Boycott BP – But is that possible? They own Arcoa

Posted on May 25, 2010 by Doug Nicodemus

PB Has huge holdings in Aluminum, Lubricants, and Financial Services it would take the whole world to make it work..Go to:
http://www.bp.com

and click on Products and Services. You will be amazed at the things that they own and the things that they sell. These folks really are too big to fail. So:

How Big is the Spill?

Tuesday, May 25, 2010 10:46 AM

From:

“Maggie L. Fox, Repower America” <info@repoweramerica.org>

To:

“doug nicodemus” <dougnic55@yahoo.com>

Repower America

Dear doug,

It’s now been over a month since the Deepwater Oil Disaster began — and not only has BP failed to stop the flow of oil so far, but we still don’t even know how big the spill is — because BP won’t allow anyone else to investigate the extent of the problem.

The secrecy must stop.

BP is refusing to share information — data it’s already tracking — that would assist in the response and public understanding of the scope and severity of the Deepwater Oil Disaster. And they have every incentive in the world to keep doing so — news reports say that the smaller the official estimates of the spill, the lower BP’s liability could be in court.¹

We don’t let criminals investigate their own crimes, and this shouldn’t be any different. It’s time for BP to get out of the way and allow access for independent scientists and engineers to determine the real size of this catastrophe.

Sign the petition today calling on BP to provide full access to all their data to the government and independent scientists.

Independent reviews by scientists across the country are suggesting that the oil leak may be as much as 19 times worse than the original estimates — but BP refuses to provide them with the data required to make their estimates more precise. All we know for sure is that the oil just keeps on gushing.

BP is extremely sensitive right now to public pressure — so let’s tell them that we won’t stand for them hiding the truth. We’ll deliver copies of the petitions and any comments you submit to the CEO of BP, as well as the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Demand full access to BP’s data and real answers about the Deepwater disaster.

Thanks for joining this fight,

Maggie L. Fox
Chief Executive Officer
Climate Protection Action Fund

P.S. This disaster is a painful reminder of how dangerous our addiction to oil really is – and how critical it is that our elected officials in Washington pass strong climate and clean energy legislation that weans us off of dirty fossil fuels as soon as possible. We must make sure that Americans and our leaders understand the true cost of oil. We simply can’t afford a BP coverup. Sign the petition now demanding full transparency.

___________
1. Marisa Taylor, Renee Schoof and Erika Bolstad, “Low oil spill estimate could save BP millions in court,” McClatchy Newspapers, May 20, 2010. http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20100521/pl_mcclatchy/3511770

RepowerAmerica.org | Facebook | Twitter | Unsubscribe

Paid for by the Climate Protection Action Fund

Maybe this is the best we can do.

Jevons’ Paradox – Or should it be called Jevons’ Justification

Posted on May 20, 2010 by Doug Nicodemus

Or maybe even Jevons’ Excuse. See if the Industrialists and the Elite can say, “Look it doesn’t matter whether we save energy or not. Someone else will just use it”. Kind of like Marx’s army of the unemployed. The is the army of the underenergized. As we pointed out last time this is called a rebound theory because after the efficiencies are introduced the consumption never quite makes it back to the same level. That is because once people see that they can save a lot of money by paying less, their ways stay changed so to speak. Much of that rebound can also be explained by human kinds relentless population growth. But he also assumes the total fluidity of the market. Not everyone can access a nuke in Savannah like if they are in Nigeria.

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Jevons_paradox

Jevons paradox

Contributing Author: Richard York (other articles)

Lead Author: Horace Herring (other articles)

Article Topic: Energy

This article has been reviewed and approved by the following Topic Editor: Cutler J. Cleveland (other articles)

Last Updated: October 8, 2006

Jevons paradox (also known as the rebound effect) is the observation that greater energy efficiency, while in the short-run producing energy savings, may in the long-run result in higher energy use. It was first noted by the British economist W. Stanley Jevons, in his book The Coal Question published in 1865, where he argued that “it is a confusion of ideas to suppose that the economical use of fuel is equivalent to diminished consumption. The very contrary is the truth.” The Jevons paradox is an observation based on economic theory and long-term historical studies, and its magnitude is a matter of considerable dispute: if it is small (i.e., the expansion of fuel using activities is less than 100% of the improvement in efficiency) then energy efficiency improvements will lead to lower energy consumption, if it is large (i.e., the expansion of fuel using activities is greater than 100% of the improvement in efficiency) then energy consumption will be higher. A key problem in resolving the two positions is that it is not possible to run ‘control’ experiments to see whether energy use is higher or lower than if there had been no efficiency improvements—there is, after all, only one future. A further problem is that the rebound effect has differing impacts at all levels of the economy, from the micro-economic (the consumer) to the macro-economic (the national economy), and its magnitude at all levels of the economy has not yet been determined. Nonetheless, there is mounting evidence that at the national level it is not uncommon for total resource consumption to grow even while efficiency improves, suggesting at least that improvements in efficiency are not necessarily sufficient for curtailing consumption (although, once again, this does not necessarily demonstrate that resource consumption grows because of improvements in efficiency).

Then there is this:

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2499

Efficiency Policy, Jevon’s Paradox, and the “Shadow” Rebound Effect

Posted by Prof. Goose on April 26, 2007 – 10:36am
Topic: Demand/Consumption
Tags: efficiency, jevons paradox, rebound effect [list all tags]

This is a guest post by Jeff Vail.

