and riding in cars?

 

John Francis: A number of my students are always asking, "How do I know what is going to be my issue, my moment to make a decision?"

For me, it started with the wildlife—I could see that birds were dying. In my childhood, I used to save young birds that had fallen out of their nests. Once I went to save a bird, but before I could, a car ran over it. I cried for weeks.

The spill in San Francisco Bay made me cry. It made me cry in a painful way. There are tragedies you can move away from and you don't have to confront them. If you’re reading about an oil spill in the newspaper, you can just turn the page. But you couldn't get away from the effects of the spill. I could see that birds were dying. And the olfactory impact—the smell—was just huge.

I tell my students, "If you are moved to such a degree that you feel the pain, and that you can feel the tears running down your face, then you're looking at an opportunity to make a change, to make a difference in the world.”

Each of us has to have that moment when we know that we have to do something.I said, "What I want to do is not ride in cars." My girlfriend said, "Yeah, but we don't have any money." That's usually what happens—you start thinking about practical realities—money, job. Those thoughts can dissuade you from making that decision at that moment.

It took a friend's death to convince me that we only have right now—this moment. He died in a boating accident. He was about the same age as I was. He was a deputy sheriff, was married, and had a beautiful family and a house. He was living this dream, and all of the sudden he was just gone. It was irrevocable. He doesn't get to come back and say, "Oh, there’s something I wanted to do."

What I wanted to do was get out of my car and walk. I went on a walk with my girlfriend to commemorate and celebrate his life—20 miles to hear some music. On my way back I realized that there's no guarantee that tomorrow is going to come or that we're going to get it together. I told my girlfriend, "I’m already walking. I'm just going to keep walking."

Madeline: In your book, you describe how that walk led you to give up driving altogether. You write, "I just didn't want to come back and fall into the same old way of living a life." In your case, you witnessed these events that shook you enough to change your life dramatically. What do you think it will take for people in this country to change their ways of living? We all have lifestyles that contribute to climate change, our oil economy, and environmental problems.

John: In 1969, there was another spill in California—the Santa Barbara blowout [when an undersea rig exploded]. It was 200,000 gallons of oil. That spill galvanized a lot of people to start the environmental movement in the United States. People made some really significant changes just to get a day recognized for the environment—Earth Day.

It was a spill and someone’s death that prompted me to change. And it was me just being stubborn, even when I thought, "God, I don't know if I can really make a difference."

It's going to take something like that to happen for each of us: Each of us has to have that moment when we know that we have to do something. It might not happen to the whole country all at once—but enough people making those changes will make a difference.

As I walked across the country and studied environment and started speaking again, I realized that sustainability starts with the way we treat each other. And I believe that the way that we treat each other manifests in the physical environment around us. Our relationships are the first opportunity to treat the environment in a positive, sustainable way. We can't oppress one another; we can't kill each other for resources; we can't use each other for our own gain. We need to look at each other. We all use oil. We all have some responsibility. That's a good thing because if we have some responsibility, we all have some power.

Each of us has to have that moment when we know that we have to do something.

I have to say if somebody had told me years ago that I could make a difference by getting out of my car and walking, I would have thought maybe they were not right on the beam. At first, I thought I might have a peaceful life playing the banjo and living in a cabin. But after more than 20 years of walking, I walk to the other side of the country, and the next thing I know, I'm a Ph.D., helping to write the oil pollution regulations for the United States. And I could not have seen that!

Madeline: How has the spill in the Gulf affected you?

John: Well, right away, when there's any spill in the United States or anywhere in the country or in the world that gets into the media, people start writing me. Sending me emails and calling me to say, "John, we're so sorry."

I am affected by this spill, even though I don't own any stock in BP, and I haven't lost any loved ones. People are going to hurt from this spill. People are going to feel pain. In that pain, however, there’s an opportunityfor us to change and look at what it is that's going on. In that clarity, or moment of obligation, we can understand who we are and make that commitment to change. Some people have already started car-free, motor-free, engine-free lifestyles. And I hear from them. Even though we may not all give up driving and riding in cars, we can look for the hidden costs and redefine our energy policies. The hidden cost of our petrochemical economy is huge and devastating to the rest of the planet. People die so we can drive in our cars. That's a cost that we think we don't have to pay financially. But we do pay the price—because it manifests in the physical environment around us.

