"The Clegg-Cameron!" ....... is it any surprise they cannot make their minds up about which one is going to have to tell The American Administration where to stick it's legislation?
It must be said however that B.P are totally responsible for the actual accident (within the parameters of previously current* -and recently passed-, U.S industry practices, legislation and standards), however the responsibility for the ethos of exploitative and fast-buck practices is the industry's. I'm not an expert but wasn't/isn't (?) America the most influential oil producing/exploiting nation on the planet? The fact that following the accident B.P were attempting to cobble-together a deep-water salvage/repair unit out of a couple of rusty bath-tubs on Uncle Tom's Louisiana dockside is the whole industry's responsibility. The British Government should make clear on B.P's behalf that whilst B.P accepts responsibility for the accident and it's aftermath it cannot accept sole responsibility for the climate of exploitation that has been engendered in the industry as a whole. There should be a limit to the financial burden placed on B.P and responsibility for the rest of the environmental and social consequences of the disaster should be born by the industry (including the national governments of countries which profit from the presence of major private oil-companies on their soil ).
*You know like The Gulf Stream.
(Edit 04/01/11 ....we should offer to do as much as we possibly can to clean up what is undoubtedly our own mess and help to ensure that such a ridiculous disparity between the preparedness for disaster and the risks involved in the off-shore oil industry does not occur again.)
Economists note: If we did prepare properly for all possible eventualities within the oil industry (in terms of possible disaster scenarious involving all activities from oil-well to consumption), how much would it affect the profit margins?
Also, if the possible economic consequences of continuing to expoit this resource are so serious and the possibility of disaster so real, do we not conclude that we require far more investment in sustainable above ground (but not above water), fuel production methods?
Phyto-Plankton/Ocean Flora Harvest.
Without clean seas* http://www.coml.org/image-gallery we will not be able to produce the fuels we will need. This is why we need a paradigm shift away from the old exploitative model (also see, "What's That Coming Over The Hill?" Go to http://medialens.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3021 ).
*not just biologically clean but radiologically clean too. Go to http://www.coml.org/
Also see: "Plastics, Bio-fuels, Synergisms, Synthesis and Balance." Pts. 1 & 2 Go to:
http://gkhales.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/plastics-bio-fuels-synergisms-synthesis.html & http://gkhales.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/plastics-bio-fuels-synergisms-synthesis_30.html
"Where there's muck there's brass!" (and visa versa) http://thinkprogress.org/2010/07/22/oil-iran/
Also, according to The Associated Press; "American Petroleum Inst: 5 big oil companies have agreed to pool $1b to form new company to respond to offshore spills--BP not included!"
Quote: " "BP Profit Falls as Costs of Gulf of Mexico Spill Outweigh Higher Oil Prices" By Julia Werdigier
Published: April 27, 2011
LONDON — An increase in oil prices over the last year helped BP’s first-quarter earnings, but not enough to outweigh the costs of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.
But there are signs that the high prices have started to hurt demand in the United States and other developed countries, which could start pushing prices down again. Lower prices could make the rest of 2011 more difficult for BP and other big oil companies.
BP’s rivals, including Royal Dutch Shell and Exxon Mobil, are still expected to report strong results when they release their first-quarter performances on Thursday.
But some analysts said oil prices could drop about $20 a barrel in the near term, raising questions about whether such companies could keep up the stellar profit growth of last year.
“Concern about supply might fade, and there is a possibility that the world economy will slow,” said Julian Jessop, chief international economist at Capital Economics in London.
But “the future is still bright for oil companies,” he added. “Oil prices will fall back but remain historically high.”
An improving world economy returned oil prices to higher levels in 2010 after a sharp drop in 2009. Exxon Mobil, the largest American oil company, reported a 53 percent increase in profit for the fourth quarter of last year. Chevron earnings in that period rose 72 percent, and ConocoPhillips reported a 46 percent rise.
On Wednesday, BP was the first of the largest publicly traded oil companies to report first-quarter earnings.
For BP, a higher oil price was offset by asset sales to pay for the repercussions from the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Earnings were $5.48 billion in the first three months of this year, down from $5.6 billion in the period a year earlier.
