When we last left Bobby Jindal, oil-addicted governor of BP-ravaged Louisiana, he was demanding more deepwater drilling ASAP. Former dirty energy lobbyist Gov. Haley Barbour (R-MI) also demanded renewed drilling before the cause of disaster was found.
The White House has now responded, as HuffPost reports:
The 6-month moratorium on deepwater drilling was instituted for a clear reason: the President believes we must ensure that the BP Deepwater Horizon spill is never repeated. This will allow for the new safety equipment and procedures announced in Secretary Salazar’s May 27th report to be implemented and for the independent commission to review the cause of the spill and analyze the rules and regulations governing offshore drilling.
A repeat of the BP Deepwater Horizon spill would have grave economic consequences for regional commerce and do further damage to the environment.
Among the drilling rigs that have frozen exploration in the Gulf are 2 operated by BP, and 2 jointly operated by BP and another company. Proceeding without the moratorium would mean that BP would continue deepwater exploration in the Gulf.
Economic impacts were certainly taken into account — the moratorium is surgical and shallow water drilling, in which the risks are better known, is continuing under stricter safety rules. Additionally, oil and gas production is continuing at the existing set of production wells, so we are not expecting short term effects on our oil and gas supply.
Under the administration’s legislative proposal to assist those harmed by the spill, workers unemployed because of the 6-month moratorium would be eligible for unemployment assistance. The proposal would also create jobs for cleanup, restoration, renovation and recovery. And the Small Business Administration is currently offering economic injury loans to impacted businesses on the Gulf Coast.
Duh!
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Kenneth Abbott, a worker from BP Atlantis who reported on a dangerous lack of operating documents aboard that rig in 2008, has joined with Food & Water Watch in a lawsuit that aims to shut down production on the rig until safety can be beefed up.
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/bp-atlantis-whistleblower-lawsuit/
I agree, but this simply shows that fishermen and others dependent on healthy waters are swamped by oil, and by oil workers.
Of course, the Oil Drum tells us that not all oil workers feel this way.
The next several months will be interesting.
amount of spilling oil is still increasing.
BP recovered 10,500 barrels on June 5 and 6,077 in the previous 24-hour period ending at midnight June 4. The oil is piped to a vessel at the surface with capacity to handle 15,000 barrels a day. BP said it burned off 15 million cubic feet of gas in the 12 hours to noon yesterday.
Spill Estimates
MacDonald estimates the well is leaking 26,500 barrels to 30,000 barrels a day, six times more than the figure used by BP and the government from April 28 to May 27.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-06-08/bp-oil-capture-rate-increases-as-pace-of-spill-stays-a-mystery.html
this should be the most embarrassing moment for BP. the amount of oil that they are “producing” (funny term they are using, in this context…) from the well is multiple times the amount that they said was leaking.
and the gas is not included, as it gets burned…
BP has been lying to use.
This sounds so toothless, so emotionally flat.
Where is the stern call for all governors in the region to meet with the president? Where is the statement that all of BP’s, Halliburton’s, and Transocean’s accounts in the US are frozen and accountants called in to make sure that payments are being made to everyone who’s suffered?
“create jobs for cleanup, restoration,…” Who’s on the hook – taxpayers or BP?
Spell it out!
An SOS on World Oceans Day: Save our seas, save ourselves
As Chief Scientist of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration from 1990 to 1992, much of my time was devoted to the aftermath of two major catastrophic oil spills: the accidental loss of 11 million gallons of crude oil from the tanker, Exxon Valdez in Alaska and the deliberate release of 462 million gallons into the Persian Gulf as an act of “ecological terrorism” by Iraq.
As tragic as they were, nothing compares with the estimated oil spill of between 504,000 and more than a million gallons a day that is currently gushing from a mile below the surface of the Gulf of Mexico in addition to close to two million gallons of toxic dispersants.
The near-freezing temperature and high pressure combined with a lack of suitable equipment to effectively deal with an operational failure at that depth magnify the harm now being done to “America’s Mediterranean,” a tri-national treasure, the planet’s ninth largest body of water and therefore, a globally significant part of Earth’s life support system.
As recipient of the 2009 TED Prize, I was given an opportunity to make one wish “large enough to change the world” — a wish that brought with it a commitment by the TED community to help make it come true.
My wish? To use all the means at our disposal — films, expeditions, the web, new submarines, and more — to ignite public support for a global network of Marine Protected Areas, “hope spots” large enough to save and restore the ocean, the blue heart of the planet.