Madeline: Many of us—when we're looking at what's happening in the Gulf or thinking about the enormity of climate change—experience grief or despair. How have you learned to confront those feelings in yourself?

John: I talk to you. And I write articles and a blog. I talk to the media. And I talk to the people around me. I'm not the expert. I can tell you my life and my journey. I think we need to understand the connectivity that all of us have with each other. Each of us is not here doing this alone. It's all of us. We’re part of each other's journeys as well.

Madeline Ostrander interviewed John Francis for YES! Magazine, a national, nonprofit media organization that fuses powerful ideas with practical actions. Madeline is senior editor for YES! Magazine.

Interested?

• All Hands on Deck: What can you do to respond to the Gulf oil spill?
• The Greatest Danger: In the face of global warming it is hard to escape a sense of outrage, fear, and despair. Joanna Macy says that speaking the truth of our anguish for the world brings down the walls between us, drawing us into deep solidarity.
• Planetwalker: John Francis walks the earth.

Energy Transitions Past and Future: BP's Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill in Context (by Cutler Cleveland)

Posted by Nate Hagens on June 7, 2010 - 9:25am
Topic: Alternative energy
Tags: cutler cleveland, energy transitions, eroei, eroi, net energy, original [list all tags]

Below the fold is rerun of an essay from Cutler Cleveland on energy transitions. The unfolding drama in the Gulf of Mexico serves as a reminder of how dependent our modern civilization has become on fossil fuels. Dr. Cleveland's essay provides an excellent big picture overview, especially for readers here new to the topic, of what supply side variables we need to consider as we transition away from our extreme fossil fuel subsidy. Replacing stock based (fossil) energy with flow based (renewable) is not as simple as one for one BTU substitution. Professor Cleveland previously wrote "Energy From Wind - A Discussion of the EROI Research", and "Ten Fundamental Principles of Net Energy" posted on theoildrum.com. Cutler Cleveland is a Professor at Boston University and has been researching and writing on energy issues for over 25 years.

Image: Prometheus chained to Mount Caucasus. Source: Pieter Paul Rubens: ''Prometheus Bound,'' 1611-1612, Oil on canvas, 95 7/8" x 82 1/2". (Philadelphia Museum of Art: The W.P. Wilstach Collection)

INTRODUCTION

In Greek mythology, Prometheus defied the will of Zeus by stealing fire and giving it to the mortal race of men in their dark caves. Zeus was enraged by Prometheus' deceit, so he had Prometheus carried to Mount Caucasus, where an eagle would pick at his liver; it would grow back each day and the eagle would eat it again. Fire transformed mortal life by providing light, warmth, cooking, healing and ultimately the ability to smelt and forge metals, and to bake bricks, ceramics, and lime. Fire became the basis for the Greek culture and ultimately all Western culture. It is no wonder, therefore, that the Greeks attributed fire not to a mortal origin, but to a Titan, one of the godlike giants who were considered to be the personifications of the forces of nature.

If fire was the first Promethean energy technology, then Promethean II was the heat engine, powered first by wood and coal, and then by oil and natural gas. Like fire, heat engines achieve a qualitative conversion of energy (heat into mechanical work), and they sustain a chain reaction process by supplying surplus energy. Surplus energy or (net energy) is the gross energy extracted less the energy used in the extraction process itself. The Promethean nature of fossil fuels is due to the much larger surplus they deliver compared to animate energy converters such as draft animals and human labor.

The changes wrought by fossil fuels exceeded even those produced by the introduction of fire. The rapid expansion of the human population and its material living standard over the past 200 years could not have been produced by direct solar energy and wood being converted by plants, humans and draft animals. Advances in every human sphere — commerce, agriculture, transportation, the military, science and technology, household life, health care, public utilities—were driven directly or indirectly by the changes in society's underlying energy systems.