Is the push for greater energy efficiency a good policy choice to address energy scarcity after Peak Oil? Here’s a bold answer: NO, at least not in a vacuum. Efficiency is not a standalone solution, but part of the much more complex problem of reducing total energy consumption that must address Jevon’s Paradox and the Rebound Effect.

Jevon’s Paradox tells us that when we increase the efficiency of the use of a resource, we initially decrease the demand for that resource, but that ultimately this lower demand reduces price, which causes a “rebound” of increasing demand. When applied specifically to energy efficiency, this is commonly referred to as the “Rebound Effect.”

Here’s a real-world example. Let’s magically double the average fuel economy of America’s cars and trucks. Gasoline demand would drop immediately by 50%. This would affect the supply-demand equilibrium of gasoline, reducing its price significantly. However, with dramatically lower gas prices, many people would choose to drive more than they had in the past—this is the “rebound,” where some of the energy savings provided by gains in efficiency are negated by the corresponding effect on energy prices. Clearly, a 50% drop in gas prices won’t result in the average American doubling their driving, as would be required to completely negate the efficiency gains in this scenario. Even if gas was free, there would be some limit to how much we would drive. So this “rebound effect” doesn’t negate the entirety of energy savings due to efficiency. Studies suggest that it erases perhaps 10%-30% of the gains.

Please read more of this highly informative article and find out about PEAK OIL too.

Jevons’ Paradox – Truth or intellectual masterbation

Posted on May 19, 2010 by Doug Nicodemus

I vote for intellectual masterbation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_conservation

Energy conservation refers to efforts made to reduce energy consumption in order to preserve resources for the future and reduce environmental pollution. It can be achieved through efficient energy use (when energy use is decreased while achieving a similar outcome), or by reduced consumption of energy services. Energy conservation may result in increase of financial capital, environmental value, national security, personal security, and human comfort. Individuals and organizations that are direct consumers of energy may want to conserve energy in order to reduce energy costs and promote economic security. Industrial and commercial users may want to increase efficiency and thus maximize profit.

Electrical energy conservation is an important element of energy policy. Energy conservation reduces the energy consumption and energy demand per capita and thus offsets some of the growth in energy supply needed to keep up with population growth. This reduces the rise in energy costs, and can reduce the need for new power plants, and energy imports. The reduced energy demand can provide more flexibility in choosing the most preferred methods of energy production.

By reducing emissions, energy conservation is an important part of lessening climate change. Energy conservation facilitates the replacement of non-renewable resources with renewable energy. Energy conservation is often the most economical solution to energy shortages, and is a more environmentally benign alternative to increased energy production. Another method is switchingto the user friendly SM energy. This is produced at Swan Energy Savers, envirmental helpers.^[1]

dot dot dot as they say…

Issues with energy conservation

Critics and advocates of some forms of energy conservation make the following arguments:

Standard economic theory suggests that technological improvements increase energy efficiency, rather than reduce energy use. This is called the Jevons Paradox and it is said to occur in two ways. Firstly, increased energy efficiency makes the use of energy relatively cheaper, thus encouraging increased use. Secondly, increased energy efficiency leads to increased economic growth, which pulls up energy use in the whole economy. This does not imply that increased fuel efficiency is worthless, increased fuel efficiency enables greater production and a higher quality of life. However, in order to reduce energy consumption, efficiency gains must be paired with a government intervention that reduces demand (a green tax, cap and trade).^[6]^[7]

Just the shear arrogance of this guy makes me vote for the truth side.

http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2005/12/180-jevons-paradox-refuted.html

Well… the doomers love Jevons Paradox. For them it is, above all, a reason not to conserve (or a reason why conservation “won’t help”). After all, why should anybody conserve gasoline? If they do so, it will (by Jevons Paradox) just cause consumption of gasoline to increase.

Now, we may not be able to refute Jevons Paradox as an empirical fact, but we certainly can refute the way doomers are using it. We can do it with a single example:
In a vast parking lot ruled by cars and low-slung superstores, Stacey Harper delivers the unlikeliest of travel alternatives: mass transit.

The 41-year-old nurse wheels a white minivan into a rain-dappled parking spot to pick up a couple more co-workers. It is 6 a.m. on a Wednesday in South Hill, and Harper is driving a van pool to work at Western State Hospital.

A year ago, Harper thought nothing of driving 36 miles from home to work alone. That was before the price of a gallon of gasoline began its steady march upward, ultimately costing her $180 to $200 per month.

Please see the rest of the blog AND comments, but his point is that people that conserve energy make money. Once they do that they will rarely ever go back to wasting money. That is Jevons failed to take true consumer behavior into account.

Gulf Of Mexico Oil Crisis Ends – The Oil Spew is over because BP is sucking on a straw.

Posted on May 17, 2010 by Doug Nicodemus

That’s right besides the 40 million gallons of oil lurking in mats 1,500 feet above the ocean floor trapped by dispersants and getting ready to wash into the Atlantic and the continued wash of 40, 000 barrels of oil per day, the crisis is over and we here at CES are going to celebrate Norwegian Independence Day. Why? Because it is neither the day of the actual Norwegian Independence nor is it celebrated for the actual year of their Independence. We feel this is fitting.

http://open.salon.com/blog/norwonk/2009/05/17/independence_day_in_norway

Like Americans, Norwegians love to celebrate what is normally translated as Independence Day. Actually, though the day commemorates the events of May 17, 1814, Norway didn’t really achieve independence until 1905. In Norwegian it is sometimes called Constitution Day, which is more accurate – although there is a problem with that as well.

