Posts Tagged ‘oil spill’

Bellingham “Alarmist” Herald

Thursday, August 16th, 2012

oil spill There is a  is a vessel in Bellingham being fitted to contain and clean up huge oil spills in Arctic waters, but right now it is sitting in Bellingham Bay with spill containment booms surrounding it.   And leave it to the Bellingham Herald to support the Bellingham alarmist attitude with their own front page alarmist billing.  

Really, what kind of image comes to mind when you read there headline “Oil-containment barge under construction in Bellingham spills oil”  I know when I read it, my immediate thought was of how much oil was filling that containment barge and how much of it was spilling.   I’m sure a lot of people were thinking about the Deep Horizon Spill as well as a few in Bellingham that were thinking about coal..ya know oil and coal are both carbon based.  I was also thinking about how yucky and stinky it might be if the forecast of super hot weather turned out to be accurate. 

Whatever your initial thought, I think the headline made it sound pretty bad, so it was a little surprising to learn that this headline is over 3 quarts of oil that they supposedly spilled over the course of the last 3 weeks or so?  Okay now, that really is alarmist…3 quarts!

Three spills, each releasing about one quart of oil into Whatcom Waterway, came from leaks in pressurized hydraulic systems on July 24, and Aug. 4 and 6.

Bellingham Herald

I’m not suggesting that it’s a good thing to spill a quart, or even three quarts, of oil into Bellingham Bay but let’s keep this in perspective.   The way I see this big picture is that this is only 3 quarts and the sooner this ship is on station in the Arctic, the better the odds are that it will be there to clean up a lot more than 3 quarts of oil should it be called to a spill.   So why hassle them over 3 quarts?  Well the State Department of Ecology had an answer,

"They’re a quart at a time, but every time there’s a spill there’s more environmental damage," Ecology spokeswoman Katie Skipper said.

Bellingham Herald

Wow!  Every time there is a quart spill there’s more environmental damage,  Wow again, where do we draw the line on how little of a spill is too little of a spill and how little of a spill does it take to call this harassment rather than enforcement?  I wonder if anyone in the Dept of Ecology realizes that oil occurs naturally in our oceans and in fact about half the oil in the oceans come from naturally occurring sources.  This is one of my favorites, it is a great historical description of naturally occurring crude oil along the West coast.

Pedro Fages, a Spanish explorer and military commander of the Monterey Presidio, in his report to the Viceroy of New Spain recorded the use of tar and oil by the natives near Mission San Luis Obispo. Fages’ account, written in 1775, mentions natives using tar for water- proofing baskets and pitchers and for caulking small boats. Fages also noted ” … pools of bitumen bubbling out of the ground” near the mouth of the Santa Clara River. In 1776, Spanish missionary Pedro Font recorded that “… much tar which the sea throws up is found on the shores, sticking to the stones and dry, little balls of tar are also found. Perhaps there are springs of it which flow out into the sea.” In 1793, during the travels of English explorer James Cook, his navigator, George Vancouver, recorded in his journal that they had anchored off of Goleta. Vancouver reported that the sea was “… covered with a thick, slimy substance, which, when separated or disturbed by any little agitation, became very luminous, whilst the slightest breeze, that came principally from onshore, brought with it a very strong scent of burning tar.” He continued that “… the sea had the appearance of dissolved tar floating on its surface, which covered the ocean in all directions within the limits of our view.”

So again…3 quarts?  If that is a crime then watch out on these upcoming hot sunny days because you never know how soon it will be until your kids, slathered with sunscreen, are slapped with a cease and desist order by our State Department of Ecology when they go wading in Bellingham Bay?

Sunscreens are a great way to prevent some of these harms, but unless you pick the right sunscreen it might be doing more harm than good, exposing you to even more health concerns while contaminating fish and water.

If you think that I am crazy or that I am just being alarmist, think about the thousands of people with just a little dab of sunscreen and remember what the Department of Ecology spokesperson said, “every time there’s a spill there’s more environmental damage.” 