In the coming decades, world oil production will peak and then begin to decline, followed by natural gas and eventually coal production. There is considerable debate about when these peaks will occur because such information would greatly aid energy companies, policy makers, and the general public. But at another level, the timing of peak fossil fuel production doesn't really matter. A more fundamental issue is the magnitude and nature of the energy transition that will eventually occur. The next energy transition undoubtedly will have far reaching impacts just as fire and fossil fuels did. However, the next energy transition will occur under a very different set of conditions, which are the subject of the rest of this discussion.

The Magnitude of the Shift

 

Figure 2. Composition of U.S. energy use. (Source: Cutler Cleveland) Click to Enlarge

 

The last major transition occurred in the late 19th century when coal replaced wood as the dominant fuel. Figure 2 illustrates this transition for the United States, a period often referred to as the second Industrial Revolution (the first being the widespread replacement of manual labor by machines that began in Britain in the 18th century, and the resultant shift from a largely rural and agrarian population to a town-centered society engaged increasingly in factory manufacture). Wood and animal feed suppled more than 95% of the energy used in the United States in 1800. The population of the nation stood at just 5.3 million people, per capita GDP was about $1,200 (in real US$2000), dominant energy converters were human labor and draft animals (horses), and the population was overwhelmingly rural and concentrated near the eastern seaboard.

 

Figure 3. The global flux of fossil and renewable fuels. (Source: Smil, V. 2006. "21st century energy: Some sobering thoughts.'' OECD Observer 258/59: 22-23.) Click to Enlarge

 

The nation was completely transformed by World War I. Coal had replaced wood as the dominant fuel, meeting 70% of the nation's energy needs, with hydropower and newcomers oil and natural gas combining for an additional 15%. Steam engines and turbines had replaced people and draft animals as the dominant energy converters. The population had soared to more than 100 million, per capita GDP had increased by a factor of five to $6,000, more than half of the nation's population lived in cities, and manufacturing and services accounted for most of the nation's economic output. Thus, the transition from wood to fossil fuels, and its associated shift in the energy-using capital stock, produced as fundamental a transition in human existence as did the transition from hunting and gathering to agriculture.

How much renewable energy is needed if it were to replace fossil fuels in the same pattern as coal replaced wood? The United States first consumed as much coal as wood in about 1885. Total energy use then was about 5.6 quadrillion BTU (1 quadrillion = 1015), equal to about 0.19 TW (Terawatts or 1012 watts). Consider what it would take today to replace even just one-half of U.S. fossil fuel use with renewable energy: we would need to displace coal and petroleum energy flows of 2.9 TW, or 32 times the amount of coal used in 1885. Current global fossil fuel use is about 13 TW, so we need more than 6 TW of renewable energies to replace 50% of all fossil fuels. This is a staggering shift.

Is renewable energy up to this challenge? There are physical, economic, technical, environmental, and social components to this question. Figure 3 depicts one slice of the picture: pure physical availability as measured by the global annual flow of various energies. The only renewable energy that exceeds annual global fossil fuel use is direct solar radiation, which is several orders of magnitudes larger than fossil fuel use. To date however, the delivery of electricity (photovoltaics) or heat (solar thermal) directly from solar energy represents a tiny fraction of our energy portfolio due to economic and technical constraints. Most other renewable energy flows could not meet current energy needs even if they were fully utilized. More importantly, there are important qualitative aspects to solar, wind, and biomass energy that pose unique challenges to their widespread utilization.

ENERGY QUALITY

Most discussions of energy require the aggregation of different forms and types of energy. The notion of "total energy use" in Figures 2 and 3 indicates that various physical amounts of energy—coal, oil, gas, uranium, kilowatt-hours (kWh), radiation—are added together. The simplest and most common form form of aggregation is to add up the individual variables according to their thermal equivalents (BTUs, joules, etc.). For example, 1 kWh is equal to 3.6x106 joules, 1 barrel of oil is equal to 6.1x109 joules, and so on.

