Comments by swimmer
Posted on June 10 at 2:36 p.m.
I guess, spacey, that you are them guilty of raping the earth every time you drive somewhere, every time you get on a plane, every time you use plastics (including when you posted the above response), and every time you patronize any business that uses fossil fuels to assemble and deliver their products and services to a place you can buy them... which means every time you eat something.
Posted on June 10 at 9:39 a.m.
Check out what Lisa Jackson, head of the EPA, had to say on May 24, 2011:
"The head of the Environmental Protection Agency told a House committee Tuesday that she favored natural gas production and said she didn't know of any “proven case” in which hydraulic fracturing had affected drinking water."
http://www.newsok.com/article/3571012...
We don't want junk science influencing our climate change policy, and we shouldn't let junk science dictate the way we use our natural resources.
Posted on February 5 at 10:41 p.m.
"That Venoco, Mobil before them, and ARCO even earlier disguise their leakage with seepage goes unnoticed"
Any evidence for this, or do you think that that's unnecessary? I guess we should all just take your word for it and throw the scoundrels in jail.
On None
Posted on November 1 at 10:14 a.m.
SezMe,
I used the term "about 200 barrels per day" referring to the entire Santa Barbara Channel.
UCSB has quoted an estimate of 100 to 170 barrels per day from the Coal Oil Point Seep alone.
http://seeps.geol.ucsb.edu/
From the National Science Foundation (the more recent source),
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp...
"These natural seeps release some 20 to 25 tons of oil daily, "providing an ideal laboratory to investigate the fate of oil in the coastal ocean," says oceanographer David Valentine of UCSB." Valentine is referring only to Coal Oil Point.
One ton of API 36 gravity oil translates to about 7.33 barrels; Valentine's estimate is therefore 147 to 183 barrels per day, again from the area around Coal Oil Point alone. But since reservoired oil in the channel is typically lower gravity (low 20's to low 30's), and heavier crude is denser, my conversion probably underestimates by 5-10%. A 7.5% underestimate would put Valentine's midpoint range at 177 barrels, and his high end at 197 barrels.
Therefore, in estimating a figure for the entire Santa Barbara Channel, rounding up from their range for Coal Oil Point seems pretty reasonable, especially when you consider that there are many known seeps in the channel. For example, UCSB researchers also recently noted the existence of an asphalt volcano in the April issue of Geology.
http://geology.com/press-release/asph...
At any rate, especially given the uncertainties in the measurement, I think that the distinction between "about 200" and 165, or something a bit more, is scarcely worth quibbling about. The main point, as you say, is that this article is poorly written, and without context it does a disservice to its readers. It reads like a case of mild sensationalism designed to milk the dregs of the BP spill, tapping into local hostility to sell a few extra papers.
Posted on October 31 at 3:11 p.m.
Thanks cmetzenberg.
Since the journalist on this piece, Tyler Hayden, seems to have little to do, I suggest a future project:
1) How many issues per day does the Independent reject due to printing error or otherwise?
2) How many barrels of petroleum does the Independent consume daily in producing and delivering its product, and in getting its employees and supplies to the workplace?
3) How many trees does it take to produce each day's issue?
Would be an interesting read.... but kind of politically incorrect. :-)
Posted on October 30 at 10:56 a.m.
This spill is 1 part in one million of Venoco's annual offshore production, according to California's annual report, which is public record.
About 200 barrels per day seep naturally into channel waters, according to UCSB researchers. Juan Cabrillo reported seeps in his logs in the 16th century, and it's well known that the Chumash Indians used tar in caulking their boats.
About 800 barrels have been spilled by offshore operators since 1970 out of about 2 billion produced, or 1 barrel per every 2.5 million produced: a defect rate of 0.00004%. As compared to the "best-in-class" six-sigma target for US industry as a whole of 0.00034%. The US industry average defect rate is about 10 times six-sigma, or 0.0034%
Pappy et al, how do the defect rates in your industries compare? Have any of your companies ever experienced a human error? Do you buy any oil, or patronize any companies that do?
Posted on March 31 at 11:18 a.m.
By the way, if California is giving oil companies such a sweet deal, why are there only 28 drilling rigs operating in the state, but 52 in New Mexico, 73 in Pennsylvania, 209 in Louisiana, 37 in Wyoming, 42 in Arkansas, 593 in Texas, 114 in Oklahoma, 51 in Colorado, and 92 in North Dakota? California produces more oil than all of these states except Texas, yet companies are choosing to drill elsewhere.
You'd think if they could make $10 more per barrel in California, as you implied in your first post, that companies would be rushing into the state. But they aren't. Why do you think that is? Could it be that there are other factors apart from just severance tax that makes a state more or less attractive to drillers?
Posted on March 29 at 10:41 p.m.
The 1997 spill from Platform Irene was caused by a ruptured pipeline, resulting in about 163 barrels spilled. In fact, I did bring this into the conversation , because it's included in the comment I posted already: "More oil seeps out the seafloor naturally every week than has been spilled since 1969." That is, about 850 barrels spilled since 1969, which you would have known immediately if you were aware what natural seepage rates are offshore. Which I assume you are.
The Irene spill was roughly equivalent to one day's natural seepage, or about .0002% of the oil produced in 1997 in offshore California. That's 1 barrel for every 467,000 produced. What failure rate do you demand? Should we penalize airlines for crashes too?
I think it's pretty clear that the Nava campaign is based more on an emotional dislike of an industry he doesn't understand, rather than any thoughtful and objective analysis.
For example, a previous post implies that since Texas pays $14 in tax per barrel, and California pays $4 (we'll take the figures as written), then it would be only fair if California producers should now pay an extra $10 per barrel. But since $10 is currently 12.5% of the spot oil price, and severance tax counts as a cost of goods, then the implication is that, at current prices, producers earning less than a 12.5% return on sales will have no profit. How much state income tax loss will that mean? How many job losses will that mean, and what will be the demand on state resurces to service these people. Presumably Mr. Nava doesn't care, because he can in the process poke the oil industry in the eye with a stick.
It's especially instructive that pedronava ignored the material comments in my post, and instead chose to attack a numerical detail, which he would have realized I had already incorporated, if he knew his numbers,
Posted on March 29 at 1:09 a.m.
Correction, the oil industry has produced 3,658,169,000 barrels from offshore California. That cuts the failure rate to 0.00002%.
Previous Month
Posted on June 12 at 11:12 p.m.
Chato,
Gasland is a very poor "documentary." In fact, I wouldn't even call it a documentary, I'd call it a political statement made by someone who has absolutely no technical experience or expertise in his subject matter. Josh Fox may be well meaning, but he doesn't know what he's talking about. His film been refuted by the EPA, by the State of Colorado, the State of Pennsylvania, and by researchers in West Virginia. It's junk science to be sure, but in this case politically correct junk science. The same folks who decry climate change deniers embrace this brand of junk science uncritically, because it's sufficiently ideologically pure.
I'm going to repeat what I posted above:
On May 24, Lisa Jackson, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, told a House committee that she favored natural gas production and said she didn't know of any “proven case” in which hydraulic fracturing had affected drinking water."
Can you provide evidence to show that she is wrong? And credentials to demonstrate that you are more qualified than she is?
Fracking is not a new process, and neither is it even "relatively new." It was introduced in the 1940's, and since then hundreds of thousands of wells have been fracked all over the US.
On Tracking the Fracking