Saturday, July 3rd, 2010

To the extent that we burn “fossil” fuels, the people of our nation and our world are existing on banked capacity. The energy stored in tar and crude oils was banked away long long ago. In those days, just as today, solar energy drives a mechanism whereby energy and carbon (mostly from CO2) is stored in plant and animal matter. In those days the plants were not burned for fuel thus releasing carbon and energy back into the atmosphere. So year after year, layer after layer of this material fell to the ground essentially making energy deposits into the Earth.

Now millions of years later we are digging and pumping what has become tar and oil so that we can now burn it releasing the energy we need to drive our world as well as CO2, the much maligned combustion byproduct. This mechanism is not the only source of CO2 in our atmosphere, nor is CO2 the only greenhouse gas so I won’t be going into the whole global warming issue again. Suffice to say that we are not taking CO2 out of the atmosphere at the same rate that we are putting it in through burning “fossil” fuels and other means. We are not operating on a balanced energy budget.

I hate that the word sustainable, like the word progressive has been hijacked by the left, so I try to keep using them as a little push back. In order to sustain our environment we need to be operating on a balanced budget. If we are going to keep pulling up crude and burning it then we need to be pulling the CO2 and other combustion byproducts back out of the air and put them back into the ground at the same rate. Alternatively, we can reduce or eliminate the burning and correspondingly reduce or eliminate sequestering the compounds. Nurturing new rain forests and making more efficient choices are both very doable moves in the right direction. Eliminating all burning of fossil fuels is not going to happen without accompanying war, famine and generally immense human suffering. We need energy to power society and right now our system is built primarily around fossil fuels.  Saying we need to change is a lot easier to say than to do.

Enter our hope and change President Obama who says he’s  up to the challenge of leading us out of our fossil fuel age.

In the near term, as we transition to cleaner energy sources, we’re going to have to make some tough decisions about opening up new offshore areas for oil and gas development.  We’ll need to make continued investments in advanced biofuels and clean coal technologies, even as we build greater capacity in renewables like wind and solar.  And we’re going to have to build a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in America.  Remarks by the President on Energy

Though his positive message is a bit mired by the aim he took on large oil companies during his campaign and by the psuedo anger he seems to be showing post-spill.

Since the gas lines of the ’70’s, Democrats and Republicans have talked about energy independence, but nothing’s changed — except now Exxon’s making $40 billion a year, and we’re paying $3.50 for gas.

I’m Barack Obama. I don’t take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists, and I won’t let them block change anymore. They’ll pay a penalty on windfall profits. We’ll invest in alternative energy, create jobs and free ourselves from foreign oil.  Obama Campaign ad

“And I don’t sit around just talking to experts because this is a college seminar. We talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers so I know whose ass to kick, right? “ Obama looking for some “ass to kick” in BP oil spill catastrophe

The prime target of the newfound ire was, of course, BP and the mess they created in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico. “You know,” he [President Obama] told King, “I am furious at this entire situation because this is an example where somebody didn’t think through the consequences of their actions.”

Really?  A multi-national company the size of BP didn’t think through the consequence of their actions in the risky and dangerous arena of deep water oil drilling?  Yeah, I’ll just throw the promise of sustainable energy on the stack of things that I won’t look to our President for leadership.   Truly sad that our nation, the light of the world, is lit by a dim bulb.

But back to hope.  We’ve made a lot of progress in the last hundred years or so in world societies fueled by primarily crude oil. If not for the oil industry we could still all be living back in the 1800’s so I really don’t get all this hatred  for oil companies that is coming from the left.  Frankly I find it all a bit too hypocritical coming from people who use plastics, waxes, rubber and other petroleum based products. And let’s not forget that all the renewable hydro power comes from dams that were built using gas and diesel powered construction equipment. Sometimes I think they need to be 3 Stooges slapped into reality because reality is where we all need to be, if we are to move away from our dependence on crude oil without plunging our world into a second dark age.