Despite its widespread use, aggregation by heat content ignores the fact that not all joules are equal. For example, a joule of electricity can perform tasks such as illumination and spinning a CD-ROM that other forms of energy cannot do, or could do in a much more cumbersome and expensive fashion (Imagine trying to power your laptop directly with coal).

These differences among types of energy are described by the concept of energy quality, which is the difference in the ability of a unit of energy to produce goods and services for people. Energy quality is determined by a complex combination of physical, chemical, technical, economic, environmental and social attributes that are unique to each form of energy. These attributes include gravimetric and volumetric energy density, power density, emissions, cost and efficiency of conversion, financial risk, amenability to storage, risk to human health, spatial distribution, intermittency, and ease of transport.

Energy Density

 

Figure 4. Energy densities for various fuels and forms of energy. (Source: Cutler Cleveland) Click to Enlarge

 

Energy density refers to the quantity of energy contained in a form of energy per unit mass or volume. The units of energy density are megajoules per kilogram (MJ/kg) or megajoules per liter (MJ/l). Figure 4 illustrates a fundamental driver behind earlier energy transitions: the substitution of coal for biomass and then petroleum for coal were shifts to more concentrated forms of energy. Solid and liquid fossil fuels have much larger mass densities than biomass fuels, and an even greater advantage in terms of volumetric densities. The preeminent position of liquid fuels derived from crude oil in terms of its combined densities is one reason why it transformed the availability, nature and impact of personal and commercial transport in society. The lower energy density of biomass (12-15 MJ/kg) compared to crude oil (42 MJ/kg) means that replacing the latter with the former will require a significantly larger infrastructure (labor, capital, materials, energy) to produce an equivalent quantity of energy.

The concept of energy density underlies many of the challenges facing the large scale utilization of hydrogen as a fuel. Hydrogen has the highest energy to weight ratio of all fuels. One kg of hydrogen contains the same amount of energy as 2.1 kg of natural gas or 2.8 kg of gasoline. The high gravimetric density of hydrogen is one reason why it is used for a fuel in the space program to power the engines that lift objects against gravity. However, hydrogen has an extremely low amount of energy per unit volume (methane has nearly 4 times more energy per liter than hydrogen). Hydrogen's low volumetric energy density poses significant technical and economic challenges to the large-scale production, transport and storage for commercial amounts of the fuel.

Power Density

 

Figure 5. Power densities for fossil and renewable fuels. (Source: Smil, V. 2006. ''21st century energy: Some sobering thoughts.'' OECD Observer 258/59: 22-23.) Click to Enlarge

 

Power density is the rate of energy production per unit of the earth’s area, and is usually expressed in watts per square meter (W/m2). The environmental scientist Vaclav Smil has documented the important differences between fossil and renewable energies, and their implications for the next energy transition. Due to the enormous amount of geologic energy invested in their formation, fossil fuel deposits are an extraordinarily concentrated source of high-quality energy, commonly extracted with power densities of 10^2 or 10^3 W/m2 of coal or hydrocarbon fields. This means that very small land areas are needed to supply enormous energy flows. In contrast, biomass energy production has densities well below 1 W/m2, while densities of electricity produced by water and wind are commonly below 10 W/m2. Only photovoltaic generation, a technique not yet ready for mass utilization, can deliver more than 20 W/m2 of peak power.

The high power densities of energy systems has enabled the increasing concentration of human activity. About 50% of the world's population occupies less than 3% of the inhabited land area; economic activity is similarly concentrated. Buildings, factories and cities currently use energy at power densities of one to three orders of magnitude lower than the power densities of the fuels and thermal electricity that support them. Smil observes that in order to energize the existing residential, industrial and transportation infrastructures inherited from the fossil-fueled era, a solar-based society would have to concentrate diffuse flows to bridge these large power density gaps.

