In Gulf, It Was Unclear Who Was in Charge of Oil Rig

 

New government and BP documents, interviews with experts and testimony by witnesses provide the clearest indication to date that a hodgepodge of oversight agencies granted exceptions to rules, allowed risks to accumulate and made a disaster more likely on the rig, particularly with a mix of different companies operating on the Deepwater whose interests were not always in sync.

In Gulf, It Was Unclear Who Was in Charge of Oil Rig - NYTimes.com

I haven't said anything about the oil spill yet. I couldn't really decide how I felt about it. I was shocked of course. I was saddened. I was mad. But most of all I was scared.

I have accepted the reality of hydrocarbon depletion for a long time now. I don't think I have, however, fully accepted the consequences of that until now. I know that there is no way BP would have been drilling in this incredibly risky environment, a mile below the surface of the Gulf of Mexico, unless we were running out of easy places to find oil. This behavior, and others like it, is a direct result of our impending hydrocarbon depletion. But suddenly, I have come to the realization that there is a face to that risky behavior. The end of the oil age is going to be ugly.

The bottom line, of course, is that we must have our oil at any cost. We, the industrialized world in general and the United States in particular, have become so enamored of the joys that hydrocarbon consumption can bring to our lives that we will no longer tender any thoughts of an alternate approach. That is not hard to understand since we are so populous now (thanks to all that oil BTW) that we would only be able to support a fraction of our present consumption without it. So we will continue to drill. We will drill until we have nowhere else to drill and you and I will pay whatever it costs to see that it happens.

Now we know, all of a sudden, what that means. It means things like giant oil spills. Look for more of these kinds of things to happen. Look for them to happen in spite of the increased regulation and additional fortunes spent on keeping it from happening. This is where we are. The rest of the oil is out there hiding somewhere. And we are going to find it. No matter how ugly it gets.

Obama Overturns War on Science

[Link: Rolling Stone : National Affairs Daily]

"I am also signing a Presidential Memorandum directing the head of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to develop a strategy for restoring scientific integrity to government decision making. To ensure that in this new Administration, we base our public policies on the soundest science; that we appoint scientific advisors based on their credentials and experience, not their politics or ideology; and that we are open and honest with the American people about the science behind our decisions."

This is very good news from the Obama Administration. For too long Science has been relegated to the status of "just another bit of noise in the political spectrum" by commentators whose opinions don't stand up to formal scientific scrutiny. If we are ever to protect ourselves from the energy/climate double whammy that is approaching us, we are going to need the assistance of unbiased scientific analysis.

Magazine Preview - The Big Fix - Can Barack Obama Really Transform the U.S. Economy? - NYTimes.com

[Link: NYTimes.com] "For centuries, people have worried that economic growth had limits — that the only way for one group to prosper was at the expense of another. The pessimists, from Malthus and the Luddites and on, have been proved wrong again and again. Growth is not finite. But it is also not inevitable. It requires a strategy."

The MSM carries the "infinite growth" ball onto an uncertain field of play. It couldn't be stated more clearly, "Growth is not finite." With a good plan we can keep the game going forever. WRONG! With a really good plan we might be able to survive, but it isn't going to look like the modern Western model of ever growing consumption by an ever growing number of people. Infinite growth may be the only thing that will save our way of life but that doesn't prove it is real.

To curb demand for oil, add a tax when prices tank | ajc.com

[Link: ajc.com] "What is to be done? As economists have long recognized, the most economically efficient way to alter the behavior of consumers — to use less oil — and businesses — to develop products that allow consumers to use less oil — is to raise the cost. And if the market can’t be counted on to send reliable price signals, then a tax can be used to ensure that the cost remains high enough to encourage the desired behavior."

This proposal has the proverbial snowball's chance of getting any support but there is a bigger problem. Where is the extra electrical capacity going to come from when all those tens of millions of electric cars are plugged in every night. We need to up the power available, somehow, without using more hydrocarbon fuel. Nuclear? More coal? Impossible extension of the alternate power pool? It just ain't that easy folks.

Op-Ed Contributor - Have You Driven a Bus or a Train Lately? - NYTimes.com

[Link: Have You Driven a Bus or a Train Lately? - NYTimes.com] "The Obama administration should ask the companies, as a condition of financial assistance, to begin shifting from being just automakers to becoming innovative “transportmakers.” As Barack Obama’s new chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, recently said: “You don’t ever want a crisis to go to waste. It’s an opportunity to do important things you would otherwise avoid.”