These confusing facts require some explanation. From 1380 to 1814, Norway was united with Denmark. However, as Denmark was an ally of Napoleon, the great powers of Europe decided that her punishment would be to lose Norway to Sweden (slippery as ever, the Swedes had joined the allies at the opportune moment). When the Norwegians were informed that they were now Swedes, they decided they didn’t like that one little bit. Rather than accepting the news, they elected a national assembly to work out a constitution for an independent Norway (at least, it was supposed to be national; the representatives from the northernmost province had such a long way to travel that they came too late to participate). On May 17, 1814 this first Norwegian parliament elected the Danish Crown Prince, Christian Frederick, as their king.

Unfortunately, that didn’t work out at all. The Swedes had the support of Russia, Britain, Austria and Prussia, and no one cared much for the opinion of the Norwegian people. Long story short: the Swedes invaded, and after a short campaign Christian Frederick renounced his throne and went back to Denmark, leaving Charles XIII the new king of Norway and Sweden. That union would last until the Norwegian parliament declared independence (again) in 1905.
All this made Christian Frederick a rather unpopular man in Norway, but in time it was realized that he had actually made a pretty good deal. In return for giving up the crown, he had convinced the Swedes to accept the new Norwegian constitution which parliament had adopted (confusingly enough on May 16, which really ought to have been our national day, but never mind). That was a huge bonus. The constitution, which is still in place, was among the most democratic in Europe at that time.

So basically like the oil companies, these folks have 2 or 3 Independence Days (Yaaa we are free) every year and the first one lasts a month. It involves children with flags, students dressed in funny costumes according to their profession, and reenactors dressing up in very old clothes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Norway

The young king and Norwegian officials tried to find international backing for their bid for Norway as a sovereign state throughout spring and early summer of 1814. After failing to secure the support of Great Britain, war with Sweden became unavoidable. The Swedish Campaign against Norway was short and decisive. However, while badly trained and equipped, the Norwegian Army put up a determined fight, holding the Swedes back at Kongsvinger and securing a tactical victory at the battle of Langnes. This enabled the King to avoid an unconditional surrender as he was forced into negotiations with the Swedes, leading to the Convention of Moss.

Putting the strategic situation and his own abdication to good use, he persuaded the Swedish crown prince Carl Johan (the former Marshal Bernadotte of France) to let the Norwegians keep their constitution. The Swedish crown prince wanted to appease the Norwegians and avoid a bloody continuation of the war. Realizing that a forced union with himself as ruler of a conquered and hostile country would be very uneasy, he accepted the Norwegian proposition. Norway then entered into a personal union with Sweden with only such amendments to its constitution as were necessary to form the Union between Sweden and Norway. On October 7, an extraordinary session of the Storting convened, and king Christian Frederik delegated his powers to the parliament and abdicated on October 10. The Storting adopted the constitutional amendments on November 4 and on the same day unanimously elected Charles XIII king of Norway, rather than acknowledging him as such, thus reinforcing the concept a King by the will of the people.

Dissolution and the second King

The union amendments were revoked after the dissolution of the ninety-one-year-old union in 1905. The question of a King was again considered, and the Storting elected to offer the throne to the 33-year-old Prince Carl of Denmark, married to Maud of Wales, the daughter of King Edward VII. By bringing in a king with British royal ties, it was hoped that Norway could court Britain’s support. Prince Carl was however well aware of a surge of republicanism in Norway and of the constitutional situation of the Norwegian throne. He insisted that he would accept the crown only if the Norwegian people expressed their will for monarchy by referendum and if the parliament then elected him king. On November 13, the Norwegian votes decided on monarchy with a 74 percent majority, and Carl was elected King by the Storting, taking the name Haakon VII of Norway.

Several other amendments have been adopted since 1814, the most recent on February 20, 2006. After World War II and the restoration of peace and constitutional rule, there was much debate on how to handle the events of the previous five years. None of this led to any changes in the constitution; it had withstood the test of hard times.

Of Course lots of drinking and eating herring also ensues. This guy gets to celebrate 4 Independence Days the US, Italy and 2 for Norway.

http://www.lawzone.com/half-nor/crispo.htm

First, by way of background, Norway was ruled by the kings of Denmark from the 12th century until early in the 19th century (1814).

In 1814, Denmark was penalized for its support of Napoleon by giving Norway to Sweden. Before the transition was carried out, Norway declared itself independent on May 17, 1814. A degree of independence was retained even after Norway became subject to the Swedish Crown.

In 1905, on May 17, Norway declared its complete independence.

In 1914, World War I began. Norway remained neutral, but many of its ships were sunk.

In 1940-1945: when World War II began, Norway again proclaimed its neutrality. However, on April 9, 1940, Nazi forces invaded the two neutral nations of Norway and Denmark under the guise of protecting them against an “Anglo-French Occupation” and “To Protect Their Freedom and Independence.”

Oslo wired Berlin:

“We will not submit voluntarily; the struggle is already underway.”

At the time of World War II, Norway was just beginning to realize its industrial potential when Germany invaded. Five years of German occupation and a burn-and-retreat strategy in the final weeks of the war, left the nation ravaged. But, after the war, the Norwegians, known for their determination and tenacity, returned to rebuild their homes and villages. Finally the flags of freedom were again flying over Europe and Trygve Lie of Norway was elected as the first secretary general of the United Nations.