Mismatch between the inherently low power densities of renewable energy flows and relatively high power densities of modern final energy uses means that a solar-based system will require a profound spatial restructuring with major environmental and socioeconomic consequences. Most notably according to Smil, there would be vastly increased fixed land requirements for primary conversions, especially with all conversions relying on inherently inefficient photosynthesis whose power densities of are minuscule: the mean is about 450 mW/m2 of ice-free land, and even the most productive fuel crops or tree plantations have gross yields of less than 1 W/m2 and subsequent conversions to electricity and liquid fuels prorate to less than 0.5 W/m2.

Energy Surplus

 

Figure 6. The energy return on investment (EROI) for various fuel sources in the U.S. (Source: Cutler Cleveland) Click to Enlarge

 

Energy return on investment (EROI) is the ratio of the energy extracted or delivered by a process to the energy used directly and indirectly in that process. A common related term is energy surplus, which is the gross amount of energy extracted or delivered, minus the energy used directly and indirectly in that process. The unprecedented expansion of the human population, the global economy, and per capita living standards of the last 200 years was powered by high EROI, high energy surplus fossil fuels. The penultimate position of fossil fuels in the energy hierarchy stems from the fact that they have a high EROI and a very large energy surplus. The largest oil and gas fields, which are found early in the exploration process due to their sheer physical size, delivered energy surpluses that dwarfed any previous source (and any source developed since then). That surplus, in combination with other attributes, is what makes conventional fossil fuels unique. The long-run challenge society faces is to replace the current system with a combination of alternatives with similar attributes and a much lower carbon intensity.

Most alternatives to conventional liquid fuels have very low or unknown EROIs (Figure 6). The EROI for ethanol derived from corn grown in the U.S. is about 1.5:1, well below that for conventional motor gasoline. Ethanol from sugarcane grown in Brazil apparently has a higher EROI, perhaps as high as 8:1, due to higher yields of sugarcane compared to corn, the use of bagasse as an energy input, and significant cost reductions in ethanol production technology. Shale oil and coal liquefaction have low EROIs and high carbon intensities, although little work has been done in this area in more than 20 years. The Alberta oil sands remain an enigma from a net energy perspective. Anecdotal evidence suggests an EROI of 3:1, but these reports lack veracity. Certainly oil sands will have a lower EROI than conventional crude oil due to the more diffuse nature of the resource base and associated increase in direct and indirect processing energy costs.

Intermittency

 

Figure 7. A typical 24 hour load profile for a residence in San Jose, CA. (Source: NREL) Click to Enlarge

 

Intermittency refers to the fraction of time that an energy source is available to society. It is an essential feature of electricity generation systems that must combine power generated from multiple sources and locations to supply electricity "24/7." The wind does not blow all the time and the sun does not shine all the time, so a wind turbine and PV array sometimes stand idle. One aspect of intermittency is the load factor or capacity factor, which is the ratio of the output of a power plant compared to the maximum output it could produce. Due to the more or less continuous nature of fossil fuel extraction, thermal power plants have capacity factors of 75 to 90 percent. Typical annual average load factors for wind power are in the range of 20 to 35 percent, depending primarily on wind climate, but also wind turbine design.

 

Figure 8. The variability of wind energy over a 1y day period. The figure compares the hourly output of 500 MW wind power capacity in two situations, calculated from observed data in Denmark. The red line shows the output of a single site; the blue line shows the multiple site output. Source: European Wind Energy Association, ''Large scale integration of wind energy in the European power supply: analysis, issues and recommendations'' (December 2005) Click to Enlarge

 

Load profiles show characteristic daily and seasonal patterns (Figure 7). For example, most hourly profiles for commercial and institutional facilities rise in the middle of the day and then taper off during early morning and late evening hours. Wind and solar energy availability frequently do not match typical load profiles (Figure 8).

Such intermittency means that wind and solar power are really not “dispatchable”—you can’t necessarily start them up when you most need them. Thus, when wind or solar power is first added to a region’s grid, they do not replace an equivalent amount of existing generating capacity—i.e. the thermal generators that already existed will not immediately be shut down. This is measured by capacity credit, which is the reduction of installed power capacity at thermal power stations enabled by the addition of wind or solar power in such a way that the probability of loss of load a peak times is not increased.