The company has sold more than $24 billion of assets to raise money to cover the oil spill costs. Production fell as a result. Including lost production from the Gulf accident, production fell 11 percent in the first quarter from a year earlier.
BP set aside an additional $384 million for the oil spill in the first quarter, bringing the total to $41 billion.
BP’s shares have fallen 23 percent in the last 12 months, while those of its largest competitors have risen at least 18 percent.
To win back investors, the company focused on exploration and signed cooperation agreements in India and Russia. But its Russian deal with the government-owned Rosneft was held up this year because of a legal challenge from its Russian shareholders. Russia has surpassed Saudi Arabia as the biggest oil producer in the world. New oil from the region could play an important part in ensuring sufficient supplies and the future level of oil prices.
Those analysts who predicted a decline in the price of oil said concerns about political tensions in North Africa and the Middle East had increased prices but were likely to fade. At the same time, there are signs that high oil prices discourage consumers from filling their tanks just as the summer vacation season starts in the northern hemisphere.
“The oil price is, to an extent, too high at the moment,” said Christopher Wheaton, a director at the asset management firm RCM in London. “We are at the point at which we get demand destruction.”
Still, oil prices are expected to remain high enough for companies to increase investments in drilling aimed at raising production in the longer term. Exxon Mobil said last month that it planned to spend about $100 million a day for the next six years on new oil and gas projects.
The drilling for reserves in more remote and harder-to-reach areas has increased costs for oil companies as they compete for talent and technology. The Gulf of Mexico oil spill also led regulators to tighten safety rules and delay decisions on exploration permits, often further increasing costs for oil companies.
One year after the rig explosion that led to the spill in the Gulf of Mexico, BP is still seeking to resume drilling in the region’s waters, and investors continue to wait for BP to give a total figure for the costs of the spill." Go to http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/28/business/global/28bp.html?scp=1&sq=Profits%20Fall%20B.P%20costs%20Outweigh&st=cse
Quote: "..algae can grow faster than any other crop growing on land."...
"Some say algae can grow faster than any other crop growing on land. The numbers range up to 150 (300) tonnes algal biomass/ha.year, which is several times higher than the best known arable crop. Can algae really deliver this enormous amount of biomass? At the first congress on algae in The Netherlands, Eugène Roebroeck from Lgem made some interesting calculations.
There is only a limited amount of energy reaching the earth’s surface which plants can use to grow.
First, let’s look at the sun and the energy it provides. The sun provides a limited amount of energy per square meter. At the tropics the sunshine is very intense, in contrary to the poles where there is little solar energy. Clouds are also an important factor; regions with more clouds recieve less solar energy at ground level. The World Metereological Organisation has combined these two factors and calculated the annual solar energy available at any given location.
The annual average of solar energy for the Netherlands (and for Belgium) is 110 W/m². This is the maximum energy you can use. But since the spectrum of sunlight has a range from 250 to 2700 nm, containing next to visible light also ultraviolet radiation and infrared radiation, not all of this energy can be used. The figure underneath shows the distribution of energy over the wavelengths. The red area between the two vertical lines is approxymately the energy algae can use: only 43% of the total energy of the sun." See Link for Solar Radiation Spectrum Graph
"When we know that algae can only use 43% of 110W/m², we see that algae can only use 48 W/m².
Then, we have the efficiency of the photosynthetic apparatus of plants. Research shows that we need about 8-10 photons per captured CO2 molecule. Researchs on trees show that trees can take up only 5-6% of the available photons. This means we have in practice 3 W/m² which the algae can effectively use. Extrapolated to biomass this means we have a potential of 40 tonnes biomass/ha.year.
Since algal growth can be improved to reach higher effeciencies than the data shown above, the maximum value for photosynthetic efficiency can be 10%, which means a maximum potential of 5 W/m² or 68 tonnes biomass/ha.year.
In literature, this theoretical 10% efficiency is applied to areas (for example, the Sahara area) with much higher solar power (350 W/m² instead of 110W/m²), which results in the theoretical production rates of ~150 tonnes biomass/ha.year. This is the maximum amount of energy algae can capture per surface area.