As transportmakers, the companies could produce vehicles for high-speed train and bus systems that would improve our travel options, reduce global warming, conserve energy, minimize accidents and generally improve the way we live."

This is a wonderful idea. The United States must direct its transportation system towards universal and comprehensive public transportation while we are still able. This moment in time may be the best (only?) opportunity for that to happen. There will come a time, and I believe that it will be not to distant, when we will still need transportation but will not be able to continue to absorb the cost associated with the automobile or the externalities of the automobile based transportation model. If a functional public system is not ready when that time arrives it may never happen.

Green movement forgets its politics

[BBC NEWS | Science/Nature]: "Paul Hawken, author of Blessed Unrest - How the Largest Movement in the World Came into Being, writes that 'there are over one - maybe even two - million organisations (worldwide) working toward ecological sustainability and social justice'.

And yet... and yet... there is no real climate change movement. There is no organised effort leading society towards a legislative framework that would urgently drive down greenhouse gas emissions across the board, and begin to sequester carbon dioxide.

Not in the UK, or in the US, or internationally. The 'movement' that Hawken refers to is, he notes, 'atomised' and 'largely ignored'."

I agree with this idea. Individual citizens can make a government policy work, or not, but it cannot really make it happen in the first place. For this to happen, government leadership must be committed and inspired. We will not solve the problems of limited resources and climate change without committed leadership and cooperative citizens.

The rise of the new energy world order

Asia Times Online :: Asian news and current affairs: "The combination of rising demand, the emergence of powerful new energy consumers, and the contraction of the global energy supply is demolishing the energy-abundant world we are familiar with and creating in its place a new world order. Think of it as rising powers/shrinking planet."

I am waiting for the other shoe to hit the floor. At some point the producers that are left will say, "Hey, I am going to need this stuff in the future. Why should I sell it to anybody?" At that point the U. S., who is only producing one third of it oil requirement, will be in big time trouble.

We are all peakists now - Schlesinger

[Link: David Strahan | An interview with Dr. James Schlesinger]

Wow. The big boys are coming out of the Peak Oil Closet now, aren't they. The papers and airwaves have been filled with Alan Greenspan's claim, from his new book, that Iraq was indeed about oil. Of course he is backing down in the heat of day. Now this linked interview with former US Energy Secretary Dr. James Schlesinger in which he admits that behind closed doors the oil company executives have conceded that Peak Oil is eminent. And I expect Dr. Schlesinger is not only privy to the information he is sharing but probably is sharing it with full knowledge of those he claims to be quoting. I have often wondered what form the official disclosure of Peak Oil would take. I always supposed it would be a stream of increasingly more authoritative pronouncements subtly fed to us over time until we could no longer deny their message. I would not be surprised that we are beginning to hear our "official" warning signals.

Coal-to-Liquid Boondoggle - washingtonpost.com

To turn coal into liquid fuel it must be fired up to 1,000 degrees and mixed with water. Then the gas that's created is transformed into fuel that can be used in cars and jets. Unfortunately, creating CTL, as it is known, is a very intensive process requiring coal, water and cash. To wean the United States off of just 1 million barrels of the 21 million barrels of crude oil consumed daily, an estimated 120 million tons of coal would need to be mined each year. The process requires vast amounts of water, particularly a concern in the parched West. And the price of a plant is estimated at $4 billion.

[ Link: washingtonpost.com]

Does anyone notice a huge hole in this discussion of the pros and cons of coal liquification? The purpose of this new wonderful technology is to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, right? Supposedly, that will help us with our national security, help fight climate change (if we handle it right) and lead the way in our response to oil depletion. The only problems are water and financing. We have all the coal we could ever want. The article does mention in passing that the process is accomplished by heating the coal up to 1000 deg. F. However, where that energy is going to come from they don't say. Natural gas? More coal? Oil? Nuclear? Whatever is going to be used to heat the coal is either going to add back to our dependence on foreign energy and/or limit the net energy from the process, isn't it? By definition we don't have any extra fuel laying around or we wouldn't be doing this. And what about all of the energy required to catch and store all of that CO2? I'm sorry but I don't see how this is going to help.