It is no surprise that Norwegians eat, drink and make merry during the month of May in celebration of this most significant month in their history.

So we say to BP. Job well done Brownie.

For the real scoop go to: http://www.leanweb.org/

Gulf Spew Could Be 40 Million Barrels – New estimates and a video are scary

Posted on May 14, 2010 by Doug Nicodemus

It is Jam Band Friday – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udEDlOZJmCc

I have said for awhile that this could be the biggest manmade disaster of all time. I never believed the oil flow estimates and I never believed that they would be able to plug the hole. Now is a good time to pray.

So lets start with what the flow really looks like when they tried the the Big Siphon:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brendan-demelle/new-footage-of-bps-failed_b_574350.html

Brendan DeMelle

Freelance writer and researcher

Posted: May 12, 2010 09:09 PM

New Footage of BP’s Failed Containment Dome Effort (VIDEO)

Update: BP just confirmed to us that the pipe in the 2nd video showing the main leak is 20″ in diameter (almost 2 feet). (Specifically, the outer is 21″; the inner is 20″.)

More footage was released today from the Deepwater Disaster, providing an indication of the powerful streams of oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico.

This video shows the failed attempt over the weekend to lower a 100-ton, 4-story “cofferdam” dome over the top of the main leak. As the dome is lowered onto the leak, you can see the oil gushing out on the sides, offering a better sense of the volume of oil pumping into the Gulf of Mexico.

Please see the article and the 2 videos. So what happens if the natural gas, which looks to be half the spill catches on fire? BOOM…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BruDTUvBClk&feature=related

Ultimately why did this happen? Deregulation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/us/14agency.html?hp

U.S. Said to Allow Drilling Without Needed Permits

By IAN URBINA

Published: May 13, 2010

WASHINGTON — The federal Minerals Management Service gave permission to BP and dozens of other oil companies to drill in the Gulf of Mexico without first getting required permits from another agency that assesses threats to endangered species — and despite strong warnings from that agency about the impact the drilling was likely to have on the gulf

Those approvals, federal records show, include one for the well drilled by the Deepwater Horizon rig, which exploded on April 20, killing 11 workers and resulting in thousands of barrels of oil spilling into the gulf each day.

The Minerals Management Service, or M.M.S., also routinely overruled its staff biologists and engineers who raised concerns about the safety and the environmental impact of certain drilling proposals in the gulf and in Alaska, according to a half-dozen current and former agency scientists.

Those scientists said they were also regularly pressured by agency officials to change the findings of their internal studies if they predicted that an accident was likely to occur or if wildlife might be harmed.

Under the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Minerals Management Service is required to get permits to allow drilling where it might harm endangered species or marine mammals.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, is partly responsible for protecting endangered species and marine mammals. It has said on repeated occasions that drilling in the gulf affects these animals, but the minerals agency since January 2009 has approved at least three huge lease sales, 103 seismic blasting projects and 346 drilling plans. Agency records also show that permission for those projects and plans was granted without getting the permits required under federal law.

Is there any hope?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6S_OU3EBtRo&feature=related

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/gulf-oil-spill-supertankers-051310

The Secret, 700-Million-Gallon Oil Fix That Worked — and Might Save the Gulf

May 13, 2010 at 6:46AM by Mark Warren

Workers on the Arabian Gulf overlook a supertanker owned by Saudi Aramco, the oil company that used a suck-and-salvage American technology to recover 85 percent of its previously unreported spill in 1993 and ’94.

There’s a potential solution to the Gulf oil spill that neither BP, nor the federal government, nor anyone — save a couple intuitive engineers — seems willing to try. As The Politics Blog reported on Tuesday in an interview with former Shell Oil president John Hofmeister, the untapped solution involves using empty supertankers to suck the spill off the surface, treat and discharge the contaminated water, and either salvage or destroy the slick.

627diggsdigg

Hofmeister had been briefed on the strategy by a Houston-based environmental disaster expert named Nick Pozzi, who has used the same solution on several large spills during almost two decades of experience in the Middle East — who says that it could be deployed easily and should be, immediately, to protect the Gulf Coast. That it hasn’t even been considered yet is, Pozzi thinks, owing to cost considerations, or because there’s no clear chain of authority by which to get valuable ideas in the right hands. But with BP’s latest four-pronged plan remaining unproven, and estimates of company liability already reaching the tens of billions of dollars (and counting), supertankers start to look like a bargain.

The suck-and-salvage technique was developed in desperation across the Arabian Gulf following a spill of mammoth proportions — 700 million gallons — that has until now gone unreported, as Saudi Arabia is a closed society, and its oil company, Saudi Aramco, remains owned by the House of Saud. But in 1993 and into ’94, with four leaking tankers and two gushing wells, the royal family had an environmental disaster nearly sixty-five times the size of Exxon Valdez on its hands, and it desperately needed a solution.

Pozzi, an American engineer then in charge of Saudi Aramco’s east-west pipeline in the technical support and maintenance services division, was part of a team given cart blanche to control the blowout. Pozzi had dealt with numerous spills over the years without using chemicals, and had tried dumping flour into the oil, then scooping the resulting tar balls from the surface. “You ever cooked with flour? Absorbent, right?” Pozzi says. Next, he’d dumped straw into the spills; also highly absorbent, but then you’ve got a lot of straw to clean up. This spill was going to require a much larger, more sustained solution. And fast.