But what has been proven? The NREL reported production rates of 50 tonnes algal biomass/ha.year, so this value can be achieved.
Is this enough to compete with other energy crops? Literature (Van Sark et al., 2006) suggests 8-12 tonnes DRY weight/ha.year for current bioenergy crops. At the congress some people argued that sugar beets can reach productivities of 25 tonnes dry mass/ha.year." Go to http://algaetobioenergy.wordpress.com/
Quote: "State Of The Ocean: 'Shocking' Report Warns Of Mass Extinction From Current Rate Of Marine Distress
If the current actions contributing to a multifaceted degradation of the world's oceans aren't curbed, a mass extinction unlike anything human history has ever seen is coming, an expert panel of scientists warns in an alarming new report.
The preliminary report from the International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO) is the result of the first-ever interdisciplinary international workshop examining the combined impact of all of the stressors currently affecting the oceans, including pollution, warming, acidification, overfishing and hypoxia.
“The findings are shocking," Dr. Alex Rogers, IPSO's scientific director, said in a statement released by the group. "This is a very serious situation demanding unequivocal action at every level. We are looking at consequences for humankind that will impact in our lifetime, and worse, our children's and generations beyond that."
The scientific panel concluded that degeneration in the oceans is happening much faster than has been predicted, and that the combination of factors currently distressing the marine environment is contributing to the precise conditions that have been associated with all major extinctions in the Earth's history.
According to the report, three major factors have been present in the handful of mass extinctions that have occurred in the past: an increase of both hypoxia (low oxygen) and anoxia (lack of oxygen that creates "dead zones") in the oceans, warming and acidification. The panel warns that the combination of these factors will inevitably cause a mass marine extinction if swift action isn't taken to improve conditions.
The report is the latest of several published in recent months examining the dire conditions of the oceans. A recent World Resources Institute report suggests that all coral reefs could be gone by 2050 if no action is taken to protect them, while a study published earlier this year in BioScience declares oysters as "functionally extinct", their populations decimated by over-harvesting and disease. Just last week scientists forecasted that this year's Gulf "dead zone" will be the largest in history due to increased runoff from the Mississippi River dragging in high levels of nitrates and phosphates from fertilizers.
A recent study in the journal Nature, meanwhile, suggests that not only will the next mass extinction be man-made, but that it could already be underway. Unless humans make significant changes to their behavior, that is.
The IPSO report calls for such changes, recommending actions in key areas: immediate reduction of CO2 emissions, coordinated efforts to restore marine ecosystems, and universal implementation of the precautionary principle so "activities proceed only if they are shown not to harm the ocean singly or in combination with other activities." The panel also calls for the UN to swiftly introduce an "effective governance of the High Seas."
"The challenges for the future of the ocean are vast, but unlike previous generations we know what now needs to happen," Dan Laffoley of the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) and co-author of the report said in a press release for the new report. "The time to protect the blue heart of our planet is now, today and urgent."" Go to http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/20/ipso-2011-ocean-report-mass-extinction_n_880656.html
NB. We needed to make the oceans radiologically clean before Fukushima.
A voice of dissent; quote: "Nobel Laureate Robert B. Laughlin exposes the consequences and limitations of biofuels from manure and corn ethanol to switchgrass and algae.
The energy industry’s sudden interest in algae might also be part of this absurdity, unfortunately. Green politics powerfully encourages “greenwash,” the practice of associating yourself with green causes to look more environmentally friendly than you actually are. Although the investments that the oil majors are presently making in algae look technically legitimate, they might just be public relations expenditures. We can’t tell, for the amounts of money involved, though considerable, are smaller than the potential costs of taxation, regulation, and political vexations that might be visited upon them for not being sufficiently green. Absent some truly unprecedented discovery or breakthrough, it will be hard not to smile knowingly whenever world-famous geneticists begin explaining their strategic algae oil partnerships that involve no farming until sometime way in the future, if ever." Go to http://criticalenvironmentalism.org/2011/12/05/algae-biofuels/#comments
My comment: "…and how much do you think cleaning up"...the effects of.."the nuclear industry will cost? As with the previous century’s “green” research INVESTMENT is required, or one can continue to pedal the myth that the notion of an “unsustainable economy” is NOT an oxymoron."...Also
"It is vital to realise that INVESTMENT also means investment in education"..."How myopic to assume that even the “most able” are unable to provide an answer in adulthood when they have received no encouragement (infact been actively dissuaded from, cajoled and FORCED not), to explore the alternative paradigms which inform such research as children.