Reality is that windmills and solar power are both great ways to supplement, our electrical needs but neither will supplant our use of fossil oils. First, we don’t have the infrastructure to transport enough electricity to replace the fuels we burn and second we don’t have the electrical storage technology to rival tanks filled with petroleum fuels. I’m not saying that this can’t be done, but I am saying that it is a long road with a lot of technological hurdles and the end result is not one I think I’ll be happy with. Imagine how many batteries we would need to store energy just to get us through the night or during a calm afternoon? And imagine the enormous mines that would grow with demand for mineral elements needed for these batteries and other electronics? And what about the mountains of spent batteries? And without crude oil, where do we get the plastic for battery casings?

Also consider how long it will take to fill up your electric car compared to a fill up at any station other than Costco.  Even if new technology were to cut the charge times down to an hour, what’s that do for the line of people waiting behind you?   After just hearing that our government is building a charging station in Custer along I-5, I’m wondering if people will be keen on spending a couple of hours in Custer while their car charges?  Is there something to do in Custer?  Pure electric is far from a drop in solution for people who drive fossil fuel cars and I wish our government would think things through before spending our taxes.

So, at best I see wind and solar as supplements to our existing electrical infrastructure and not a solution to our fossil fuel needs.  At worst I see wind and solar as a visual blight on our landscape to make a few people feel good.

Nuclear power does have one great benefit over wind and solar towards meeting our nation’s energy needs in that it is a continuous and consistent supply. It does still have most of the infrastructure and mineral issues as well as some of the storage problems, specifically vehicle batteries, as wind and solar. It does also have the nagging and unsolved problem of radioactive waste. I’ve yet to see a way to deal with it that isn’t either a tremendous liability or a tremendous safety hazard, or both.

I hate to think that we are stuck with no alternatives but to keep drilling oil until we run out and then let our children’s children deal with a new dark age or to let our government and environmental lobbyists plunge us into one right away. As both an optimist and a Christian I firmly believe that we have been given in our world, everything we need to crack this sustainable energy nut.  And not surprisingly that everything, involves carbon.  After all life on our planet is all carbon based and revolves around a natural carbon cycle.


Just like I feel that the best way to solve the Lake Whatcom water quality issue is to return normal flow to the lake, my feeling is that the closer we can live to this normal natural carbon cycle, the more sustainable and happier it will be for all of us. Really, there are just two technical problems with the sustainability of our current energy model. First we don’t pull enough CO2 out of the atmosphere to remain in balance with what we are burning, although we could conceivably grow more plants.  And the second problem is that even if we grew more plants,  we’d have to wait 50 million years or so to harvest the energy that we store. However tough they may seem, if we solve those problems then we reach a true sustainable state.

And I’ll get on a soapbox here for a moment and tell you that the fastest most efficient way to solve these problems is not through taxes, lobbyist, caps, trades, more taxes, commissions, czars, pacts, nor treaties. The fastest most efficient way is for our government to get out of the way, of those that will solve the problem because they believe they will profit from the solution. Yes, capitalism can and will solve this problem just as it has so many others.

The sustainable solutions will come from utilizing the suns natural solar energy to grow plants that pull co2 from the atmosphere and then, without waiting 50 million years, we create fuel from those plants to burn in our cars, trucks, trains, planes etc. Plants both convert and store the sun’s energy. Solar, the way God intended.

There are several ways to accomplish this plant growing solution and they all seem to have some merit in one way or another. The main camps are divided between producing ethanol or oils. We see these as the products like E85 ethanol/gas or biodiesels. Even within the two camps there are division regarding what type of plants to use. And there are even the unintended consequences to consider such as the destruction of the palm forests that Doug Ericksen brought to our attention. There are lots of options out there that need to be carefully weighed so that we don’t invest resources, either public or private, into technology that won’t solve our problem. And this is where government really loses out over business. If they follow their normal process, and all indications are that they will, we will see significant investment of our tax dollars into numerous schemes with little or no judgment regarding the potential for a technology to efficiently deliver energy.   Bill Gates addressed the potential for government waste in A Business Plan for America’s Energy Future that he is involved with.

2. Research can be managed and tracked through pre-defined performance gates, to ensure that projects on course keep receiving support and those failing get terminated.
3. Support must be given to technologies that have real potential to scale. The federal government should focus on supporting technologies with potential for national impact—the sectors where there is a major gap between the best technologies available and the technical and economic potential.

