Gulf Oil Spill: real-time web news, politics, and scientific facts

Today, British Petroleum hopes to take careful aim and secure a hastily developed steel tower over one of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill's primary leaks. Once secured, the oil that accumulates inside will be drained out from above. No easy task and there is much concern as to whether the tower can withstand Gulf currents and remain in place.

There is a constant stream of news bites coming from the broadcast media and most every environmental or conservation group is issuing calls to action to repeal offshore oil drilling permits. Rather than presume that I have anything more illuminating to contribute, I will leave you with three interesting information sources:

NEWS:
Real-Time Gulf-Crisis Web Site: Set up by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), this web site compiles breaking news reports on the Gulf oil spill throughout the day, in addition to providing an updated listing of FAQs. CBD is a proactive organization that uses the courts to produce results - so you won't find much love for oil companies or ineffective government agencies here but it's a good one-stop-shop for the latest news.

POLITICS:
Interesting video segment from Keith Olbermann/MSNBC that documents some of the political history behind U.S. offshore drilling including Cheney/Halliburton and Interior Secretary Salazar/oil industry connections and even info about BP, years ago, passing on additional technological backups that could have prevented the oil blowout because they were deemed too costly - before BP reported record profits.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

SCIENCE:
We don't need to be rocket scientists to understand that oil is not good for the environment, but where is the objective science that measures and confirms that assumption? SeaWeb has issued a special report on the effects of oil, listing a variety of scientific studies and reports in abstract (ie: summary) format - you have to search for the complete article, although many are freely offered on the web via links. The studies are listed in categories covering the impact on humans, marine mammals, marine ecosystems, corals, and more. Click here to download the report in PDF.

We will all watch the events in the Gulf unfold and hope that the leak will be arrested soon. But the impact it will have on the Gulf of Mexico's ecosystems and shoreline economies will be felt for perhaps decades. Long after the last drop of oil has been mopped up, we need to keep the pressure on our elected officials in re-evaluating strategies that involve more drilling, when developing alternative energy sources should be our number one priority.

Alternative Energy: after the Gulf of Mexico, what next?

With the world watching events unfold in the Gulf of Mexico regarding the British Petroleum oil spill - from threatened wildlife, shattered shoreline economies and fisheries to a flotilla of agencies involved in confining, dispersing or arresting the oil leak - we are reminded in a very upfront and real way the price both society and the earth pays for our dependence on fossil fuels.

These are the occasional slaps to face that remind us of the risks. Unfortunately, the CO2 emissions and other pollutants that this energy source unleashes on the planet are much more subversive and subtle, at least to most of us. We live with the belching exhaust, the brown haze, and the more and more frequent fluctuations in temperature and weather until the accumulation reaches a critical point wherein the effects are definitely quantifiable but the consequences may be long-lasting even with our best remedial efforts.

Singular profound events have a way of grabbing our attention. And not all policy makers or business leaders have a deaf ear to the problems we face.

My friend and fellow diver, Patti Balian, sent me a link to a video on CNN where a discussion panel is talking about the critical need for alternative energy sources (click on the image below). Included on the panel is the president of the Maldives, an island nation that is literally faced with extinction because of rising sea levels (the islands are less than two meters about sea level); the CEO of Puma; and a representative of The Climate Group from China. Also included in the group is an appearance by Avatar director James Cameron. It's an interesting brief discussion that focuses attention on the future needs for alternative and/or renewable energy.


As the video reminds us, while our attention and emotions are fixed on the Gulf of Mexico, our minds and our actions must be fixed on the future. In the Gulf of Mexico, eventually the oil spill will stop, the shorelines and the local economies will recover - although it will take decades - and the lawsuits and liabilities will all be resolved.

But what next? Will we learn anything from this or slip back into the status quo, only to await the next re-run? I hope not.

Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill: energy has consequences beyond the shoreline

One of the leading environmental stories has been the recent explosion, fire, and sinking of the Trans Ocean/BP floating oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico and the subsequent oil spill that has been expanding by approximately 42,000 gallons of oil each day from an oil head 5,000 feet deep. According to the latest news reports, efforts are being made to stem the flow of oil, using ROVs to activate what is called a blowout preventer - a system of valves situated at the well head - but, as of this posting, they have not been successful. Alternatives include drilling relief lines to reduce the pressure, but that would take several months to complete.

In the meantime, the spill continues to spread and although a high pressure weather ridge, producing offshore winds, once slowed its advance, according to the Los Angeles Times, the first oil should reach the Louisiana shoreline by Friday. To many within the general public, particularly those living in the Gulf states that lie in the path of the oil spill, that's when it will become all too real. But what about the environmental impact right now?

Although the NOAA has reported that the spill is shallow (most of it apparently appears to be on the surface), it is coming from the bottom of the ocean floor up - as opposed to right from the surface, as with an oil spill from a ship. Does this have an impact on marine life - fish, plankton, etc. - as it makes its way up to the surface and then spreads out? While we are concerned with oil fouling local beaches, what about the migratory animals that might be moving through the oil far out at sea, well beyond our vision and, perhaps, our concern?