That’s when Pozzi and his team came up with the idea of having empty ships park near the Saudi spill and pull the oil off the water. This part of the operation went on for six months, with the mop-up operations lasting for several years more. Pozzi says that 85 percent of the spilled oil was recovered, and it is precisely this strategy that he wants to see deployed in the Gulf of Mexico.

When they contacted BP

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKQ5jhtFypg&feature=related

JON KING: Well, we went down to the BP headquarters in Houma, Louisiana, and we didn’t have an appointment so they wouldn’t let us in. Then I called the president of BP and I talked to his secretary and she put me in touch with somebody, but the somebody she put me in touch with didn’t know who we should talk to. Nick contacted a gentleman that he used to work with at BP, and he threatened to sue Nick for not going through channels. And I said, “Great. I’d love BP to sue us for trying to help them. That would be wonderful.”

While the Army Plays with itself.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/05/us-army-gulf-spill-oil-asphalt-experimental-chemical-video.php

US Army to Turn Gulf Spill Oil Into Asphalt With Experimental Chemical (Video)

by Brian Merchant, Brooklyn, New York on 05.13.10

Science & Technology

Photos by Brian Merchant

In order to protect the coastline at Dauphin Island — a site where tar balls have made landfall and hundreds of fish are washing up dead on the beach — the US Army has launched a highly experimental plan to prevent any oil from reaching its shores. It plans on trapping the oil in Hesco baskets and then applying a chemical called CI Agent, turning the oil into a gelatinous solid. That solid, comprised from oil from the gulf spill, will then be collected and turned into asphalt. Here’s Dan Parker, the CEO of CI Agent Solutions, demonstrating how the chemical solution works:

(Please go to the site and see all the pretty video)

The chemical is contained in the boxes, which will be filled up with gelatin if and when the oil hits Dauphin’s coast.

Questions remain, of course: though both Parker and Captain Kelly affirm the chemical is safe for wildlife, it’s never been used or tested on such a large scale and in this manner. But considering that BP is dropping hundreds of thousands of experimental chemical dispersants in the Gulf as we speak, this is a drop in the bucket by comparison — and if cleaned and contained properly could be an interesting solution to watch for in the future.

I’m traveling around the Gulf of Mexico reporting on the continuing oil crisis. Stay tuned for the latest developments and breaking reports from the scene.

See you Monday.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvbA8FBd_Vo&feature=related

Oil Spew In The Gulf – Day 23

Posted on May 13, 2010 by Doug Nicodemus

Do you think PB or anyone else is really serious about cleaning up the Gulf of Mexico? They refuse to share information and if they were really serious about sealing the blow out they would have exploded it or suffocated it by now. But they haven’t so the only conclusion that can be reached is that all they have done so far is for show.

Anyway here are 40 photos of the damage to the Gulf…I am going to try to post one because of copy right laws. But please go to the site and see the rest…IT’s DISGUSTING

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/05/disaster_unfolds_slowly_in_the.html

May 12, 2010

Disaster unfolds slowly in the Gulf of Mexico

In the three weeks since the April 20th explosion and sinking of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico, and the start of the subsequent massive (and ongoing) oil leak, many attempts have been made to contain and control the scale of the environmental disaster. Oil dispersants are being sprayed, containment booms erected, protective barriers built, controlled burns undertaken, and devices are being lowered to the sea floor to try and cap the leaks, with little success to date. While tracking the volume of the continued flow of oil is difficult, an estimated 5,000 barrels of oil (possibly much more) continues to pour into the gulf every day. While visible damage to shorelines has been minimal to date as the oil has spread slowly, the scene remains, in the words of President Obama, a “potentially unprecedented environmental disaster.” (40 photos total)

Seawater covered with thick black oil splashes up in brown-stained whitecaps off the side of the supply vessel Joe Griffin at the site of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill containment efforts in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Louisiana Sunday, May 9, 2010. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)

Tomorrow is the last day. I can’t take it anymore.

What’s New With The Oil Spill Today – The last oil Blow Out in the Gulf lasted 9 months

Posted on May 12, 2010 by Doug Nicodemus

I for one can tell you that I can not follow this Oil Disaster for 9 months which is how long the Ixtoc Blow Out lasted. So I have promised myself that on Monday I am going to cover something else about the energy and environmental fields.

For today however.

http://leanweb.org/donate/donate/donate-join.html

Louisiana Officials Request Chemical Dispersant Information From BP

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 British Petroleum today outlining their concerns related to potential dispersant impact on Louisiana’s wildlife and fisheries, environment 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.

We applaud these Louisiana State officials for taking these steps to protect the health and safety of Gulf Coast communities and the Gulf environment. And we too believe that it is important that BP provide all of the information that they can.

However, the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster is an unprecedented event. Never has this much of this kind of crude oil been spilled into these specific environs and with large quantities of these specific chemical dispersants used. Due to the unprecedented nature of this event we do not believe that BP or any other entity can adequately answers these questions.

The health of our people and the integrity of the Gulf environments are too precious to leave up to guesses or limited scientific knowledge. There must be a coordinated and unified investigation of the environmental impacts of the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster involving all of the appropriate Federal and State agencies in partnership with any relevant members of the private sector including researchers from universities and environmental organizations. It is also imperative that this be a transparent process that incorporates the on-the-ground knowledge and observations of local citizens.

The full text of the letter is below.