So, for example, 1000 MW of installed wind power with a capacity credit of 30% can avoid a 300 MW investment in conventional dispatchable power. A recent survey of U.S. utilities reveals capacity credits given to wind power in the range of 3 to 40 percent of rated wind capacity, with many falling in the 20 to 30 percent range. A large geographical spread of wind or solar power is needed to reduce variability, increase predictability and decrease the occurrences of near zero or peak output.

These and other "ancillary costs" associated with wind and solar power are small at low levels of utilization, but rise as those sources further penetrate the market. In the longer run, the impacts of these additional costs on the the deployment of wind and solar power must be compared with the effective costs of other low-carbon power sources such as nuclear power, or the costs of fossil thermal generation under strong carbon constraints (i.e., carbon capture and storage).

Spatial distribution

 

Figure 9. The distribution of wind speeds at 80 meters, the hub height of a modern turbine. (Source: Cristina L. Archer and Mark Z. Jacobson, Evaluation of global wind power) Click to Enlarge

 

All natural resources show distinct geographical gradients. In the case of oil and natural gas for example, the ten largest geologic provinces contain more than 60 percent of known volumes, and half of those are in the Persian Gulf. Coal and uranium deposits also are distributed in distinct, concentrated distributions. The pattern of occurrence imposes transportation and transaction costs, and in the case of oil and strategic minerals, also imposes risk associated with economic and national security.

 

Figure 10. The distribution of solar energy exhibits a strong geographical gradient. (Source: NREL) Click to Enlarge

 

Of course, renewable energy flows exhibit their own characteristic distributions (Figures 9 and 10), producing mismatches between areas of high-quality supply and demand centers. Many large urban areas are far from a high-quality source of geothermal energy, do not have high wind power potential, or have low annual rates of solar insolation. Indeed, many of the windiest and sunny regions in the world are virtually uninhabited. The spatial distribution of renewable energy flows means that significant new infrastructures will be needed to collect, concentrate and deliver useful amounts of power and energy to demand centers.

THE ENVIRONMENTAL FRONTIER IS CLOSED

The transition from wood to coal occurred when the human population was small, its affluence was modest, and its technologies were much less powerful than today. As a result, environmental impacts associated with energy had negligible global impact, although local impacts were at times quite significant. Any future energy transition will operate under a new set of environmental constraints. Environmental change has significantly impaired the health of people, economics and ecosystems at local, regional and global scales. Future energy systems must be designed and deployed with environmental constraints that were absent from the minds of the inventors of the steam engine and internal combustion engines.

Air Pollution and Climate Change

 

Figure 11. The Mauna Loa curve showing the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations (Source: Keeling, C.D. and T.P. Whorf. 2005. Atmospheric CO2 records from sites in the SIO air sampling network. In Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn., U.S.A.) Click to Enlarge

 

Atmospheric releases from fossil fuel energy systems comprise 64 percent of global anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions from 1850-1990 (Figure 11), 89 percent of global anthropogenic sulfur emissions from 1850 to 1990, and 17 percent of global anthropogenic methane emissions from 1860-1994. Fossil energy combustion also releases significant quantities of nitrogen oxide; in the United States, 23 percent of such emissions are from energy use. Power generation using fossil fuels, especially coal, is a principal source of trace heavy metals such as mercury, selenium, and arsenic.

These emissions drive a range of global and regional environmental changes, including global climate change, acid deposition, and urban smog, and they pose a major health risk. According to the Health Effects Institute, the global annual burden of outdoor air pollution amounts to about 0.8 million premature deaths and 6.4 million years of life lost. This burden occurs predominantly in developing countries; 65% in Asia alone. According to the World Health Organization, in the year 2000, indoor air pollution from solid fuel use was responsible for more than 1.6 million annual deaths and 2.7% of the global burden of disease. This makes this risk factor the second biggest environmental contributor to ill health, behind unsafe water and sanitation.

