How to fix the gulf oil leak

[Nesti (Mark)]

Originally Posted by rcheshire

This can be said for the Alpha Platform, Exxon Valdez, Esso/Exxon Sale plant explosion, the Alaska pipeline and any other organisational accident/incident you care to mention.

The interesting thing is that there is plenty of literature to show that these types of accidents are avoidable - Prof. James Reason, if your familiar with his work, defined organisational accidents 20 years ago - however, they are discussed as an 'event', as though in isolation - memory is short. The issues leading up to this are systemic, and in BP's case chronic. There are few organisational failures associated with this disaster that differ from previous disasters.

Exxon paid out only $500,000 in damages years after the Valdez memory and the people affected had moved on. It will be interesting to see 10 years down the track while BP stall action against them just what the consequences are - I would suggest minimal. It's cheaper for BP to pay out millions in legal costs, than accept responsibility - which was Exxon's strategy.

My guess is that this will bring about reform, and BP will be shown to have a culture inconsistent with the risks that its business involves. The Alaska pipeline affair was sufficient to show that BP's culture is problematic - time for a change of management.

But it all really boils down to proportionality, with profit margins on one side and risk on the other.

Risk has now become a battle between technology and Peak Oil related issues.

The planet has finite Fossil Fuels left, and those remaining resources will become cost-ineffective to get out of the ground well before we physically run out. Humanity had been given a ration of usable energy to do whatever it wanted...and we partied.

This issue can now be related back to exploration of space. Going into space and especially long duration isn't about the vehicle and the crew, it's about 'Establishment'. The Apollo program employed 450,000 people and the industry surrounding it consumes energy. In the movie/doco 'Collapse' Michael Ruppert believes that we have run out of time to come up with new energy resources sufficiently capable of replacing fossil fuels...and the key words here are "sufficiently capable of replacing". He believes we will hit 'Peak Oil' well before industry can find new solutions, tool-up for the technology and convert across.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by Nesti

In the movie/doco 'Collapse' Michael Ruppert believes that we have run out of time to come up with new energy resources sufficiently capable of replacing fossil fuels...and the key words here are "sufficiently capable of replacing". He believes we will hit 'Peak Oil' well before industry can find new solutions, tool-up for the technology and convert across.

If that is the case, then the world is in for a rather bleak future. In actual fact, the world's major economies will collapse and then we'll go into a protracted and deep depression...a lot longer than the Great Depression. What'll end up happening is an all out world war, we'll lose a billion or two people and the boffins (if there's any left) will come up with the you beaut technologies (that they've been sitting on in the military-industrial complex's secret labs for the last 30-40 years).

Just in time for all those rich people that are left to make their money back on, again. Back to the same old, same old.

[Nesti (Mark)]

Originally Posted by renormalised

If that is the case, then the world is in for a rather bleak future. In actual fact, the world's major economies will collapse and then we'll go into a protracted and deep depression...a lot longer than the Great Depression. What'll end up happening is an all out world war, we'll lose a billion or two people and the boffins (if there's any left) will come up with the you beaut technologies (that they've been sitting on in the military-industrial complex's secret labs for the last 30-40 years).

Just in time for all those rich people that are left to make their money back on, again. Back to the same old, same old.

Peak Oil is all about affordability. The day when oil becomes too costly to extract and process, it will jack the prices on the exchanges and create a panic Bull Market.

Apparently it takes 10 calories of hydrocarbons to produce, manufacture and ship one calorie of food, so when it becomes too costly to extract and process oil, it naturally becomes too costly to manufacture and ship food to the consumer, this includes fuel to transport coal or to run pumps for power stations etc...the system stops, plain and simple.

A Bull market on oil sometime after the Peak Oil hump is all it will take. Ironically, there may still be large amounts of low grade hydrocarbons left in the ground.

Think about it...it's hyper-inflation followed by back-yard gardening, there is no Depression, there is no system for a Depression to reside in.

What "World War"??? There cannot be one in this picture. See Here.

It's effectively a Sabot in the cogs of modern society, and without hydrocarbons, we will not be able to create other newer technologies as that requires factories and factories currently require power from petroleum products: once the system stops, it cannot be restarted.