Considering the blinkered attitude towards mycological and bacteriological research displayed by the academic institutions generally (revealed on my thread, "Mycological Environmentalism, Under-Reported/Researched?", go to http://medialens.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3166 ), it is hardly surprising no one has an answer as yet.
Comment from Sean OHanlon on the same article: quote; "So Robert Laughlin shared the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1998. Good for him; But Algae cultivation is about Biology & Systems Engineering, not Physics. To me this is another case of someone who clearly hasn’t spoken with any leading researchers in the field of algae R&D or attended a single conference to get a pulse on the state of the industry.
Fresh water? Why would we want clean water to grow algae? Not only does algae capture CO2 but it also has the ability to sequester heavy metals and other toxins that no reasonable person would want released into the air or water. In addition, Algae has the ability to cut energy consumption in Wastewater treatment plants by as much as 80 percent. Even if that number were only 20% it would still be a technology well worth pursuing."
Dr. Laughlin also chooses to narrowly focus on saltwater micro-algae. This is another major miscalculation. We have barely scratched the surface of what can be done by the over 100,000 species of micro-algae in the world. We haven’t even started to take a serious look at the macro-algae that grow faster and have a higher sugar content. And as for: “there is no saltwater agriculture industry at the moment from which you can make crop comparisons” Not true, The Irish have been harvesting algae for centuries and Asia has been cultivating it for decades now. (Where do you think your sushi wrap comes from?) Algae is already being grown profitably as feed for livestock, pharmaceuticals, and DHA Omega 3′s just to name a few.
The cost of producing biofuels is getting cheaper all the time while exploration, drilling, and refining oil is getting ever more difficult, costlier, and dangerous. (Let’s not forget the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill that took 11 lives and went on for over 90 days just last year; Not to mention the environmental damage that will last for decades.) Take away the tax breaks and other advantages that petroleum currently enjoys and it immediately becomes economically unsustainable to the tune of ~$13/gallon and up for gasoline.
Thank you for your opinion Dr. Laughlin. However, Your opinion is clearly not supported by the facts."
Re: “clean” water (see above), there’s a difference between “capture” and “proliferation”, you can’t continue to pollute the body (even when using maggots to clean-up a wound).
Quote: "Creatures found at deep-sea volcanic vent
A team of British scientists has captured images of very rare species, in some of the most inaccessible parts of the Indian Ocean.
While they were surveying volcanic underwater vents, they found an array of creatures, including yeti crabs, scaly-foot snails and sea cucumbers.
They believe some of the species may be new to science." For video go to http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16349972
Quote: "Producing biofuel from algae
A good thing about using algae is that they can produce oils required to manufacture biodiesel as well as sugar needed to manufacture ethanol. One of the biggest benefits of using algae is that they produce a huge amount of energy, much greater than that produced by food crop based biofuels. For instance, the amount of energy produced by algae growing in a large sized garage is equivalent to the energy generated by soybeans growing on land that is as large as a football field.
As they are harvested in a short time of about 1-10 days, algae definitely grow a lot faster than food crops. Algae can grow double their size in 24 hours and sometimes even less. Although initial investment in land will be required to cultivate algae, you do not require arable land to crop them. Algae can be developed on land that is not suitable for planting food crops like desert areas, rocky soil and even land with saline groundwater resources. Moreover, algae can grow in any type of climate and weather conditions unlike food crops. That notwithstanding, the production of biofuels nevertheless remains expensive." Go to http://www.ecofriend.com/biofuel-produced-algae-power-future.html#.TvgwjeGqVDE.twitter
Quote: "CEO's Update
2012: The Year of Algae
From: Riggs Eckelberry
Los Angeles, December 27, 2011
I trust that you are enjoying the holiday break, and that you are getting ready for a great year ahead.
