tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post1772469866743867003..comments2023-09-28T08:13:11.489-07:00Comments on Only In It For The Gold: Mega-Disaster in the Gulf? Or Not?Michael Tobishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-84892987977980988042010-06-16T04:58:58.377-07:002010-06-16T04:58:58.377-07:00Michael,
Given what we know about the latest in ...Michael, <br /><br />Given what we know about the latest in flow-rate estimates (1.5 million gallons to 2.5 million gallons per day), perhaps it might be time to re-visit this topic with a fresh post...<br />http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/06/15/oil.spill.disaster/index.html?hpt=T1<br /><br />Appreciate all that you do, dude: you are a refreshing read!<br /><br />Cheers,<br /><br />Daniel the YooperYooperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15905153190867109713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-57045378213426891642010-05-25T10:38:16.030-07:002010-05-25T10:38:16.030-07:00http://blog.skytruth.org/2010/05/bp-gulf-oil-spill...http://blog.skytruth.org/2010/05/bp-gulf-oil-spill-39-million-gallons.html<br /><br />(recent MODIS photo here)Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-39235848662301095412010-05-24T14:08:57.895-07:002010-05-24T14:08:57.895-07:00The take-home image of how booming should be done ...The take-home image of how booming should be done -- compared to how it's being done wrong along the Gulf Coast:<br />http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3410/4597166301_aec23fbe25_o.jpg<br /><br /><br />The text from around that (number one of a three part series; see original for more):<br /><br />----excerpt follows-----<br />http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/5/11/865387/-Fishgrease:-DKos-Booming-School<br /><br />(part 1 of a multi-part series, text, illustrations, and link to video)<br />...<br />####### Boom<br /><br />Generally, boom is long and bright bright orange or yellow. It is not bright bright orange or yellow so you can see it, dear fledgling boomer, but so Governors, Senators, Presidents and The Media can see it. It has a round floaty part that floats, and a flat \"skirt\" that sinks. A RULE: the floaty part never floats high enough and the skirt never rides low enough. Some oil will ALWAYS go over the boom and some will ALWAYS go under it. Our task is to MINIMIZE both! We do that by ####### proper ####### booming. Here. This picture teaches you almost 100% of what you'll learn in DKos Booming School, about ####### proper ####### booming:<br /><br />...<br /><br />if ######## proper ######## booming is done properly, you can remove most, by far most of the oil from a shoreline and you can do it day after day, week after week, month after month. You can prevent most, by far most of the shoreline from ever being touched by more than a few transient molecules of oil. Done ####### properly, a week after the oil stops coming ashore, no one, man nor beast, can ever tell there has been oil anywhere near that shoreline....<br /><br />...<br /><br />3. Governors, Senators, Presidents and most of all the Piece-Of-Shit-C*nt Media don't know what ####### proper ####### booming LOOKS LIKE! So you can just lay a single line of neon-glo-orange boom out parallel to the shore, for miles, with anchor points every quarter-mile to where a good part of it washes up onto the shore like a huge, dead, orange nightcrawler... and they won't know the difference! Where it manages to stay off the bank, a little two-foot chop you would let your kids frolic in will send all the oil either over or under it! ALL THE OIL! ON THE SHORE! IN THE REEDS! ON THE BEACH! IN THE NESTS! OIL! So what! It's not gonna make CNN send a single correspondent to booming school, is it?<br /><br />Now the Coast Guard? They know booming. They know what ####### proper ####### booming looks like. Coast Guard commandant, Adm. Thad Allen should be fired. Today. Now. This minute. Before he can give another press conference echoing what BP said not five minutes before him. Then he should be ####### court-martialed and fucking sent to prison before BP can give him a goddamned ####### job. He's a shameless piece of shit. And so is President Obama if he can't see that. People who know me and how I've supported our President through thick and thin, know how hard it was for me to write that. I'm literally on the verge of tears, right this second. But I won't erase it. There it is.<br />----- end excerpt----Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-447599161466754482010-05-24T12:55:07.243-07:002010-05-24T12:55:07.243-07:00http://www.tampabay.com/news/perspective/the-cat-i...http://www.tampabay.com/news/perspective/the-cat-in-the-bp-hat-comes-back/1096979Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-12788617561825355452010-05-24T10:39:19.407-07:002010-05-24T10:39:19.407-07:00http://www.wkrg.com/gulf_oil_spill/spill_cam/