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/06/07/sylvia.earle.gulf.ocean/index.html?hpt=C1
Scientist says ‘top kill’ made things worse
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/37561802#37561802
Video timeline of events.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/37561802#37519864
While the Gulf begins its long cleanup process, many New Mexico lawmakers are already thinking about what this could mean for things like solar and wind technology.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHg5Y_xCA94&feature=player_embedded
“Former dirty energy lobbyist Gov. Haley Barbour (R-MI) ”
I believe you wanted to type “MS”; I hope they arent doing offshore drilling in the Great Lakes (MI – Michigan).
Idea – Why couldnt BP boom an area of say 2 square miles above the leak, stop adding dispersant to the mix at the well head, let the oil rise to the surface and skim it off (at a rate of up to 100,000 barrels a day)?
Of course if they did this it would be absolutely clear how much was gushing out.
More than 20 blowouts have occurred at Barnett Shale wells
On April 22, 2006, a blowout killed a worker, Robert Dale Gayan, 49, at an XTO Energy well site in Forest Hill, south of Fort Worth.
XTO said Gayan “removed a safety plug from within a valve port in error, while there was pressure on the wellhead.” The result was an explosive “blast of water and natural gas” that struck Gayan, the company said, describing it as a “rare accident … unlikely to recur.”
The accident occurred between the first and second stages of hydraulic fracturing, which is done to enable a large flow of gas into the wellbore. Fracturing follows drilling and precedes hooking up the well to a pipeline to begin production.
Read more: http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/06/04/2240728/more-than-20-blowouts-have-occurred.html#ixzz0qGRDoMcl
This is what they do for small leaks from ships, etc. So if the idea were viable, I’m sure that’s what they’d do.
But, of course, if it were this simple to contain and skim the oil, no one would really care how much was gushing, because it wouldn’t be causing much of a problem, right?
Prokaryote,
Thank you for showing your continued commitment to public service, and for your fascinating and important body of work. I had suspected that you were a person with very strong credentials.
Part of the tragedy of the Gulf blowout will be the region’s decreased ability to sequester carbon, since organisms are dying and decaying, and the food chain is being traumatized. Can you direct us to resources quantifying the decreased ability of the ocean to sequester carbon in the future? My limited expertise and research area is in terrestrial sinks, but we all need to know more about what’s going on underwater.
“My limited expertise and research area is in terrestrial sinks, but we all need to know more about what’s going on underwater.”
Routine Gulf Monitoring – Here’s Why We Need It
Three days ago we blogged about a possible small, but persistent, leak from offshore oil platform #23051 in the Gulf of Mexico, not far from the ongoing Deepwater Horizon spill. We asked for confirmation from anyone who might happen to be in the vicinity.
[..]
In any event, this spill is certainly large enough to require reporting to the Coast Guard.
Other than us – is anybody watching what’s going on out there?
This is why we think America needs publicly transparent, routine satellite monitoring wherever we allow offshore oil and gas drilling.
http://blog.skytruth.org/2010/06/routine-gulf-monitoring-heres-why-we.html
“Can you direct us to resources quantifying the decreased ability of the ocean to sequester carbon in the future?”
Mike, thanks. The problem with the ocean and it’s capabilities to sequester carbon are indeed worrying. We have ocean acidification which affects the entire earth.
Ocean acidification is the name given to the ongoing decrease in the pH of the Earth’s oceans, caused by their uptake of anthropogenic carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.[1] Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.179 to 8.104 (a change of −0.075).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification
The possibility of permanent climate forcing redirections, which just further unbalances habitats.
In January 2010, the Gulf Stream briefly connected with the West Greenland Current after fluctuating for a few weeks due to an extreme negative phase of the Arctic oscillation, temporarily diverting it west of Greenland.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutdown_of_thermohaline_circulation
About sequestration of carbon in the ocean comes this to mind.
This role as a sink for CO2 is driven by two processes, the solubility pump and the biological pump.[12] The former is primarily a function of differential CO2 solubility in seawater and the thermohaline circulation, while the latter is the sum of a series of biological processes that transport carbon (in organic and inorganic forms) from the surface euphotic zone to the ocean’s interior. A small fraction of the organic carbon transported by the biological pump to the seafloor is buried in anoxic conditions under sediments and ultimately forms fossil fuels such as oil and natural gas.