Imagine a world without TV, computers and all the myriad of distractions which we have today?! To me, that's not bleak, it's actually liberating: we get humanity back.

More star gazing too!

[AndrewJ]

BP is the primary on the leasehold of that drill site, therefore it's legally culpable. BP did apply pressure to Transoceanic and insisted not to stop drilling even though the warning signs were all there.

Whilst i agree the buck ( almost ) stops with BP, it has been interesting to see the emerging reports about how slack and/or possibly corrupt the leasing system is in the gulf appears to be.
Also, if what is said about what went on is true,
re the rig and known problems,
the subcontract drilling company still put business first,
and hence is just as ( or more ) culpable .
Being a US company, its probably more politically palatable to go after the "overseas greedy" people, than the home grown ones.

And i noted about 2 weeks ago ( very quietly ), more info came out re the Bhopal disaster 25 odd years ago.
Seven/Eight? people got pitiful ( 2 year ) jail sentences.
If the news was corrrect, they were all local indian employees but it also noted the trouble re lack of the parent company honouring payouts, lawyers stalling and the US CEO fleeing ( and effectively being protected by the US Govt ).
Be nice if the US made the CEO available to India to "explain" that one.
At least BPs execs have turned up.

Anyway, as long as big business can make a buck out of playing loose with toxic products, irrespective of peak oil, lawyers will still be able to make enough money to put petrol in their Porsches,
so all's well with the world

Andrew

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by Nesti

Peak Oil is all about affordability. The day when oil becomes too costly to extract and process, it will jack the prices on the exchanges and create a panic Bull Market.

Apparently it takes 10 calories of hydrocarbons to produce, manufacture and ship one calorie of food, so when it becomes too costly to extract and process oil, it naturally becomes too costly to manufacture and ship food to the consumer, this includes fuel to transport coal or to run pumps for power stations etc...the system stops, plain and simple.

A Bull market on oil sometime after the Peak Oil hump is all it will take. Ironically, there may still be large amounts of low grade hydrocarbons left in the ground.

Think about it...it's hyper-inflation followed by back-yard gardening, there is no Depression, there is no system for a Depression to reside in.

What "World War"??? There cannot be one in this picture. See Here.

It's effectively a Sabot in the cogs of modern society, and without hydrocarbons, we will not be able to create other newer technologies as that requires factories and factories currently require power from petroleum products: once the system stops, it cannot be restarted.

Imagine a world without TV, computers and all the myriad of distractions which we have today?! To me, that's not bleak, it's actually liberating: we get humanity back.

More star gazing too!

Problem is, Mark, it won't be like that. The moment oil becomes too expensive to extract and they have no other way of powering everything, there'll be a depression. The stock markets will crash, food will be in short supply. Sure, some people will grow vegies in the backyard, but where is all their other food going to come from?? It's not that simple.

Peak Oil is not only about affordability, it's about supply and demand and who's got the goods and who wants it badly enough to take it. A war will be inevitable because they'll be fighting over the one thing they haven't got....and since oil means money and power, the politicians aren't going to give up on it that easily. Neither will those other interests with a finger in the pie. And most of them would not be adverse to killing a few (million) people in order to get at it, especially when not having it meant they'd be the one's feeling all the pain. They're like heroin addicts....take it away from them and they'd kill anyone and everyone that got in the way of procuring their next fix, if they had to.

Starting a war mean creating a demand, a new market and new goods to sate that market. That's precisely what they will do and then they'll profit from it. Just like they've done in all previous wars.

It'll be a sabot in the cogs alright. Unfortunately, it'll be you and I and all the other ordinary people who'll suffer the most out of this. And be the one's either stupid enough to fight the rich's dirty little war or have to be drafted into doing so. Plus we'll be the one's having to carry the can as far as the financial and other burdens is concerned.

[rcheshire (Rowland)]

But it all really boils down to proportionality, with profit margins on one side and risk on the other.

Risk has now become a battle between technology and Peak Oil related issues.