liv...http://www.wkrg.com/gulf_oil_spill/spill_cam/<br /><br />live video feed, or possibly more than one -- I gather there are something like eight cameras down there, some fixed with pan/zoom and some mobile. You can watch the camera zoom in on individual gauges checking something (pressures?). No explanation.Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-73441255855482477152010-05-24T09:12:14.628-07:002010-05-24T09:12:14.628-07:00I see no reason for optimism, for at least five re...I see no reason for optimism, for at least five reasons:<br /><br />Most of the oil is invisible: <b><a href="http://www.desdemonadespair.net/2010/05/large-concentrations-of-spilled-oil.html" rel="nofollow">Large concentrations of spilled oil 1,000 meters below Gulf surface</a></b>.<br /><br />This is a slow-motion catastrophe that will play out over decades: <b><a href="http://www.desdemonadespair.net/2010/05/louisiana-coast-battle-against-drifting.html" rel="nofollow">Louisiana coast's battle against drifting oil expected to last months, if not years</a></b>. <br /><br />Most of the impact is likely to be on benthic communities, as "dispersed" oil settles to the bottom: <b><a href="http://www.desdemonadespair.net/2010/05/deep-coral-in-path-of-gulf-oil-plumes.html" rel="nofollow">Deep coral in path of Gulf oil plumes -- Mix of crude, dispersants could smother life below the sea</a></b>; <b><a href="http://www.desdemonadespair.net/2010/05/challenge-of-cleaning-up-gulf-of-mexico.html" rel="nofollow">Challenge of cleaning up Gulf of Mexico oil spill ‘unprecedented’ at such depths</a></b>.<br /><br />The base of the Gulf food web will be razed: <b><a href="http://www.desdemonadespair.net/2010/05/oil-spill-brings-death-in-ocean-from.html" rel="nofollow">Oil spill brings ‘death in the ocean from top to bottom’</a></b>; <b><a href="http://www.desdemonadespair.net/2010/05/tiniest-victims-of-gulf-of-mexico-oil.html" rel="nofollow">Tiniest victims of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill may turn out to be most important</a></b>.<br /><br />The widespread loss of habitat will push endangered populations to extinction: <br /><b><a href="http://www.desdemonadespair.net/2010/05/oil-spill-may-wipe-out-gulf-sperm.html" rel="nofollow">Oil spill may wipe out Gulf sperm whales -- Just three dead whales could push the Gulf population over the edge</a></b>; <b><a href="http://www.desdemonadespair.net/2010/05/bluefin-tuna-particularly-vulnerable-to.html" rel="nofollow">Bluefin tuna particularly vulnerable to Gulf of Mexico oil leak</a></b>.<br /><br />There's no way around it: The BP <i>Deepwater Horizon</i> catastrophe will alter the Gulf's biodiversity permanently, and not for the better. Unfortunately, fishermen see the writing on the wall: <b><a href="http://www.desdemonadespair.net/2010/05/louisiana-fishermen-contemplating.html" rel="nofollow">Louisiana fishermen contemplating suicide, need mental health services</a></b>.<br /><br />I comfort myself by remembering that all these Mississippi Delta wetlands were doomed by sea level rise anyway.Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07080844313226790538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-64374618235384441742010-05-23T20:00:21.319-07:002010-05-23T20:00:21.319-07:00In addition to Lisa Margonelli's article, I st...In addition to Lisa Margonelli's article, I strongly recommend her book, "oil On The Brain--Adventures from the Pump to the Pipeline".<br />She tells a really good story of all aspects of oil production and delivery. There are excerpts on her web site: www.oilonthebrain.com<br />(But you should really buy the book)<br /><br />She had by far the best book release party I've ever been to or heard of. It was a potluck party with a band at a gas station, and was actually a whole lot of fun!Nosmohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18276735115398361316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-6010570591087937012010-05-23T18:28:53.482-07:002010-05-23T18:28:53.482-07:00Lest people misunderstand, [since this is clearly ...Lest people misunderstand, [since this is clearly a disaster by my standards], maybe people can think about why I would want to get better quantification of this stuff, in the context of longer-term solutions...<br /><br />Hints: legal system, insurance vs posting upfront bond, incentives inside corporations, etc.John Masheyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17786354229618237133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-38101798459136024142010-05-23T14:23:58.875-07:002010-05-23T14:23:58.875-07:00Thanks Hank, very clear and entertaining. Since a...Thanks Hank, very clear and entertaining. Since a lot of the oil seems to be under the surface, maybe proper f___ing booming wouldn't make a difference (owing to the skirts being too short). But I learned something.<br /><br />The swearing will probably make it more popular. Good marketing -- no wonder she gets paid so much. I'll forward it, and try to remember to warn recipients.Steve Lhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11808202186253600821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-26633805510505832092010-05-23T12:31:28.851-07:002010-05-23T12:31:28.851-07:00Language NOT SAFE FOR WORK