Privately held businesses have to be profitable or they fail, it’s a natural consequence of poor performance.  Government on the other hand, just holds special sessions to figure how best to tax us without pissing us off so much that we rebel.    Bill Gates whom many know as a capitalist, a visionary and a leader in new technology also happens to be invested in alternative energy.

Bill Gates’ investment firm is funding Sapphire Energy, a company that intends to make auto fuel from algae.  Sapphire Energy said Wednesday that a series B round will bring the total amount it has raised to more than $100 million.

Perhaps it is investments like this that allow very profitable big companies like Microsoft to not be maligned the way that very profitable big companies like Exxon and BP are?  And if that is so, then it is a matter of public perception, rather than substance, because two of the biggest companies leading us to a sustainable non-fossil fuel future are the now much hated Exxon and BP.

Oil giant BP has so far invested $3 billion in alternative energy globally and is set to reach its target, set in 2005, of spending $8 billion.

At a Beijing conference, BP China President Chen Liming said that BP will focus mainly on wind power projects in the US, solar in India and China and biomass in Brazil. The alternative energy unit of Europe’s largest oil firm set aside $8 billion of investment in the decade through 2015.  Oil & Gas

To complement its new ethanol and biobutanol plants, BP is spending billions on biofuel research. The company has been eyeballing algae as a possible feedstock, largely because algae do not affect fresh water resources, can be produced using ocean and waste-water, and are biodegradable and relatively harmless to the environment if spilled. While algae are expensive to produce, they can yield over 30 times more energy per unit area than other, second-generation biofuel crops. The company is also spending some $1 billion on research on sugar-cane based biofuel in Brazil, which in 2008 produced 37.3% of the world’s ethanol-based biofuel.

On Tuesday, Exxon plans to announce an investment of $600 million in producing liquid transportation fuels from algae — organisms in water that range from pond scum to seaweed.  NY times

Remember from above that campaigning Barack Obama said with regards to big oil corporations, “They’ll pay a penalty on windfall profits. We’ll invest in alternative energy, create jobs and free ourselves from foreign oil.” I hope when the well is plugged and the oil spill quickly becomes a thing of the past, that we will remember who has actually been investing in alternative fuels and who has been blowing a lot of hot rhetoric.  I have no doubt that BP will pay damages.  However, if we allow a vindictive President to break BP with penalty after large penalty, then we’ll just be pushing our independence from fossil fuels further into our future.

According to Environmental News Network Algae could yield more than 2000 gallons of fuel per acre per year as opposed to corn which they estimate at only 250 gallons per acre per year.  Algae also can be grown using land and water that isn’t suitable for other uses, so good land is still available for food crops.   Petrosun with an ex-big oil CEO, is a leader in algae based biodiesel and they describe the benefits in a little more detail.

Extensive research was conducted to determine the utilization of microalgae as an energy source, with applications being developed for biodiesel, ethanol, and bioplastics. Independent studies have demonstrated that algae is capable of producing in excess of 30 times more oil per acre than corn and soybean crops. Biodiesel produced from algae contains no sulfur, is non-toxic and highly biodegradable.
One of the biggest advantages of biodiesel compared to many other alternative transportation fuels is that it can be used in existing diesel engines, which relieves manufacturers of having to make costly engine modifications. Biodiesel can also be mixed, at any ratio, with conventional petroleum diesel. As a result, the alternative fuel can be used in the current distribution infrastructure, replacing petroleum diesel either wholly, or as a diesel fuel blend with minimal integration costs.

And the big oil state of Texas is a leader in biodiesel production with

Biodiesel sales are booming in Texas, the country’s largest producer of biodiesel transportation fuel. Texas has a current production capacity of over 100 million gallons per year. As of 2008, Texas has more than 20 commercial biodiesel plants with additional plants under construction or being expanded, as well as over 50 retail biodiesel fueling sites…

Go Texas!