May 7, 2010

Mr. Tony Hayward
Chief Executive Officer
British Petroleum

Dear Mr. Hayward:
The BP-Transocean drilling incident and resulting oil spill has created massive challenges for BP, the federal government and for the State of Louisiana. We all agree with the primary goal of protecting our sensitive coastal areas and the health and safety of our people. We encourage you to continue making these issues the priority.

Please read from the rest of the post at www.leanorg.com and DONATE at the link above…they are fighting the good fight.

http://www.physorg.com/news192784973.html

BP relaunches subsea dispersant operations

May 11, 2010 Enlarge

Orange colored chemical dispersant is seen in the water as it is used to help with the massive oil spill off the coast of Louisiana on May 5. BP restarted Monday operations to stream dispersants directly into the main Gulf of Mexico oil leak despite fears the chemicals could themselves be harmful to the environment. BP restarted Monday operations to stream dispersants directly into the main Gulf of Mexico oil leak despite fears the chemicals could themselves be harmful to the environment.
A mile-long tube was fed down to the leaking pipe on the sea floor and directly shot the dispersant into the flow, guided by remotely-operated robotic submarines.

State and federal agencies “consented to the third test today of subsea dispersant,” BP spokesman John Curry told AFP.

The test began at 4:30 am (0930 GMT) “and will continue for 24 hours. After the test is concluded, further evaluations will be conducted,” said Curry.

The dispersant is meant to break down the oil so that, over time, the slick is reduced to smaller particles that biodegrade instead of being left as chunky, thick globs that can choke both wildlife and vegetation.

Critics however say the dispersant causes just as many problems as it solves, and affects undersea life from the smallest microorganism on up.

“We are continuing to deploy dispersant at the seabed. It seems to be having a significant impact,” said BP CEO Tony Hayward.

“We have an armada of ships, as you know, on the surface engaged in major skimming activity. That is proving to be pretty effective. We’ve skimmed of the order of 100,000 barrels of oily water,” Hayward said.

“And we have an air force of planes deploying dispersants, and we’re also conducting, as you know, controlled burns, and that — the activity on the surface is going a very long way to containing the spill in the far offshore.”

Louisiana State University scientists will study underwater and surface samples of the dispersant impact on the oily water mixture, Curry said.

Meanwhile, US Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lisa Jackson traveled to the gulf region on a two-day visit “to oversee efforts to mitigate the environmental and human health impact of the ongoing BP oil spill,” the EPA said in a statement.

Jackson will be seeking “a thorough scientific assessment” of the spill’s impact on the region, and will meet with scientists, “to discuss the potential impact of the use of dispersants on the spill on and below the surface of the water,” among other things.

The Politicians gnash their teeth:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100512/ap_on_re_us/us_gulf_oil_spill_washington

Rep. Waxman: Oil well’s blowout preventer had leak

REDERIC J. FROMMER, Associated Press Writer Frederic J. Frommer, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 5 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Rep. Henry Waxman says that his committee’s investigation into the Gulf oil spill reveals that a key safety device, the blowout preventer, had a leak in a crucial hydraulic system.

The California Democrat said in a hearing Wednesday that the investigation also discovered that the well had failed a negative pressure test just hours before the April 20 explosion.

He cited BP documents received by the Energy and Commerce Committee that showed there was a breach in the well integrity that allowed methane gas and possibly other hydrocarbons to enter the well.

Then there is this:

http://io9.com/5535851/how-much-oil-will-be-wasted-in-the-deepwater-spill

More tomorrow I am sure…

Oil Blow Out In The Gulf – We hit 4 million barrels today

Posted on May 11, 2010 by Doug Nicodemus

Here are more snippets about the biggest impending disaster of all time.

http://www.leanweb.org/

Evaluation of EPA Air Monitoring Results from Venice, LA for the period of April 28, 2010 – May 7, 2010

by Wilma Subra

Hydrogen Sulfide

Odor Threshold for Hydrogen Sulfide: 0.5 ppb
Physical Reaction Symptoms: 5 to 10 ppb

Acute Physical Health Symptoms:

Irritates eyes

Irritates nose, throat and lungs

Nausea, dizziness, confusion, headache

Venice Hydrogen Sulfide Air Monitoring Results for the period of April 28, 2010 – May 7, 2010

Date:	Hydrogen Sulfide (parts per billion):

April 28	None Detected
April 29	No Data
April 30	No Data
May 1	No Data
May 2	30 ppb
May 3	1,192 ppb
May 4	46 ppb
May 5	1,010 ppb
May 6	1,000 ppb
May 7	280 ppb

Then there is the traditional finger pointing.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100511/ts_nm/us_oil_rig_leak;_ylt=AldAGdPoal1a0tAxf_zTnB2s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNmZGllOG1wBGFzc2V0A25tLzIwMTAwNTExL3VzX29pbF9yaWdfbGVhawRjY29kZQNtb3N0c

G9wdWxhcgRjcG9zAzEEcG9zAzMEcHQDaG9tZ

V9jb2tlBHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcnkEc2xrA2Z1bGxuYnNwc3Rvcg–

Oil executives face Congress on Gulf spill

By Timothy Gardner Timothy Gardner – 1 hr 24 mins ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Protesters and angry lawmakers greeted top executives of companies involved with the Gulf of Mexico’s massive oil spill at a congressional hearing in which the company leaders were poised to blame each other for the unfolding environmental disaster.

Senate Energy Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman opened the hearing saying that senators were likely to hear that the oil rig explosion and oil spill were due to a “cascade of errors.”

