Quantifying, and Dealing With, the Deepwater Spill 343
Gooseygoose writes with a link to this analysis by Boston University professor Cutler Cleveland. "Some reports in the media attempt to downplay the significance of the release of oil from the Deepwater Horizon accident by arguing that natural oil seeps release large volumes of oil to the ocean, so why worry? Let's look at the numbers." Read on for a few more stories on the topic of the Deepwater Horizon spill.
theodp writes with some information on the remote-controlled efforts to stanch the oil's flow: "The work Tito Collasius does sounds a little like science fiction: Men on ships flicking joysticks that control robots the size of trucks as they rove miles beneath the sea in near-freezing depths no man could hope to reach. But BP's spill efforts rest in the hands of underwater remote-operated vehicle (ROV) pilots, who 'fly' the ROVs from command centers aboard ships, joysticks in hand and large banks of screens in front of them offering a view of the challenges they confront in the waters below. ROVs are typically used for commercial (as in the oil industry), oceanographic (science research and exploration), and military (mine reconnaissance and recovery) missions. If you're interested in joining Tito, training's available."
Even if BP were to effect a perfect block for the oil, though, there's still quite a bit of it swirling in the Gulf — you've probably seen some gut-wrenching pictures of the affected wildlife. Reader grrlscientist writes "Some people claim that we should euthanize all oiled birds immediately upon recovering them. But I argue it is our ethical responsibility to protect, clean, and save these birds, even after they've been oiled, just as we should preserve and clean their habitats."
Re:All natural (Score:4, Interesting)
I first heard this line of reasoning on Fox News and my first reaction was "scale, people." What's funny is that our local Fox affiliate [myfoxla.com] keeps sending reporters up to the beaches of Santa Barbara where there's a fairly large natural oil seep as if to say, "See? It's no big deal..."
The Shaka Plan (Score:3, Interesting)
That's why we need the Shaka Plan for Energy:
1) Replace all coal power plants with nuclear
2) Replace all gasoline imports with coal gassification
Cost-neutral on the price of electricity, price of gasoline at the pump will go down, the influential senators from coal states are happy, and no more funding terrorism in the middle east.
Re: Silver Lining? (Score:2, Interesting)
Maybe this is the final push we need to actually invest money as a notion in alternative energy?
Or not... if the right wing gets involved.
Don't confuse the "rich wing" with the "right wing". The vast majority of Republican politicians just want to rule for the benefit of the rich. The whole social-conservative / southern strategy / religious right association is just a mechanism to get people to vote against their own best interests. If you admit you want to rule for the rich, you've got a big problem in a Republic with universal suffrage, since the rich are by definition a tiny fraction of the public. But politicians know that if you can make someone's knee jerk, you can make their hand twitch in a voting booth. So the Republican party cynically adopted positions that appeal to those groups, and occasionally throws them a bone to keep their support.
But in the run-up to the 2006 elections, the leaders of various socially conservative movements were complaining aloud that they were bringing a lot of votes to the table and not getting much in return... the only surprise is that it took them 26 years to notice.
Of course, by now that has been going on so long that the insane are starting to run the asylum. It's a pretty sure bet that Haley Barber is just shilling for the energy companies, but it's hard to tell whether the likes of Sarah Palin and Barbara Bachman are just trying to make people's knees jerk, or if they've actually drunk the Kool-Aide. Palin is so consistently behind Big Money issues that I suspect she's mostly just shilling, but you never know... As they say, you can't parody this stuff.
Re:All natural (Score:3, Interesting)
The reasons we are probably seeing things like this is to undo or mitigate the damage to the coastal tourism that is already being seen in the gulf area as a reaction to the spill. This will go more common as more and more industries away from the spill are hit with less and less business from the consumers on the beaches.
This will hit hard around election time if something can't be done to curb the expected negative growth in the economy caused by this. Expect the idea to get really popular in the next couple months.
Re:Raises the Question Where Does Oil Come From? (Score:5, Interesting)
Seems like there's far more oil than can be accounted for by dead organisms alone.