I don’t like paying high prices at the pump, I don’t like smog and I don’t like seeing the damage that the oil spill is doing.  I am thankful though for the positive impact that oil and gas has had for good in this world.  I don’t bear any ill will towards the people who make a living in that industry and as I’ve said,  I have a tough time understanding why they are demonized.

My feeling is that biofuels, and most specifically algae produced biodiesel are the best direction we can take at this time towards a cleaner and more sustainable energy system.  From trucks, cars and planes to fossil fuel generated electricity, our nation has the infrastructure in place to make a smooth efficient transition to non-fossil biofuels.   And driving where I want and when I want in a biodiesel fueled car or truck sounds a lot more appealing than a dooming future generations to a new mass transit dark age.

Deep Horizon: Disaster in the Making

Saturday, May 29th, 2010

I’ve listened and read much of the news coming from the Gulf of Mexico and as I have taken it in I can’t count the number of times the Deep Horizon accident has been referred to as a disaster. (just Google “disaster in the gulf“) and there you go.  And as the facts and enormity of the situation unfolded I realized that a disaster was at hand, but it was not the loss of human life, nor the ocean floor oil leak.

Yes, the loss of human life, was tragic and deeply saddening, but on a  scale of world or even national events it hardly qualifies as a disaster.

And as for the the oil leaking into the gulf?  Again, tragic, saddening, but not a disaster.  In fact, huge amounts of oil leaking into the ocean from natural seeps is quite common and normal.   I am in no way suggesting that we allow the leak to continue unchecked.   However, almost half the oil in our oceans come from naturally occurring seeps and according to Oil in the Sea III published by the National Academies Press, anywhere from 24  to 61 million gallons per year, seep naturally into the Gulf waters alone.    Off the California coast there are numerous seeps including one near Santa Barbara where 2,000-3,000 gallons per day is released, another that is actually being harvested for natural gas and oil and we’ve all heard of the famous LaBrea Tar Pit.   The volume of oil naturally seeping into the ocean is so great that it has given rise to SOS California an environmental group that supports offshore drilling as a way to relieve the pressure driving the natural seeps and thus the amount of oil released into the ocean.

We should consider this American ingenuity as the Deep Horizon clean up is considered.  And to keep the cost down we should not pay for cleanup, we should pay for recovered crude oil.  Americans will figure a way to make a buck and the answer they come up with may turn into a whole industry.

Here is a great historical description of naturally occurring crude oil.

Pedro Fages, a Spanish explorer and military commander of the Monterey Presidio, in his report to the Viceroy of New Spain recorded the use of tar and oil by the natives near Mission San Luis Obispo. Fages’ account, written in 1775, mentions natives using tar for water- proofing baskets and pitchers and for caulking small boats. Fages also noted ” … pools of bitumen bubbling out of the ground” near the mouth of the Santa Clara River. In 1776, Spanish missionary Pedro Font recorded that “… much tar which the sea throws up is found on the shores, sticking to the stones and dry, little balls of tar are also found. Perhaps there are springs of it which flow out into the sea.” In 1793, during the travels of English explorer James Cook, his navigator, George Vancouver, recorded in his journal that they had anchored off of Goleta. Vancouver reported that the sea was “… covered with a thick, slimy substance, which, when separated or disturbed by any little agitation, became very luminous, whilst the slightest breeze, that came principally from onshore, brought with it a very strong scent of burning tar.” He continued that “… the sea had the appearance of dissolved tar floating on its surface, which covered the ocean in all directions within the limits of our view.”

Crude oil in our oceans is a natural situation and there are bacteria which naturally consume the oil.    So while it is true that the higher than norm volume of oil in the Gulf isn’t pleasing to the eyes or nose and there will be wildlife that suffers, it is also true that the situation will eventually and naturally be remedied.  We sometimes forget what a robust world our God created.

So the leak in itself  is not a disaster, but in how we respond to the leak, we are actually creating multiple disasters.  I see two disasters on the immediate horizon.  First, the regulatory disaster that is already unfolding as politicians and rabid environmentalists leverage public opinion, fed by media coverage, into over regulation.