From a longterm oil in...Language NOT SAFE FOR WORK<br /><br />From a longterm oil industry expert, on what is and isn't taught about capturing oil.<br /><br />BP Fails Booming School 101 <br /><br />Astonishingly clear.<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6ZN6r5-1QE<br /><br />Language NOT SAFE FOR WORKHank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-40718843218330190562010-05-23T05:58:48.069-07:002010-05-23T05:58:48.069-07:00Keith - huh? You think I was trying to itemize all...Keith - huh? You think I was trying to itemize all instances of media over-reaction? Three-mile-island hapened when I was 13, before I was paying much attention to media coverage, so I don't have a personal perspective on how over-wraught it was at the time. If the focus was on the potential risk for something very bad to happen, that may even have been appropriate; of course we turned out to be pretty lucky with what actually happened there in the end. On the other hand it was a financial calamity for the nuclear industry so there's that.Arthurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06249922708053689717noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-86092557378976815452010-05-22T17:42:58.154-07:002010-05-22T17:42:58.154-07:00Whatever the quantifiable costs of the blowout and...Whatever the quantifiable costs of the blowout and spill turn out to be, they're unlikely to be internalized in the cost of a gallon of gas. Too bad, because that's the only way to address the consumption issue -- which as S points out, is the real problem.<br /><br />Environmental impacts like pollution and AGW may not be reflected in the price of energy, but we all pay them one way or another. There are no externalities in Nature's global economy.Mal Adaptedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06123525780458234978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-41889941298780306902010-05-22T15:02:27.075-07:002010-05-22T15:02:27.075-07:00words like disaster and calamity are not well-quan...<i>words like disaster and calamity are not well-quantified.'</i><br /><br /><br />In the usual sense of the word, the Deepwater Horizon blowout would almost certainly qualify as a "disaster", based purely on the fact that 11 people lost their lives in the drilling platform explosion.<br /><br />After all, the explosion of the Challenger is commonly referred to as the "Challenger Disaster", and that killed fewer people (7).<br /><br />The current oil disaster may -- or may not -- qualify as a "calamity" or even "catastrophe".<br /><br />It actually depends on more than just the "final outcome" (total oil spilled, number of beaches soiled, etc) <br /><br />It also depends on the context -- and who you ask.<br /><br />For example, ask the Louisiana fishermen/shrimpers/oystermen who have already been out of work for a month now and see no end in sight -- and don't even know whether they will be able to sell their fish, shrimp, oysters, etc <i>after</i> the oil flow is stopped (on account of real or even perceived contamination).<br /><br />Or ask the biologists who study the wetlands that have already been soiled -- and understand that once oil gets deposited in the muck, it is virtually impossible to remove and may stay in these environments for a very long time.<br /><br />Ironically, one of the things that makes words like "disaster", "calamity" and "catastrophe" meaningful is that they are <i>not</i> well-quantified (not usually, at least)<br /><br />They <i>can</i> (and usually do) convey a sort of "order or magnitude" indication of "how bad" something is but they <i>also</i> convey emotions that are simply <i>not</i> quantifiable.<br /><br />Because of the latter, the use of such words causes people (including politicians) to react -- and act -- in ways that numbers simply can not do.<br /><br />It is not unreasonable to expect that some of the folks (possibly even ocean scientist Jeremy Jackson) who are currently using phrases like "may be calamitous" in this case might be doing so at least partly in the hope that it will spur politicians into action to <br /><br><br />1) devote the necessary resources -- people (including our best scientists and engineers) and equipment -- to gauge the magnitude of the disaster (eg, by putting instrumentation in place to accurately measure the flow), to mitigate the oil that has already spilled, and to stop the flow as quickly as possible and <br /><br><br />2) change the broken "regulatory" system that allowed the blowout to happen.Horatio Algeranonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12988805467080448954noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-7016407779957162812010-05-22T11:46:13.026-07:002010-05-22T11:46:13.026-07:00I've now read the Lisa Margonelli article nomi...I've now read the Lisa Margonelli article nominated by nosmo and seconded by mt. Her thesis: oil spills are a symptom of the disease (oil consumption), and though we can somewhat control where the symptoms show up, that doesn't help us cure the disease. She's saying we need to respond not to the oil production but to oil consumption.