GAO Report on Oil Supply

[Link = GAO Report(pdf)]

This is a link to the recently released report from the United States Government Accountability Office titled "CRUDE OIL - Uncertainty about Future Oil Supply Makes It Important to Develop a Strategy for Addressing a Peak and Decline in Oil Production." I have not read through it yet and there is a lot of commentary out there to sort through so I will not add my comments at this time. After I have absorbed all of the discussion, I will post my thoughts. I will say one thing. This appears to be a real escalation of visibility for the peak oil problem in the United States. As the report states, the United States must be concerned because the United States is the most vulnerable to oil disruptions.

The Peak Oil Crisis: The 4 Facets of Peak Oil

Looming just over the horizon are four great storms that soon will have a major impact on nearly all the world’s peoples and their descendents for decades to come. We know these storms are coming, for we can clearly see their outlines and some are already beginning to feel the winds.

We don’t know the exact timing nor the order of these storms’ arrival. We do know that the order in which they come will be important to how these storms interact with what our lifestyles will be like in the years ahead.

[Link: Falls Church News-Press]

Tom Whipple at Falls Church News-Press is always a good read. Sometimes his observations on Peak Oil and the real future are humorous and sometimes not but they are always informative. This article is pretty direct and to the point as usual.
We are facing the four horsemen of the petrocollapse. Physical, geological depletion; political chaos due to the uneven distribution of supplies and consumption; catastrophic environmental effects from uncontrolled oil use, culminating in significant global climate change; and finally economic meltdown as the costs of a critical resource become astronomical. These four "storms" are brewing as we speak and their effects are visible to those who are willing to see. They will all probably become obvious to everyone within a generation. But, as Tom observes, the details are still up in the air. The riders are visible on the ridge, we still can't tell who will get here first.

Running out of oil may not be the issue at all

Watson said other above-ground risks include higher costs of finding oil that could chill production and the lack of enough engineers and other professionals to replace the industry's aging work force.

"Above-ground peak oil will trump below-ground peak oil every time," Watson said.

[link: Chron.com - Houston Chronicle]

The shorter version of this article is "there is plenty of oil, we just won't be able to get at it so Peak Oil is a myth." I guess I am just dense but I don't remember anywhere that the phenomenon of oil depletion is only related to physical reserves or that it will occur without any difficulty. That is what peak oil is for Heaven's sake. It is like picking fruit on a tree. The first half of the harvest is no problem then you realize that those beauties up in the top or over the neighbors fence are going to be a lot more trouble than they are worth. That is when you leave them there and move on to the next tree. Unless, of course, there are no more trees. At that point if you want more fruit you are going to pay the price. At some point even that last branch may not be worth the effort and the birds are going to get the benefit. Those "above-ground" peak oil problems that he is complaining about are part and parcel of the peak oil problem.

Scientists blame global warming for rising hurricane intensity

Link: MiamiHerald.com | 02/01/2007

"That means the world's scientists are 90 to 99 percent certain that the burning of fossil fuels is responsible.
Worse, the study reportedly describes global warming as a runaway climatological train that already is racing down the track and will ``continue for centuries . . . even if greenhouse gas concentrations were to be stabilized."

You know it really takes a lot to get people off of the mark nowadays. When I was a youngster, and the G.I.s were in charge, if a reasonable number of experts decided there was a serious problem looming on the horizon, well, then something would be done. It wasn't necessary for the train to cut your car in half before you might think about moving the car or getting out of it. When you were sitting on the track and heard a whistle, even if you couldn't see anything yet, you started getting your butt in gear.

I don't really know when that changed. It probably began picking up steam back in the Nixon days, when the Republicans and Conservatives started belittling the experts and educated people in general, claiming their book learning was somehow inferior to the "wisdom" of the common man. It certainly has been strengthened by the claim of the common man's press that the best way to extract knowledge about a subject is to listen to "experts" from the fringy, opposite ends of the subject's spectrum beat each other up with half truths and innuendos. True knowledge has no place in these discussions. The holders of true knowledge are aware of these extremes and try to filter them out of the mass of information in the center that actually holds the truth. The first thing a scientist does when he analyzes statistical data is to throw out the extreme data points, recognizing them for the oddballs that they probably are. We need to somehow get back to a point where we can react to reasonable concern when it shows it head and not argue about it until the whole monster crawls out of the hole.

We should have been on top of this 20 years ago and we might have had a chance to actually do something about it other than survive.

Cutbacks Impede Climate Studies

The government's ability to understand and predict hurricanes, drought and climate changes of all kinds is in danger because of deep cuts facing many Earth satellite programs and major delays in launching some of its most important new instruments, a panel of experts has concluded.