Lamar McKay, president of BP America Inc, Steven Newman, president of Transocean Ltd, and Tim Probert, a senior executive of Halliburton Co, will face intense questions before two Senate committees.

Based on their written testimonies to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and to a later hearing of the Environment and Public Works Committee, the executives will blame each others’ companies for last month’s rig explosion and for the failure to control the oil slick threatening the U.S. Gulf Coast.

Arriving for the hearing, the executives were met by protesters holding signs saying “Boycott BP” and “BP Kills,” while six young women wore T-shirts with the words, “Energy shouldn’t cost lives.” Black tears were inked onto their faces. It is the first public inquiry into the oil spill.

People have even gotten into the comparison act.

http://paulrademacher.com/oilspill/

How big is the Deepwater Horizon oil spill?

On April 20th, an explosion on the Deepwater Horizon left 17 workers injured and 11 missing and presumed dead. Oil is spilling from a well 5000 feet below sea level, discharging 200,000 gallons of crude oil a day according to the official estimate (though over 2 million a day, by private estimates).

The spill covers at least 2500 square miles of ocean surface. You can see the extent of the damage here as of May 6th, just southeast of New Orleans.

But how big is the spill, really? It’s hard to get a sense of the true size when it’s over the ocean floor. Use the links below to see how large the spill is.

Compare to Manhattan Compare to San Francisco Compare to Paris Compare to London Compare to Rome Compare to Hawaii Compare to Washington, D.C.

Compare to your own city:

I couldn’t get it to work by the way but maybe you can…the pictures I saw that it generated were pretty cool. Finally this from Dick “the” Durbin.

info@dickdurbin.com

Dear doug,

Click here to take action.

Three years ago our online community effectively forced the world’s fourth largest corporation, oil-giant British Petroleum (BP), to clean up its act and protect the Great Lakes.

Now that same company is responsible for one of the most disastrous oil spills in U.S. history. By the time you’re done reading this message, another 500 gallons of toxic crude will have gushed into the Gulf of Mexico.

We must act once more to hold BP accountable.

Cleaning up BP’s mess — and compensating individuals and businesses devastated by the spill — could cost upwards of $12.5 billion. But if they expect American taxpayers, individuals and businesses to foot the bill, they have another thing coming.

Tell British Petroleum: Don’t even think about dragging your feet, passing the buck, or billing American taxpayers so much as one penny (or one pence) for this mess.

Sure, BP has pledged to pay all “necessary and appropriate” clean-up costs, as well as “legitimate and objectively verifiable claims” for injuries and losses resulting from the spill.

But what happens when the TV crews pack up their cameras and the nation’s attention shifts elsewhere?

Drop Dick a line and tell him, Right On Bro.

Gulf Of Mexico Oil Spill – This is going to be real bad

Posted on May 10, 2010 by Doug Nicodemus

As the oil pushes west towards Texas, east into the Apalachicola area and west towards the Gulf Jet, this oil rig blow out could literally kill off the Gulf and spread far beyond. But this head line I think sums it up nicely.

http://www.southernstudies.org/2010/05/the-gulf-appears-to-be-bleeding-video.html

‘The Gulf appears to be bleeding’

Hurricane Creekkeeper John Wathen of Alabama and volunteer pilot Tom Hutchings of SouthWings flew over the Gulf of Mexico on Friday to get a look at the massive oil slick spreading from the site of the BP disaster.

At nine miles out, they began to smell the oil. At 11 miles, they saw a visible sheen on the water. And at mile 87 off the Alabama coast, they reached ground zero of the disaster — what Wathen described as a “red mass of floating goo” as far as the eye can see.

“The Gulf appears to be bleeding,” he said.

“For the first time in my environmental career, I find myself using the word ‘hopeless,'” Wathen continued. “We can’t stop this. There’s no way to prevent this from hitting our shorelines.”

Wathen and Hutchings had no trouble finding their way back to land: “All we had to do was follow the red,” Wathens said. “There was a perfect line of it leading from the rig to the shoreline.”

Here’s the video from that trip, which is also posted to Wathen’s blog dedicated to documenting the disaster:

By Sue Sturgis on May 9, 2010 12:05 PM

Please go to the website to view the video for yourself OR google “Gulf is Bleeding” and you can see it ALL over the web.

Oil Spill In The Gulf – Snippets on ALL Fronts

Posted on May 7, 2010 by Doug Nicodemus

Its Jam Band Friday – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5big9xw0dw4

What Louisiana Environmental Action Network has to say:

http://leanweb.org/donate/donate/donate-join.html

Helping to Make Louisiana Safe for Future Generations

E-ALERT

May 6, 2010

Oil Spill Dispersants Update

On May 4, 2010 the Materials Safety Data Sheets for the two dispersants that we had heard were being used on the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster were posted to the official DeepwaterHorizonResponse.com website.

The two products are Corexit 9500 (as previously reported) and also Corexit EC9527A

Corexit 9500 MSDS
Corexit EC9527A MSDS

The toxicity of Corexit EC9527A is quite high, here is an extract from the Corexit EC9527A Materials Safety Data Sheet:

SAFETY DATA SHEET
PRODUCT
COREXIT(R) EC9527A

APPLICATION: OIL SPILL DISPERSANT
NFPA 704M/HMIS RATING
HEALTH: 2/ 2 FLAMMABILITY: 1/ 1 INSTABILITY: 0/ 0 OTHER:
0 = Insignificant 1 = Slight 2 = Moderate 3 = High 4 = Extreme

2. COMPOSITION/INFORMATION ON INGREDIENTS
Our hazard evaluation has identified the following chemical substance(s) as hazardous. Consult Section 15 for the nature of the hazard(s).