<br /><br />I suspect the environmental community will resist this for two reasons. The first is that we suck at getting people to consume less, especially without economic incentives. Maybe that means anything you can do that makes oil consumption more expensive could be seen as the right thing to do.<br /><br />The second reason isn't really relevant here, but: Margonelli is complaining of NIMBYism in American environmentalism. But if you don't protect your own back yard, who will? Some forestry industry reps where I live used to tell old growth protectors that it's better to log here than in the Amazon. It would have been a much more persuasive argument if they'd done some economic modeling to show that liquidating British Columbia's forests would reduce pressure to clear-cut the tropics. They were surprised and confused when asked if proceeds from BC timber harvest would be shared with those who would otherwise derive a living from felling Amazonian trees.Steve Lhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11808202186253600821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-80694046764558825102010-05-22T10:37:33.777-07:002010-05-22T10:37:33.777-07:00"amount" for "about" above"amount" for "about" aboveMichael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-37427733481776605472010-05-22T10:36:15.212-07:002010-05-22T10:36:15.212-07:00Depends on the kind of pollution.
Because of my w...Depends on the kind of pollution.<br /><br />Because of my wife's work with the OCD population I hate to promulgate the word "contamination" which really upsets some people a lot. But there's really a difference between persistent pollutants (contaminants) and pollutants which decay relatively rapidly. <br /><br />In the context of a hot sea, oil is a pollutant, not a cotaminant. <br /><br />Carbon in general (which largely turns to CO2 sooner or later) and methane in particular are contaminants on the global scale. I haven't worked out if this is a noticeable about of methane on that scale, but the extra carbon load is going to be just a tiny random upward blip on a standard cost of doing business.<br /><br />Good question, though: what's the scale of this methane release compared to the global methane budget? A great exercise for the reader. <br /><br />Google is your friend.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-29531685623364559052010-05-22T09:54:24.657-07:002010-05-22T09:54:24.657-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-80093801765699481412010-05-22T09:37:20.349-07:002010-05-22T09:37:20.349-07:00I see, so it's not really the system aspect th...I see, so it's not really the system aspect that you're criticizing among ecologists, but more the math. I find fisheries scientists to often be quite mathy in their efforts to analyze large/complex systems. But I don't know what the fisheries scientists are saying about this spill. (I suspect there aren't enough data to help them say anything with any confidence.)<br /><br />Regarding mockery resulting from the dilution question, again I'm not sure what you're talking about. I don't see any mockery on this thread. Take a look at my comment at 9:13 PM on May 20 -- your comments on dilution are what I appreciated most! Maybe you're saying that dilution was mocked wrt ATOC? Again, I dunno -- wasn't one of the 'speakers' going to be placed very proximally to a humpback breeding ground?<br /><br />A friend of mine in grad school (an engineer) told me: "The solution to pollution is dilution." Hmm, I just googled that phrase to find that I can't give him credit for it. I'm sure that this approach is correct in some circumstances. Indeed, it certainly is prescribed often enough in practice. But if this notion is mocked in general (is it?) by ecologists, maybe it's because of bioaccumulation up the food chain or something. Or maybe it's being mocked by climate porn watchers because it resonates with the denier argument that CO2 is too small a component of the atmosphere to have an effect.Steve Lhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11808202186253600821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-66262844572901338062010-05-22T07:50:39.402-07:002010-05-22T07:50:39.402-07:00I know a small but non-empty sample of the best an...I know a small but non-empty sample of the best and most prominent ecologists around. I admire them tremendously. <br /><br />In my experience they don't do math much.<br /><br />As usual I'm sure there are exceptions, but the community is not really up on the sorts of whole-systems thinking that systems engineers use.<br /><br />What aspects of the spill are disastrous and what aren't depends closely on dilution factors, as does the ATOC question. <br /><br />Yet, bringing up the dilution question results in mockery.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-69498400962114161102010-05-21T20:46:38.021-07:002010-05-21T20:46:38.021-07:00Okay, mt, now you've offended:
"most ecol...Okay, mt, now you've offended:<br />"most ecologists are not very good at quantitative whole-systems thinking".<br />That's quite an assertion, and probably not one that should be made without some evidence.<br /><br />If I recall ATOC, the marine biologists were concerned that the sound would deafen whales and other mammals. Not clear that this is a good example of what you mean by ecologists being bad at whole systems thinking. Ecology actually comprises many different fields (evolutionary ecology, molecular ecology, behavioural ecology, population ecology, community ecology). Some of these are more theoretical, experimental, quantitative, narrow, or whole-system than others. And there's a great diversity of styles within each of the fields. So I don't like the generalization, especially if you're basing that on the reaction of organismal biologists who were concerned with noise pollution.<br /><br />But I don't want to over-interpret what you wrote. Maybe you meant something else?Steve Lhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11808202186253600821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-73029390577132635982010-05-21T17:54:14.211-07:002010-05-21T17:54:14.211-07:00Arthur,
Hmm, no sensationalizing of Three Mile Is...Arthur,<br /><br />Hmm, no sensationalizing of Three Mile Island? Nice timing on the Jane Fonda flick, then too.<br /><br />I find it odd that you would mention Chernobyl and not Three Mile Island.<br />--kkloorUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05818642659325983463noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-25667722250844733032010-05-21T11:52:44.773-07:002010-05-21T11:52:44.773-07:00Sayeth Lord kelvin:
"When you can measure wha...Sayeth Lord kelvin:<br />"When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge of it is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced it to the stage of science."<br /><br />"The first reports from the front are always wrong."<br />-Old military aphorism.<br /><br />SO, words like disaster and calamity are not well-quantified.<br /><br />I somebody *really* wants to study this, seriously, here's what I'd suggest:<br /><br />1) Pick some quantifiable metrics, like cumulative spill, cleanup cost, economic damage. For reality, I suggested graphing <a href="http://climateprogress.org/2010/05/03/bp-halliburton-oil-disaster-leak-spill-undersea-volcano-of-oil/#comment-273930" rel="nofollow">oil spill</a> weeks ago, comparing this with others.<br /><br />2) At any point in time, there are *actual* numbers for those, which are of course unknown, so any graphs have substantial uncertainty ranges.<br /><br />3) At any point of time, various people make various statements either about<br />a) Their view of the current state.<br />b) There view of some future state.<br /><br />4) Hence, calibrating what people say can be shown by a dated sequence of charts, showing some metric, and what people said about the current state, or the expected state at some future point.<br /><br />===<br />This isn't exactly new, we did equivalent things in Bell Labs in the 1970s in tracking and managing complex project schedules. People kept track of predicted schedules as a function of time, to be able assess the ability of people to estimate schedules and to give them feedback so they could get better. At least, the better management chains did this...John Masheyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17786354229618237133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-49917850906903410762010-05-21T10:35:39.238-07:002010-05-21T10:35:39.238-07:00Ric, thanks. I think it's possible to build a ...Ric, thanks. I think it's possible to build a market for evidence based reason applied to big questions.<br /><br />Honestly I think I'm good enough at it that I ought to get paid for it somehow.<br /><br />It's just that people have gotten used to a world where there is practically no such thing available. <br /><br />It's not that nobody thinks about the big picture, but that big picture thinkers are either economists, stuck with thinking about quantities that don't model reality all that well, or are not quantitative at all.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-65766248463431742852010-05-21T10:15:24.116-07:002010-05-21T10:15:24.116-07:00Thanks for this post. There ought to be somewhere...Thanks for this post. There ought to be somewhere where it's legal to ask questions and weigh possibilities without being rid outta town on a rail, and this blog seems to be it.<br /><br />On the downside, that's probably incompatible with your desire for more eyeballs. (insert appropriately rueful emoticon)Richttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00677573041684027902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-12867157511577497092010-05-21T09:43:32.430-07:002010-05-21T09:43:32.430-07:00Jackson is great. Ironically, though, most ecologi...Jackson is great. Ironically, though, most ecologists are not very good at quantitative whole-systems thinking.<br /><br />See the soon-to-be-revived battle between physical climatologists and marine biologists over large scale ocean temperature measurements by acoustic tomography (which began with an error of, if I recall correctly, around eighty decibels). <br /><br />The keyword is ATOC, and the biologists are wrong.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.com