Climate change may be the most far-reaching impact associated with fossil fuel use. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the global atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased from a pre-industrial value of about 280 parts per million (ppm) to 379 ppm in 2005 (Figure 6). The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide in 2005 exceeds by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years (180 to 300 ppm) as determined from ice cores. The primary source of the increased atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide since the pre-industrial period results from fossil fuel use, with land use change providing another significant but smaller contribution. The increase in carbon dioxide concentrations are a principal driving force behind the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century.

Carbon intensity is an increasingly important attribute of fuel and power systems. Social and political forces to address climate change may produce another distinguishing feature of the next energy transition: environmental considerations may be a key important driver, rather then the inherent advantages of energy systems as measured by energy density, power density, net energy, and so on.

Appropriation of the products of the biosphere

 

Figure 12. Human appropriation of net primary production (NPP) as a percentage of the local NPP. (Source: Imhoff, Marc L., Lahouari Bounoua, Taylor Ricketts, Colby Loucks, Robert Harriss, and William T. Lawrence. 2004. Global patterns in human consumption of net primary production. ''Nature'', 429, 24 June 2004: 870-873. Image retrieved from NASA) Click to Enlarge

 

The low energy and power density of most renewable alternatives collides with a second global environmental imperative: human use of the Earth's plant life for food, fiber, wood and fuelwood. Satellite measurements have been used to calculate the annual net primary production (NPP)—the net amount of solar energy converted to plant organic matter through photosynthesis—on land, and then combined with models to estimate the annual percentage of NPP humans consume (Figure 12).

Humans in sparsely populated areas, like the Amazon, consume a very small percentage of locally generated NPP. Large urban areas consume 300 times more than the local area produced. North Americans use almost 24 percent of the region's NPP. On a global scale, humans annually require 20 percent of global NPP.

Human appropriation of NPP, apart from leaving less for other species to use, alters the composition of the atmosphere, levels of biodiversity, energy flows within food webs, and the provision of important ecosystem services. There is strong evidence from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and other research that our use of NPP has seriously compromised many of the planet's basic ecosystem services. Replacing energy-dense liquid fuels from crude oil with less energy dense biomass fuels will require 1,000- to 10,000-fold increase in land area relative to the existing energy infrastructure, and thus place additional significant pressure on the planet's life support systems.

The rise of energy markets

When coal replaced wood, most energy markets were local or regional in scale, and many were informal. Energy prices were based on local economic and political forces. Most energy today is traded in formal markets, and prices often are influenced by global events. Crude oil prices drive the trends in price for most other forms of energy, and they are formed by a complex, dynamic, and often unpredictable array of economic, geologic, technological, weather, political, and strategic forces.

The rise of commodity and futures markets for energy not only added volatility to energy markets, and hence energy prices, but also helped elevate energy as to a key strategic financial commodity. The sheer volume of energy bought and sold today combined with high energy prices has transformed energy corporations into powerful multinational forces. In 2006, five of the world's largest corporations were energy suppliers (Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch Shell, BP, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips). The privatization of state-owned energy industries is also a development of historic dimensions that is transforming the global markets for oil, gas, coal and electric power.

Global market forces will thus be an important driving force behind the next energy transition. There is considerable debate about the extent to which markets can and should be relied upon to guide the choice of our future energy mix. Externalities and subsidies are pervasive across all energy systems in every nation. The external cost of greenhouse gas emissions from energy use looms as a critical aspect of energy markets and environmental policy. The distortion of market signals by subsidies and externalities suggests that government policy intervention is needed to produce the socially desirable mix of energy. The effort to regulate greenhouse gas emissions at the international level is the penultimate example of government intervention in energy markets. The political and social debate about the nature and degree of government energy policy will intensify when global crude oil supply visibly declines and as pressure mounts to act on climate change.