The Top 100 People in Bioenergy, 2011-12
Once again you named me to this list, and I’m honored and thankful.
With several high-profile IPOs last year, Bioenergy is becoming Big Business. Which makes it all the more amazing that I’m even on this list.
OriginOil isn’t a big company. But we are working hard to make algae into Big Business in 2012!
Why 2012 will be the Year of Algae
In the closing months of 2011, we’ve seen these game-changing events:
commercial flights fueled by an algae blend.
a record purchase of algae-based fuel for the Navy’s Green Fleet.
the funding of a joint venture to help build bio-refineries using algae blends.
a research program to blend algae with many other potential fuels.
Blending algae with other feedstocks is jump-starting it into a major role in creating biocrude.
From there, you get gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, plastics… anything you can get from petroleum.
The game is changing, fast.
Accelerating Pace in 2012
After such a hot end of 2011, do you think things will slow down in 2012?
On the contrary, I am sure that things will speed up.
Do you think that we will play a part in this speedup? I will let you draw your own conclusions!
May you and yours have a safe and successful 2012.
Riggs and team
President & CEO
OriginOil, Inc. (OOIL)" Go to http://paper.li/polizeros/1296968283#!tag-biofuel
Quote: "Lufthansa to pilot transatlantic biofuel flight
Lufthansa looks set to conclude its biofuel trial with its first biofuel-powered transatlantic flight, after the airline admitted that the future of its biofuel programme now rested on its ability to source sufficient sustainable jet biofuels.
A Boeing 747-400 will leave Frankfurt bound for Washington DC carrying around 40 tonnes of a biosynthetic fuel mix, which the company estimates will reduce CO2 emissions by 38 tonnes – roughly equivalent to six scheduled flights between Frankfurt and Berlin.
Branson predicts aviation could be among 'cleanest' industries within 10 years
Climate Committee chief warns green aviation could prove impossibleThe flight looks to be the final act in a trial that has seen Lufthansa complete 1,187 domestic flights between Frankfurt and Hamburg using a 50/50 blend of regular fuel and biosynthetic kerosene in one of the plane's engines.
From mid-July to the end of December, it used up 1,566 tonnes of biokerosene mix, saving an estimated 1,471 tonnes of CO2 in the process.
Lufthansa hailed the trial as a success and said the higher energy density of biofuels meant it reduced fuel consumption by more than one per cent during the flights, while the fuel also proved to be free of polluting sulphur and aromatic compounds.
"Our burnFAIR project went off smoothly and to our fullest satisfaction," said Joachim Buse, vice president of aviation biofuel at Lufthansa. "As expected, biofuel proved its worth in daily flight operations."
However, while the company said biofuels would play a major role in helping airlines meet an industry-wide goal of halving 2005 levels of emissions by 2050, Buse confirmed its use of alternative fuels on commercial flights will be suspended until more sustainable fuels can be identified.
"As a next step, we will focus on the suitability, availability, sustainability and certification of raw materials," he said. "However, Lufthansa will only continue the practical trial if we are able to secure the volume of sustainable, certified raw materials required in order to maintain routine operations."
Airlines are coming under increased pressure to cut emissions as a result of volatile oil prices and their inclusion in the EU's emissions trading scheme.
However, green campaigners are concerned increasing demand for biofuels will lead to energy crops being grown on land* that should be used for producing food.
The industry has countered by arguing that biofuels will only supplement standard fuels rather than replace them, while many carriers have invested in so-called next generation biofuels that should not impinge on food production.