The total global biomass has been estimated to be 2000 billion tonnes with 1600 billion of those tonnes in forests.[13][14]
Net primary production is the rate at which biomass is generated in a given area, mainly due to photosynthesis. Some global producers of biomass in order of productivity rates are
* swamps and marshes: 2,500 g/m/yr of biomass[15]
* tropical rain forests: 2,000 g/m/yr of biomass[16]
* algal beds and reefs: 2000 g/m/yr of biomass[15]
* river estuaries: 1,800 g/m/yr of biomass[15]
* temperate forests: 1,250 g/m/yr of biomass[15]
* cultivated lands: 650 g/m/yr of biomass[15][17]
* deserts: 3 g/m/yr of biomass[17]
* open ocean: 125 g/m/yr of biomass[15][17]
* tundras: 140 g/m/yr[15][17]
(Multiply by millions of years...)
Re:Sarah Palin knows the reason for the spill....p (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: All natural (Score:4, Interesting)
I think we can all agree that the liability caps were a stupid, stupid idea by now and if we retroactively enforce them, we essentially give the government to take down whatever business they don't really like. [...] it is simply unfair to change the rules of a game in progress.
If Congress can retroactively extend the length of copyrights that were granted half a century ago, then apparently changing the rules of a game in progress is A-OK.
Re:What? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:so NIMBYs (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The Usual Suspects (Score:4, Interesting)
I think the two of you are saying the same thing in the opposite way. There were lots of experts working on the regulations. Unfortunately, they were all experts working for businesses. They knew they were putting in loop holes. Government and business worked together to screw the people in a manner that looked like they were working together for the betterment of everyone.
What we need to look at right now is how that relationship can be structured to best serve the public interest, rather than private interests as it has until now.
See, there was an involvement between the two. They just worked really hard to make it look like they were being helpful while harming the people. Whether it's the banks, the oil companies, or the automotive cartel shooting themselves (and the American people) in the foot in the long term to try to get next quarter's profits up, they work really hard to pretend to be helpful while giving the expert advice and guidance to make some of the worst legislation possible.
Re:Why not pump the oil at the surface into a tank (Score:3, Interesting)
ROV (Score:2, Interesting)
All fine except they didn't ignore standards (Score:1, Interesting)
All fine except they didn't ignore standards because the safety standard they missed isn't required by the US government in oil rigs. They are a safety requirement that other countries have, but this accident was in newly-acquired US territorial waters.
Re:Heh, (Score:3, Interesting)
"Making a good impression" would sort of imply Obama would have to retroactively cease being the single politician who has received the largest financial contributions from BP, though, wouldn't you think??
Re:The Usual Suspects (Score:3, Interesting)
As for the amount of oil that remains in the gulf itself, it seems to me there's not a whole lot we can do about that at this point. So while there's certainly value in understanding the nature and scope of the problem, in purely practical terms I don't really see how it matters.
One gulf hurricane in the area will demonstrate pretty effectively why it matters. A hurricane is capable of churning up deep water which means not only would an area need to worry about the oil at the surface but also any of those deeper oil plumes below the surface as well. There's a difference between weathering a hurricane and needing to evacuate due to toxic contamination.
Given that it is expected that this year will be a hyper-active hurricane season it is very important to know the extent of the spill so hurricane prone areas are prepared deal with not only the normal hurricane threats but also the new HAZMAT threat posed by a category WD-40 hurricane.
Re:All fine except they didn't ignore standards (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:The Usual Suspects (Score:3, Interesting)
...Or do you mean people who are saying the exact amount of oil isn't relevant to the task at hand? If the former, I agree with you, but if you mean the latter, you may want to reconsider.
Here's the thing. We want the answer. We don't have to justify why. BP is responsible to us, and we want the fucking answer.
If they had hit my child in a car, and I asked 'how fast you were going,' and their answer was "what does it matter let's just call the ambulance" I would destroy them right then and there. period. Irrational or not. I deserve the answer and I don't need to justify why.