At the present time, approximately one third[13] of human generated emissions are estimated to be entering the ocean. The solubility pump is the primary mechanism driving this, with the biological pump playing a negligible role. This stems from the limitation of the biological pump by ambient light and nutrients required by the phytoplankton that ultimately drive it. Total inorganic carbon is not believed to limit primary production in the oceans, so its increasing availability in the ocean does not directly affect production (the situation on land is different, since enhanced atmospheric levels of CO2 essentially “fertilize” land plant growth). However, ocean acidification by invading anthropogenic CO2 may affect the biological pump by negatively impacting calcifying organisms such as coccolithophores, foraminiferans and pteropods. Climate change may also affect the biological pump in the future by warming and stratifying the surface ocean, thus reducing the supply of limiting nutrients to surface waters.
In January 2009, the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced a joint study to determine whether the ocean off the California coast was serving as a carbon source or a carbon sink. Principal instrumentation for the study will be self-contained CO2 monitors placed on buoys in the ocean. They will measure the partial pressure of CO2 in the ocean and the atmosphere just above the water surface.[14]
In February 2009, Science Daily reported that the Southern Indian Ocean is becoming less effective at absorbing carbon dioxide due to changes to the regions climate which include higher wind speeds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sink#Oceans
Blooms alone are not enough to have any geological impact; to permanently draw down CO2 and cause climate change, the carbon must be sequestered, by the plants being buried and eventually fossilised. The anoxic bottom of the Arctic basin, a result of the stratified water column, permitted just this: the anoxic environment inhibits the activity of decomposing organisms and allows the plants to sit unrotted until they are buried by sediment and incorporated into the fossil record.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azolla_event
Land-use changes, the combustion of fossil fuels, and the production of cement have led to a flux of CO2 to the atmosphere. Presently, about one third (approximately 2 gigatons of carbon per year)[2][3] of anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are believed to be entering the ocean. The solubility pump is the primary mechanism driving this flux, with the consequence that anthropogenic CO2 is reaching the ocean interior via high latitude sites of deep water formation (particularly the North Atlantic). Ultimately, most of the CO2 emitted by human activities will dissolve in the ocean[4], however the rate at which the ocean will take it up in the future is less certain.
In a study of carbon cycle up to the end of the 21st century, Cox et al. (2000)[5] predicted that the rate of CO2 uptake will begin to saturate at a maximum rate at 5 gigatons of carbon per year by 2100. This was partially due to non-linearities in the seawater carbonate system, but also due to climate change. Ocean warming decreases the solubility of CO2 in seawater, slowing the ocean’s response to emissions. Warming also acts to increase ocean stratification, isolating the surface ocean from deeper waters. Additionally, changes in the ocean’s thermohaline circulation (specifically slowing)[6] may act to decrease transport of dissolved CO2 into the deep ocean. However, the magnitude of these processes is still uncertain, preventing good long-term estimates of the fate of the solubility pump.
While ocean absorption of anthropogenic CO2 from the atmosphere acts to decrease climate change, it causes ocean acidification which is believed will have negative consequences for marine ecosystems
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solubility_pump
Once again: I wish the administration would force BP to hire all the out-of-work oil workers (as well as fishermen, etc.) to help with the booming and clean-up, thereby killing two birds with one stone (so to speak; actually maybe killing at least a few fewer). And it would highlight the duplicity of Jindal, et al’s call for immediate resumption of drilling.
In fact, shouldn’t existing wells be shut down until their ‘fail-safe’ systems are inspected and upgraded? It just might be prudent to reduce the risk of another under-protected well blowing up while we’re still dealing with this one.
Ron, @17: I believe that most wells are not artesian and must be pumped to produce. As such are fail safe or easily controlled.
Ocean chemistry doesn’t lie
To better monitor the ocean chemistry “Citizens Science Program” planned
No matter what you believe about climate change, ocean chemistry doesn’t lie. Even toy store chemistry tests will show that the seas are becoming more acidic, and the off kilter levels can have a scary impact on sea creatures: it dissolves them.
The oceans absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, produced mostly by tailpipes and coal and oil-fired power plants. The CO2 increases acidity (pH) in the ocean which robs it of calcium carbonate, the building block of sea creatures’ skeletons and shells. Scientists estimate the ocean is 25 percent more acidic now than it was 300 years ago.
http://www.sitnews.us/LaineWelch/060710_fish_factor.html