While efforts continue to stop the oil at the source, BP (British Petroleum) intends to conduct an oil burn-off, whereby sections of the oil spill will be isolated, condensed, and set fire. The burned oil will either sink or be removed from the surface. What is the environmental impact of burned oil on the seafloor bottom if it cannot all be collected? Unfortunately, any oil spill of any magnitude is an environmental disaster and as long as we continue to drill for oil - or expand ocean drilling, as proposed by the current U.S. administration - then we must accept the possibility of spills and the consequences that ensue.

This is the trade-off we struggle with. As we promote alternative forms of energy, there is no clear cut, totally environmentally-safe solution. Wind and solar are promoted as viable alternatives, but some conservationists say that expansive solar panel and wind tower farms are harmful to the environment. There are city ordinances that limit or prevent the use of wind and solar devices on individual buildings and the current cost is prohibitive for most residents. Hybrid or all-electric vehicles are advocated, but how will the extra demand for electricity be met? More nuclear or coal power plants?

As the politicians have said, we have an addiction to oil. But in fact, we have an addiction to energy. It runs your car, your lights, and the computer you are using to read this blog. And so, from wherever we get it - fossil fuels, wind, solar, nuclear, or something else, there will negative consequences; energy is just that kind of two-edge sword. We must do everything we can to prevent broad-based environmental disasters such as what is occurring in the Gulf of Mexico (Can oil companies channel their considerable technical knowledge toward the design of auto-shutoff valves, which could have prevented the blowout or the subsequent leakage?). And we must re-evaluate our entire energy system infrastructure and how energy is consumed at the user end.

No easy task. But do we have a choice?

U.S. Energy Policy: CA governor to assess President's first-year accomplishments

The Los Angeles Times' Greenspace environmental blog reported today on an interesting web cast taking place on Tuesday, January 19th at 7:00pm Pacific Standard Time. California's Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger will assess President Obama's first year accomplishments in energy policy as part of an Energy Task Force conference panel.

Why listen in? Well, for one thing, it would be interesting to hear a conservative with a less-than-conservative approach when it comes to the environment, discuss the energy track record of a so-called liberal who has been criticized by many environmental groups for not following through on campaign promises - quite an odd blend of positions and attitudes. And for another, it's important to know what direction our decision-makers seem to be heading, regardless of how maddening listening to political verbosity can be.

Here's Margot Roosevelt's post from the Los Angeles Times:

On Tuesday night, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will join a panel, along with former Secretary of State George Shultz, to talk about President Obama's first-year record on energy policy. The moderated question-and-answer session is part of an Energy Task Force conference at Stanford's Hoover Institution, a conservative think-tank.

It will be webcast live at 7 p.m. Pacific at www.gov.ca.gov.

Schwarzenegger frequently boasts that California leads the nation in environmental and energy policy. The state enacted a law to curb global warming emissions in 2006, and it is on the verge of adopting regulations to implement a roughly 15% cut in greenhouse gases below today's level. Meanwhile, Obama has also pressed ahead on climate issues, pushing for congressional legislation. He has backed the Environmental Protection Agency's recent declaration that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health, and can thus be controlled under the existing Clean Air Act if Congress fails to adopt a climate-specific law.

The Schwarzenegger and Obama administrations cooperated on mileage standards for new cars, after the Golden State passed the country's first rules to control greenhouse gases from vehicles. Last week, California adopted a first-in-the-nation mandatory green building code.

Florida's Ocean Energy Potential: electricity compliments of the Gulf Stream

When it comes to sources of alternative energy, there are many different technologies being studied by big and small companies alike. Personally, I believe the big energy corporations have yet to fully embrace the concept that the traditional business models (oil and coal) need to be put to rest before there is a major shortage, but I'm afraid that corporate bureaucratic lethargy combined with potential profits from dwindling resources may prove to be the case.

I have been fascinated with algae biofuels as one such alternative because of both its capacity to produce biofuel without impacting food resources, like corn ethanol, and its potential for becoming nearly self-sustaining as the C02 produced in the energy process can be recycled to support algae growth.

But CNN ran an interesting story on Monday regarding a high-tech means of generating electricity for Florida - the fourth most populous state in the U.S. and one that is "at the cusp of an energy crisis," according to Frederick Driscoll, director of the Florida Atlantic University's Center of Excellence in Ocean Energy Technology. And there's the tip-off: Ocean Energy.

The Center is looking into the potential for harnessing the power of the Gulf Stream to operate undersea turbines. It's a formidable project as there needs to be a complete assessment, which has already begun, to map out the Gulf Stream's energy potential 24/7 and a study of all potential environmental impacts - not to mention developing the required technology on a large scale.

But apparently the energy potential is hard to ignore. "The predictions at this point estimate that the strength of the Gulf Stream could generate anywhere between four to 10 gigawatts of power, the equivalent of four to 10 nuclear power plants," says Sue Skemp, executive director of the Center.

Read the complete CNN news report.

California: sets a new standard for clean fuels

California took a solid step today in dealing with reducing the state's carbon footprint with the state Air Resources Board voting 9-1 in favor of adopting new regulations for greenhouse gas emissions from fuel.