The planet has finite Fossil Fuels left, and those remaining resources will become cost-ineffective to get out of the ground well before we physically run out. Humanity had been given a ration of usable energy to do whatever it wanted...and we partied.

This issue can now be related back to exploration of space. Going into space and especially long duration isn't about the vehicle and the crew, it's about 'Establishment'. The Apollo program employed 450,000 people and the industry surrounding it consumes energy. In the movie/doco 'Collapse' Michael Ruppert believes that we have run out of time to come up with new energy resources sufficiently capable of replacing fossil fuels...and the key words here are "sufficiently capable of replacing". He believes we will hit 'Peak Oil' well before industry can find new solutions, tool-up for the technology and convert across.

I agree that risk management between profit and loss is consistent with any enterprise.

As far as space exploration is concerned, unless the equipment is safe then it is unlikely that establishment will be a reality. You have to transport your resources safely and intact. The end doesn't justify the means where human life is concerned, and in the long run it's inefficient. The reason oil companies get away with it is because the money involved is enormous and they will not pay their share of the clean-up.

I think it's a matter of accepting sustainability over ever increasing profits. Personally, I'm not convinced by the arguments or fear mongering concerning our fuel resources. High end oil simply means short term profits to sustain and appease the shareholders until someone else steps up to take the heat. I think the global warming argument has shown us the corrupt agendas at work by the use of evidence that was known to be suspect.

[Nesti (Mark)]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Problem is, Mark, it won't be like that. The moment oil becomes too expensive to extract and they have no other way of powering everything, there'll be a depression. The stock markets will crash, food will be in short supply. Sure, some people will grow vegies in the backyard, but where is all their other food going to come from?? It's not that simple.

Peak Oil is not only about affordability, it's about supply and demand and who's got the goods and who wants it badly enough to take it. A war will be inevitable because they'll be fighting over the one thing they haven't got....and since oil means money and power, the politicians aren't going to give up on it that easily. Neither will those other interests with a finger in the pie. And most of them would not be adverse to killing a few (million) people in order to get at it, especially when not having it meant they'd be the one's feeling all the pain. They're like heroin addicts....take it away from them and they'd kill anyone and everyone that got in the way of procuring their next fix, if they had to.

Starting a war mean creating a demand, a new market and new goods to sate that market. That's precisely what they will do and then they'll profit from it. Just like they've done in all previous wars.

It'll be a sabot in the cogs alright. Unfortunately, it'll be you and I and all the other ordinary people who'll suffer the most out of this. And be the one's either stupid enough to fight the rich's dirty little war or have to be drafted into doing so. Plus we'll be the one's having to carry the can as far as the financial and other burdens is concerned.

I do see what you are saying Carl, but I wanted to point-out that, to say "Depression" means that you are attaching some sort of socioeconomic level to it. This means that you are relating it to some sort of baseline, like saying post Peak Oil will have a Depression in comparison to today's way of living. Right?!

Well, what I'm saying is that using a baseline comparison - against today or even a hundred years ago - becomes nonsensical, because post Peak Oil is not related to the modern world; it is in fact a coming of a New Age. No different than when man entered the Stone Age, or the Bronze Age, or the Modern Age, or the Space Age, or the Electronics Age...do you see what I mean?! There is no Depression; it's the coming of a New Age...you can call it a Regressive Age' if you like, and it will look like a Depression initially, but to economically attach it to today's Modern Age is not quite right in my belief.

Also, what drives Wars etc in today's Modern Age is economics. If you think anyone with money will buy a country's Bonds when the spoils of that war is nothing, think again. Most people and entities in the Market are quite astute, and they will hold a protectionist stance. This is post Peak Oil don't forget, not leading up to it like our wars today.

So creating a war does not necessarily mean you create a demand, because wars are funded by Bond sales.

There will be a war, but it will be fought in the stock exchanges, and if you look carefully right now, you'll notice that most private investors are leaving the markets as the Banks and Hedge funds become more and more aggressive...even country's sovereignty is at risk these days.