Hazardous Substance(s) CAS NO % (w/w)
2-Butoxyethanol 111-76-2 30.0- 60.0
Organic sulfonic acid salt Proprietary 10.0- 30.0
Propylene Glycol 57-55-6 1.0- 5.0

3. HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION
**EMERGENCY OVERVIEW**
WARNING
Eye and skin irritant. Repeated or excessive exposure to butoxyethanol may cause injury to red blood cells, (hemolysis), kidney or the liver. Harmful by inhalation, in contact with skin and if swallowed.
Do not get in eyes, on skin, on clothing. Do not take internally. Use with adequate ventilation. Wear suitable protective clothing. Keep container tightly closed. Flush affected area with water. Keep away from heat. Keep away from sources of ignition -No smoking.
May evolve oxides of carbon (COx) under fire conditions.

Please go to their web site for more info and to DONATE…

( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1CRXlG4g2Y )

This from the Huffington Post by way of Yahoo:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20100507/cm_huffpost/566196

Gulf Oil Spill: A Symbol Of What Fossil Fuels Do To The Earth Every Day, Say Environmentalists

Dan Froomkin Dan Froomkin – Thu May 6, 11:57 pm E

The leading edge of a vast oil slick started to come ashore in Louisiana on Thursday night, a shroud of devastation falling on America’s coastline even as the blown-out BP oil well that produced it continues to belch millions of gallons of thick crude into the Gulf of Mexico for a third straight week.

At moments like this, it’s hard to see any silver lining here at all. But it’s possible there is one. Many environmentalists say that the wrenching and omnipresent images of filth and death are at last providing Americans with visible, visceral and possibly mobilizing evidence of the effects that fossil fuels are having on our environment every day.

Rick Steiner is horrified at the damage. A University of Alaska marine specialist, he’s watched cleanup efforts ever since the Exxon Valdez spill in 1989, and has learned some bitter lessons.

“Government and industry will habitually understate the volume of the spill and the impact, and they will overstate the effectiveness of the cleanup and their response,” he said. “There’s never been an effective response — ever — where more than 10 or 20 percent of the oil is ever recovered from the water. Once the oil is in the water, the damage is done.”

And most of the damage remains invisible deep below the surface, including the wide-scale destruction of essential plankton in the area and the wiping out of an entire generation of fish larvae. “This is real toxic stuff,” Steiner said.

But the damage that is visible — the vast and foul oil slick, the dolphins swimming through sludge, the birds coated in oil, the dead fish and sharks and turtles — is enough to thoroughly disgust anyone paying attention.

And that, Steiner said, makes it a “teachable moment” that “will hopefully serve as a wake-up call that we need to turn to sustainable energy.

Much more there and video as well.

( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_AjuIWq05w )

Oh sorry:

( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXp_sMam-Jc )

Lastly, this from the AP

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100507/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gulf_oil_spill

Giant box getting closer to oil-spewing Gulf well

By HARRY R. WEBER and TAMARA LUSH, Associated Press Writers Harry R. Weber And Tamara Lush, Associated Press Writers – 15 mins ago

ON THE GULF OF MEXICO – A 100-ton concrete-and-steel box plunged toward a blown-out well at the bottom of the sea Friday in a first-of-its-kind attempt to stop most of the gushing crude fouling the Gulf of Mexico.

Douglas Peake, first mate of the supply boat that brought the box to the site, confirmed he had received a radio transmission from the nearby vessel lowering the device that it would be in position over the well soon.

The transmission early Friday said undersea robots were placing buoys around the main oil leak to act as markers to help line up the 40-foot-tall box. But seven hours later, BP spokesman Bill Salvin said the device was still being lowered and had not reached the seafloor.

Once it gets there, underwater robots will secure it over the main leak at the bottom, a process that will take hours. If the delicate procedure works, the device could be collecting as much as 85 percent of the oil spewing into the Gulf and funneling it up to a tanker by Sunday. It’s never been tried so far — 5,000 feet — below the surface, where the water pressure is enough to crush a submarine.

“We haven’t done this before,” David Nicholas, another spokesman for oil giant BP LPC, which is in charge of the Gulf cleanup. “It’s very complex and we can’t guarantee it.”

BP was leasing the drilling rig Deepwater Horizon when it exploded 50 miles offshore April 20, killing 11 workers and blowing open the well. An estimated 200,000 gallons a day have been spewing in the nation’s biggest oil spill since the Exxon Valdez disaster in Alaska in 1989.

The containment device will not solve the problem altogether. Crews are still drilling a relief well and working on other methods to stop the well from leaking.

The quest took on added urgency as oil reached several barrier islands off the Louisiana coast, many of them fragile animal habitats. Several birds were spotted diving into the oily, pinkish-brown water, and dead jellyfish washed up on the uninhabited islands.

“It’s all over the place. We hope to get it cleaned up before it moves up the west side of the river,” said Dustin Chauvin, a 20-year-old shrimp boat captain from Terrebonne Parish, La. “That’s our whole fishing ground. That’s our livelihoo

Sure hope it works

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDSnM2tgAa0

Community Energy Systems

Censys.org

Category Archives: waste