The regulation requires producers, refiners and importers of gasoline and diesel to reduce the carbon intensity of their fuel by 10% over the next decade. And it launches the state on an ambitious path toward ratcheting down its overall heat-trapping emissions by 80% by mid-century — a level that scientists deem necessary to avoid drastic global climate disruption.

This is a first for any U.S. state and could set the standard worldwide. Regulations like this promote the development of alternative fuels, nudging the major energy companies to invest in greener alternatives like cellulosic ethanol made from trash, as opposed to the popular corn ethanol that is, in many ways, no better than petroleum-based fuels.

The regulation also is a positive step for entrepreneurs who are looking for new opportunities in alternative fuels. California will soon have its first cellulosic ethanol plant in Southern California's upper desert. The facility will process 170 tons of garbage a day to produce 3.7 million gallons of ethanol a year. Estimated cost per gallon: about $2, according to Arnold Klann of BlueFire Ethanol Fuels.

"California's low-carbon fuel standard is going to set the standard for the U.S. and, I expect, the standard globally," said Graeme S.S. Sweeney, a Shell executive vice president. "There will be a series of commercial-sized plants in the next five years. There will be different technologies. It will be good to see competition."

And that coming from one of the major energy/oil companies! I've always said that for energy companies to fully embrace a paradigm shift to alternative fuels, they will need to see the commercial advantage in it. Apparently, they are getting the message . . . and planet Earth should be the better for it.

Offshore Oil Drilling: Santa Barbara County readies a ban

In California, Santa Barbara County supervisors are preparing to reinstate a "ban" on offshore drilling, reversing a controversial decision made 8 months ago. The county will deny permits for onshore processing, which effectively halts any new offshore drilling - the actual drilling being something the county has no jurisdiction over. The new position reflects a change of heart (and a change in the board's make up) in favor of alternative energy sources before drilling is even considered.

"I feel strongly that we've been a national leader in conservation and alternative energy," said board member Doreen Farr. "That's the direction we need to go. We can't drill our way out of this."

But not everyone is in agreement. Many Santa Barbara County residents have no problem with tapping into undersea resources, contending that evolving technology has minimized the risk of catastrophic spills. "It's irresponsible not to develop offshore drilling and production, with a serious eye to making certain it's safe -- which it can be," said Joni Gray, a supervisor who represents the Santa Maria and Lompoc areas.

The new proposed resolution will be considered next week, the timing being in conjunction with an Interior Department hearing in San Francisco on offshore drilling. While there are those who advocate that offshore drilling technology has improved, the memory of the disastrous 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill is still fresh in the minds of many.

Wind Turbines: part of rethinking energy policy

Wind turbines off U.S. coastlines could potentially supply more than enough electricity to meet the nation's current demand. A conclusion drawn by a pro-wind environmental group or wind turbine lobby? No, it comes from the U.S. Interior Department in a recent report on wind turbine potential. (Read Los Angeles Times article.)

The report cited that wind turbines in the shallow waters off the eastern coast could produce up to 1,000 gigawatts of electricity - enough to handle 25% of the nation's demand. But it's not all a bed of roses. West coast wind turbine potential is hampered by the underwater terrain - primarily deeper waters that make the placement of turbines more difficult.

The report also touched on a sensitive issue with many environmental groups: offshore oil reserves and the possibility of more offshore oil drilling. This points to the need for a comprehensive and cohesive energy policy - no easy task and one that has eluded us to date because it was always easier to just keep drilling for more oil.

My thoughts . . .

A national energy policy is faced with having to address several important issues: the economic/political ramifications of our dependence on oil, particularly foreign oil; the need to develop a wide range of alternatives - some of which may not be as cost effective but may benefit the environment; the need to address the environmental safety issues in developing any and all forms of energy; and the reliance on objective science to determine the impacts of any new or existing form of energy. It's a mouthful any way you look at it.

The "drill, baby, drill" contingent that would like to see offshore and Arctic drilling resume or begin in earnest are opposed by many in the environmental movement. But a middle ground may have to be found here. I sense that germ of compromise in many of the comments from eco groups stating that objective scientific research is needed to determine the impacts of drilling (in other words, they are not entirely opposed to the idea as long as we don't repeat the oil spill disasters and environmental mistakes of the past). That holds true for many other forms of energy development. We need to focus our technological capabilities toward ensuring the highest degree of environmental safety for every form of energy under consideration - wind, solar, and yes, even nuclear and oil.

I'm not sure that our society can beat its addiction to oil by going cold turkey; we'll need to ween ourselves off of it. But if any new drilling does take place, it can't be for the purpose of returning to the status quo. Whatever oil is used, it must be done more efficiently - it becomes a two-fold issue: where we get it and how we use it. The underlying goal being to eliminate as much use of carbon/CO2 producing energy sources as possible.

Science and technology must play a massively critical role in all of this, in both developing the technologies that will provide efficient energy use that is economically reasonable while also determining what is safe for the environment. The two go hand in hand - with one caveat: to sacrifice the environment for the sake of expediency or the dollar would lead to irreparable damage. We are at that critical ecological tipping point.