[rcheshire (Rowland)]

...because post Peak Oil is not related to the modern world; it is in fact a coming of a New Age. No different than when man entered the Stone Age, or the Bronze Age, or the Modern Age, or the Space Age, or the Electronics Age...do you see what I mean?!

That seems like a sound notion, and the world may change dramatically, but can you describe what that world will look like. Who will be the winners and who will be the losers. Is it instability and competition for whatever fuel resources are available, or will it arrive, having developed alternative means of power - possibly nuclear - electric everything. Trolley buses, trams and trains etc. Alternative fuels for air transport would be an issue, but ships can be nuclear powered.

Because economies are tied to oil, a depression would seem to be a reasonable possibility, but not to recover the status quo, rather a reinvention, which is what you seem to be saying.

Here's a thought. Can you imagine what BP and its various providers could do with a nuclear power station - yeah! We knew there was a problem, but you know, the bottom line! Smoking hole in the ground - at least Chernobyl was a planned disaster...!!!

[Nesti (Mark)]

Originally Posted by rcheshire

but can you describe what that world will look like. Who will be the winners and who will be the losers.

That's the BIG question isn't it?!

I don't believe anyone can predict that...the only rationale to predict what it would "look like" would be dependent upon how fast the contraction was, ie. was it a slow gradual regressive depression leading to a New Age, or was it an almighty implosion?!

I feel it may be possible to suggest a series of scenarios based upon how fast it occurred...but it would be as accurate as someone from the Bronze Age describing a future of the Modern Age.

And we all thought the life of the Jetson's lay ahead of us...more like Mad Max.

[rcheshire (Rowland)]

And we all thought the life of the Jetson's lay ahead of us...more like Mad Max.

I had the same thought.

[OICURMT]

I remember when I was a kid the talk about peak oil being at the end of the '70's... 40 years later, we are still talking about it.

Being in the industry (4th generation), I can tell you that we are definitely at a"plateau", not a peak. Reading this thread makes me want to explain so much, but alas, it would result in a thesis of epic proportions...

There have been comments on affordability, supply, demand, alternative energy, age, epochs etc...

Bottom-line is that the human species is a very innovative one, albeit destructive as well. "Where there is a will, there is a way".

There are currently two major hydrocarbon sources left with respect to supplying energy to humanity that can be taken long-term. The first is playing out in North America now, which is the Unconventional Resource plays (think coalbed methane and shale gas). Shale gas alone has now allowed the US to become "gas independent". The long proposed LNG regasification terminals for the US are no longer... in fact, there is a proposed LNG liquefaction terminal to be located on the western coast of Canada. Canada has too much gas (due to the abundance of shale gas) and exporting to the US is not a viable option as a sole buyer, so an alternative path to market is required.

The second, methane hydrates, which has good and bad vices (methane hydrates blocked the "TopHat" idea of BP to stem the GoM flow). There could be such a large source of this type of hydrocarbon that it would take a very long time for humanity to use it. There exist no way to unlock it yet, but the Japanese are pouring money into research. If the methane could be extracted from the hydrate lattice, Japan would become self sufficient "overnight".

If you are wondering, why am I talking about gas when the topic is oil... you can make other types of hydrocarbons (diesel, oils, paraffin) by reforming gas (ala FischerTropsch process). Qatar is about to startup the world largest gas to liquids (GtL) plant. At these types of scale, the supply side is not the issue, it's the demand, thus why we are at a plateau.

A the beginning of 2009, the world had approximately 6291 Billion barrels of oil reserves. at an average production rate of 85million barrels per day, this equates to 74000 days of production or about 203 years.

The reserves of 6254 trillion standard cubic feet of gas would last about 64 years assuming the 97.1 trillion standard cubic feet consumed last year.

The number above assume (incorrectly I might add) that the long-term demand side of the equation is unchanged. While this has held true for the past three years, due to in part to the GFC, it can not last much longer.

[rcheshire (Rowland)]

Thanks for clearing that up. Very informative. My father was in oil - chemistry - most of his working life. I plan on seeing him this weekend - no doubt the conversation will be topical.

[PCH (Paul)]

Oicurmt,

very informative and interesting reply - thanks