Obama Clamps down on Offshore Drilling (CNN) — A stern-faced President Barack Obama on Thursday announced steps to limit new oil drilling and exploration as the investigation of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill continues, telling the American people that he is “fully engaged” and ultimately responsible for what he called a catastrophe.

Obama said the government would seek aggressive new operating standards and requirements for offshore oil companies. For now, he said, the government was suspending planned oil exploration of two locations off the coast of Alaska, canceling pending lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico and the proposed lease sale off Virginia, and halting the issuance of new permits for deep-water wells for six months.

I don’t think he is any more responsible for this incident than President Bush was for Katrina and I also don’t care if President Obama is “fully engaged”  Whatever that means?  I do care that taxes to feed these new regulations will immediately drive up consumer costs and then a more limited supply, due to companies not willing to work in an over regulated environment, will drive cost up even further.  Does anyone remember the recent shock to our nation when gas prices skyrocketed?    Some would call that a disaster so why, when Deep Horizon type incidents are so rare, does our national government seems bent on creating the economic disaster that accompanies high fuel costs?

The second disaster in the making is a bit more tangible than expected high fuel costs.    With Coast Guard and EPA approval, BP is spraying hundreds of thousands of gallons of chemical dispersants into Gulf waters to reduce the amount of oil that could reach shore,    Dispersants break up the big clumps of oil and tar which helps them remain at sea rather than wash up on the shore.  The danger to shoreline wildlife will be greatly reduced, however the dispersants used are not benign and could have disastrous effect on the whole of the Gulf for years to come.

Dispersants can contain particular evils. Corexit 9527 — used extensively by BP despite it being toxic enough to be banned in British waters — contains 2-butoxyethanol, a compound that ruptures red blood cells in whatever eats it. Its replacement, COREXIT 9500, contains petroleum solvents and other components that can damage membranes, and cause chemical pneumonia if aspirated into the lungs following ingestion.  Times Online UK

The Bellona Foundation, an international environmental watchdog group out of Norway had this to say about dispersants.

Dispersed oil particles tend to remain in the upper layers of the ocean and as they approach inshore areas, increasingly impact corals, oysters and shrimp.  Dispersed oil particles tend to assume a less visible, more difficult to cleaned-up quality. They also assume pervasive presence in the environment, with increased opportunities for long-term ecological impacts, particularly in coastal areas.

“There is a chemical toxicity to the dispersant compound that in many ways is worse than oil,”

MSNBC: Oil dispersants an environmental ‘crapshoot’e describes dispersant use as of last week.

Unprecedented, untested
In the Deepwater Horizon accident, the response team has used more than 670,000 gallons of chemical dispersants as of Fridayfar surpassing any previous use in the United States. Most of it has been sprayed from airplanes, but the Deepwater Horizon response team also has applied at least 55,000 gallons in a completely untested way — injecting it at the well’s leaking riser, some 5,000 feet below the surface.

And Climate Progress sheds a little light on how the dispersants affect ocean life in the Gulf.

The dispersant “pulls the oil into the water in the form of tiny droplets.”

And that means subsurface creatures — from oysters to coral to larval eggs — that might never have had significant exposure to the oil are now going to get a double whammy, getting hit by the oil and by the dispersants. Worse, the oil droplets are now in a form that looks like food (e.g., the same size as algae) to filter feeders like oysters, which otherwise may only have been exposed to the far lower levels of dissolved oil components found under a typical oil slick. The droplets can also clog up fish gills.

On one hand we have a naturally occurring process that will eventually take care of the oil spill and on the other hand we have dispersants creating a real disaster for both wildlife and commercial interests.

We need to do is recognize that the rarity of this type of incident means that existing safety systems are actually pretty good, but we should look for how the system failed in this case so that changes can be made for a safer future.  We also need to recognize that oil is natural for this earth and not be scared to use it or to have it wash up on our beaches from time to time.  There are mechanism for breaking down oil and even trees, phytoplankton, etc  to reign in the byproducts of burning oil and other organic compounds.   Oil is natural in a way that solar panels and lithium ion batteries will never be.

Deep Horizon was a sad unfortunate incident, let’s not make it a disaster.