Energy and poverty

 

Figure 14. Energy and basic human needs. The international relationship between energy use (kilograms of oil equivalent per capita) and the Human Development Index (2000). (Source: UNDP, 2002, WRI, 2002) Click to Enlarge

 

The energy transition that powered the Industrial Revolution helped create a new economic and social class by raising the incomes and changing the occupations of a large fraction of society who were then employed in rural, agrarian economies. The next energy transition will occur under fundamentally different socioeconomic conditions. Future energy systems must supply adequate energy to support the high and still growing living standards in wealthy nations, and they must supply energy sufficient to relieve the abject poverty of the world's poorest.

The scale of the world's underclass is unprecedented in human history. According to the World Bank, about 1.2 billion people still live on less than $1 per day, and almost 3 billion on less than $2 per day. Nearly 110 million primary school age children are out of school, 60 percent of them girls. 31 million people are infected with HIV/AIDS. And many more live without adequate food, shelter, safe water, and sanitation.

Energy use and economic development go hand-in-hand (Figure 14), so poverty has an important energy dimension: the lack of access to high quality forms of energy. Energy poverty has been defined as the absence of sufficient choice in accessing adequate, affordable, reliable, high quality, safe and environmentally benign energy services to support economic and human development. Nearly 1.6 billion people have no access to electricity and some 2.4 billion people rely on traditional biomass—wood, agricultural residues and dung—for cooking and heating. The combustion of those traditional fuels has profound human health impacts, especially for woman and children. Access to liquid and gaseous fuels and electricity is a necessary condition for poverty reduction and improvements in human health.

CONCLUSIONS

The debate about "peak oil" aside, there are relatively abundant remaining supplies of fossil fuels. Their quality is declining, but not yet to the extent that increasing scarcity will help trigger a major energy transition like wood scarcity did in the 19th century. The costs of wind, solar and biomass have declined due to steady technical advances, but in key areas of energy quality—density, net energy, intermittancy, flexibility, and so on—they remain inferior to conventional fuels. Thus, alternative energy sources are not likely to supplant fossil fuels in the short term without substantial and concerted policy intervention.

The need to restrain carbon emissions may provide the political and social pressure to accelerate the transition to wind, biomass and solar, as this is one area where they clearly trump fossil fuels. Electricity from wind and solar sources may face competition from nuclear power, the sole established low-carbon power source with significant potential for expansion. If concerns about climate change drive a transition to renewable sources, it will be the first time in human history that energetic imperatives, especially the the economic advantages of higher-quality fuels, were not the principal impetus.

FURTHER READING

* Dimitri, Carolyn, Anne Effland, and Neilson Conklin, The 20th Century Transformation of U.S. Agriculture and Farm Policy. Electronic Information Bulletin Number 3, June 2005, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

* European Wind Energy Association, Large scale integration of wind energy in the European power supply: analysis, issues and recommendations (December 2005).

* Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Summary for Policymakers, February 2007.

* Johnston, Louis D. and Samuel H. Williamson, The Annual Real and Nominal GDP for the United States, 1790 - Present. Economic History Services, retrieved April 1, 2006.

* Milligan, M. and K. Porter, Determining the Capacity Value of Wind: A Survey of Methods and Implementation, Conference Paper NREL/CP-500-38062 May 2005.

* Reddy, A.K.N., Energy and social issues, in World Energy Assessment: the challenge of sustainability, UNDP/UNDESA/WEC, New York, 2000.

* Smil, V. 2006. "21st century energy: Some sobering thoughts". OECD Observer 258/59: 22-23.

* World Bank PovertyNet.


Citation

Cleveland, Cutler (Lead Author); Peter Saundry (Topic Editor). 2007. "Energy transitions past and future." In: Encyclopedia of Earth. Eds. Cutler J. Cleveland (Washington, D.C.: Environmental Information Coalition, National Council for Science and the Environment). [First published April 11, 2007; Last revised May 3, 2007; Retrieved August 7, 2007]. Source here

**Prometheus chained to Mount Caucasus. Source: Pieter Paul Rubens: ''Prometheus Bound,'' 1611-1612, Oil on canvas, 95 7/8" x 82 1/2". (Philadelphia Museum of Art: The W.P. Wilstach Collection)