Oh great! Just as the need for ever more vigilance and precision in weather and atmospheric monitoring becomes critical, the funding is cut. We couldn't make global warming go away by denying it. Now apparently we are going to try ignoring it. It is just another case in a long list of incredibly misplaced priorities by this administration.

We are fighting the wrong war. Instead of fighting for control of the worlds oil in order to assure an uninterruptible supply of fuel to support our existing lifestyle, we should be fighting the threat to our existence from using that oil at all. Eventually we will realize that the only way to get out of the trap we have set for ourselves is to quit using oil. We must do this for two reasons. To survive the climate catastrophe that is Global Warming, obviously we have to stop adding carbon to the atmosphere as we have been doing. We can best do that by not burning hydrocarbons and thereby releasing all of the carbon that has been sequestered in the earth's crust all these millions of years. But also, because we will begin to run out of oil in no more than a generation, we have to find a way to survive, as a species, without it. I think the only way to do that, painful as it might be, would be to go cold turkey for all uses of oil that could be done another way. That includes transportation, direct energy generation, fertilizers, asphalt and so on. That would force us to build a rational way of life using renewable resources while we still have some petrochemicals around for those situations where that is the only way to do it. Think of lubrication, medicines, exotic plastics, electronic components, etc. Let's not burn up those possibilities. In the long run there are no hydrocarbons. The bad news is that you probably can't hand off the long run to your children and grandchildren anymore.

[Link: Cutbacks Impede Climate Studies - washingtonpost.com]

Bridging Peak Oil and Climate Change Activism

By now a disturbing trend becomes clear: the two problems of Climate Change and Peak Oil together are worse than either by itself. Strategies that might help to keep lights burning and trucks moving while reducing emissions are questionable from a depletionist point of view, while most strategies to keep the economy energized as oil and gas disappear imply increasing greenhouse gas emissions. As we will see, the closer we look, the worse it gets.

As noted above, both groups need to design a survivable energy transition strategy in order to “sell” their message to policy makers. Carbon emissions come from burning depleting fossil fuels, the primary energy sources for modern societies. Thus both problems boil down to energy problems—and energy is essential to the maintenance of agriculture, transportation, communication, and just about everything else that makes up the modern global economy. [Link]

(Thanks to PeakEnergy (US) for directing me to this article.) I agree with Jon S. that this article is a very important addition to the public dialogue on energy issues. I have long claimed that the issues of Climate Change and Peak Oil are really two sides of one coin which is hydrocarbon dependency. We are not going to solve either problem alone because, as Mr. Heinberg explains, the two problems are really just symptoms of another common problem which is uncontrolled hydrocarbon exploitation.

Imagine if we had somehow limited our use of hydrocarbons over the years to some small fraction of todays consumption. Today we would probably have neither global warming (at todays rate, anyway) or peak oil (by definition). I suspect we would also have a lot fewer people as well because there would not have been the green revolution or globalization to encourage population increases. They are really the same problem.

We need to be thinking on this level. We need to be thinking about the real problems that confront us. We need to be thinking.

Bush Lifts Oil-Drill Ban in Alaska's Bristol Bay

Royalties to Rise for Some Offshore Wells in Advance of Democrats' Plans to Roll Back Tax Breaks

The Bush administration yesterday moved to boost U.S. oil and gas supplies by lifting a long-standing moratorium on drilling in Alaska's Bristol Bay, as OPEC accelerated plans to reduce supplies in order to prop up sagging crude prices. [Link]

This is not a surprise. But the reaction from Congress may look a little different now that there is a Democratic majority. In their remaining two years look for this administration to leave no stone unturned (literally) in their quest to open up our common resource legacy to corporate exploitation.

Reid to change U.S. energy plan

One does hope, doesn't one? I bet that everyone that has come to believe in the reality of limited oil production saw the Democrats embrace energy independence in the run up to the elections last month and harbored a little bit of wishful thinking. I did. But I must admit I tempered it with a pretty fair amount of skepticism. Now the elections have passed, however, and here is a Democratic leader proclaiming an intent to pursue energy independence in January when the Democrats take control of the Congress. I even saw mention of the dreaded conservation gambit. I am, of course, still hesitant to believe. There are still a pair of scissors available to this sitting President and his nerves are hardwired into the inner workings of the oil industry. After all of this time of being convinced the U.S. would never face up to its irrational dependence on oil in the face of diminishing ability to produce it, though, I am finally daring to hope.
[UPI Link: Reid to change U.S. energy plan]