For example, BA has stated its intention to start using a fuel derived from waste from 2015 – and has invested in a plant in east London to produce it – while Virgin Atlantic is investigating a fuel made from waste gases that could be running part of its fleet by 2014." Go to
Quote: "Researchers engineer microbe to make seaweed a cost-effective source of renewable fuel
"BAL's technology to ferment a seaweed feedstock to renewable fuels and chemicals has suggested an entirely new pathway for biofuels development, one that is no longer constrained to terrestrial sources," says ARPA-E Program Director Dr. Jonathan Burbaum. "When fully developed and deployed, large scale seaweed cultivation combined with BAL's technology promises to produce renewable fuels and chemicals without forcing a tradeoff with conventional food crops such as corn or sugarcane."" Go to http://www.gizmag.com/microbe-converts-seaweed-into-renewable-fuel/21168/?utm_source=Gizmag+Subscribers&utm_campaign=a44c425eb8-UA-2235360-4&utm_medium=email
B.P "let-the-side-down", again...
Quote: "Gulf Rescue Alliance (GRA) has just sent a briefing package to the Attorney Generals of Alabama and Louisiana which presents evidence they believe has never seen the light of day concerning the how and why of the Deepwater Horizon Disaster and subsequent release of toxic oil into the Gulf—oil that is still gushing from various seabed fractures and fissures.
The evidence provided therein clearly indicates:
The unmentioned existence of a 3rd Macondo well (the real source of the explosion, DWH sinking and ensuing oil spill).
The current condition of this well being such that it can never be properly capped. " Go to http://poorrichards-blog.blogspot.com/2012/02/conclusive-evidence-that-bp.html
The compromised condition of the seabed floor being such that there are multiple unnatural sources of gushers continuing to pour into the Gulf, with Corexit dispersant still suppressing its visibility.
That the highly publicized capped well (Well A) never occurred as reported, and in fact was an abandoned well, hence it was never the source of the millions of gallons released into the Gulf.
GRA’s special report (a comprehensive compilation of research released by insiders and experts through confidential internet sources) has been forwarded to Congress in advance of BP’s upcoming trial on Monday, February 27th in New Orleans, LA. Entitled An Expert’s Analysis of ROV Film Footage Taken at the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Disaster Site, it has also been submitted to the appropriate federal, state and county authorities, plaintiff attorneys, and environmental and health advocacy groups who have a stake in the outcome of the trial.
...The aforementioned “Expert’s Analysis” makes plain the fact that much information, of which BP et al. was the exclusive source, had been misrepresented with prior deliberation before being submitted to the US Federal Government and other concerned parties. In many cases the forensic analysis has laid bare a pattern of tampering with evidence in an attempt to mitigate the compensatory and punitive damages BP might be forced to pay.
This extraordinary report goes on to document a scenario in which it appears that BP illegally drilled more than one well at the Macondo Prospect in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM). Furthermore, the well that was ultimately capped after 87 straight days of gushing oil and gas into the Gulf may not be the one that was licensed by the appropriate US permitting agencies.
The factual sequence of events, and especially the actual response by BP, appear to be far different from those reported in the media and by the Coast Guard. It is important to note that BP was given a lead position in the unified command structure authorized by the US Federal Government immediately following the burning and sinking of the Deepwater Horizon. This transference of authority away from the impacted state governments was unprecedented in US history and created a virtual monopoly over the flow of information from BP to the appropriate authorities, as well as to the public-at-large.
From even a cursory reading of this “Expert’s Analysis” it becomes clear that the actual evolution of the BP oil spill fits a narrative that is replete with instances of covering up and altering much essential data and information, which would have served as definitive evidence against BP in numerous foreseen legal actions. Ultimately, much of the information contained in this report may serve to “indict” not only BP and their corporate co-conspirators on several different violations of federal law and state statutes, but also various departments and agencies within the US Federal Government...." Go to http://poorrichards-blog.blogspot.com/2012/02/conclusive-evidence-that-bp.html
Also see; "Murky Business; "U.K and U.S Turn Blind Eye to Islamic State Oil Sales" Nafeez Ahmed: Middle East Eye" go to: https://gkhales.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/murky-business-uk-and-us-turn-blind-eye.html
& "Will the U.S be so Vociferous or Vehement about its own Oil Companies' Environmental Abuses?" go to: https://gkhales.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/will-us-be-so-vocal-and-vehement-about.html