In a major legal blow to President Trump’s push to expand offshore oil and gas development, a federal judge ruled that an executive order by Mr. Trump that lifted an Obama-era ban on oil and gas drilling in the Arctic Ocean was unlawful.
The decision, by Judge Sharon L. Gleason of the United States District Court for the District of Alaska, concluded late Friday that President Barack Obama’s 2015 and 2016 withdrawal of about 1120 million acres of Arctic Ocean from drilling “will remain in full force and effect unless and until revoked by Congress.” She wrote that an April 2017 executive order by Mr. Trump revoking the drilling ban “is unlawful, as it exceeded the president’s authority.”
The decision, which is expected to be appealed in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, immediately reinstates the drilling ban on most of the Arctic Ocean off the coast of Alaska, a pristine region home to endangered species including polar bears and bowhead whales where oil companies have long sought to drill. It also has broader implications for Mr. Trump’s effort to push drilling across the American coastline and on public lands.
Specifically, the Arctic Ocean drilling case could give legal ammunition to opponents of Mr. Trump’s efforts to roll back protections for two million acres of national monuments created by Mr. Obama and President Bill Clinton.
With each passing day, the news is filled with updates on the success of the transition toward a renewable energy future. Some may detail certain obstacles while others break the news regarding either a private entity or government moving (or making a commitment) toward achieving a non-zero percentage of their energy economy on clean (renewable) energy. This reality is not new.
Neither is President Trump's inability to realize that 'rolling back' environmental laws put in place by the Obama Administration takes skill (and reason/logic) to reverse. Congress will have to act at the very least. Within that act will have to be a good reason to repeal the law put into place. I have previously stated on this blog site the fact that if a rule is to be changed, the replacement has to be better than the previous law.
Which is to say that the law needs to be even more environmentally friendly than the previous proposal to be passed. Otherwise, the existing law stays in place and is continuously challenged in courts -- as has been the case for the Trump Administration over the last two years. I try hard to explain that rule to everyone with whom I meet and discuss the 'rollbacks' that supposedly have been accomplished by the Trump Administration.
The reality is stated in the article above that the Trump Administration has failed miserably on at least 40 accounts to persuade courts to reverse or 'rollback' a given environmental rule put in place by the Trump Administration. These decisions have been in line with the current standards set in place by Congress. Which should surprise no one including the President of the United States. We will next have to see what Congress says about the issue at hand.
So far Congress has been willing to hold bipartisan hearings this year on the critical issue of climate change. Furthermore, Congress recently wrote a letter to the Director of the Department of the Interior, asking him to not drill for oil off the coast of Florida. That should be a significant indicator to President Trump that his attempts to 'rollback' any Obama Administration's environmental regulations (at least the majority of them) is not an accessible route to go down.
Of course, we are dealing with a non-traditional President of the United States currently. The newspapers should keep up the great work at reporting on such failures. Otherwise, a person might be led to think that a 'rollback' is possible without Congress. The reality is that even Congress is batting for a renewable energy future. Although the timeline might be debatable. Nonetheless, a clean, renewable energy future is coming. Stay tuned.
With the number of proposed pipelines throughout North America extending down into the United States, there has been additional concerns about the potential adverse impact on the environment (in the event of a oil spill). One such example is the expansion of a pipeline in Canada. According to an article in 'Yale Environment 360' titled "For Marine Life, New Threats from a Fast-Tracked Canadian Pipeline" the recent proposed expansion will more than double the daily capacity of oil moving through the pipeline:
Nearly everyone involved in the controversy over Canada’s troubled Trans Mountain Pipeline was surprised when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced in May that his government would take over the construction from a private company to ensure that additional tar sands crude oil can move from northern Alberta to a port in British Columbia.
The 715-mile Trans Mountain pipeline expansion would add a parallel pipeline to an existing one, increasing the route’s capacity from 300,000 to 890,000 barrels per day and helping producers sell crude and refined oil to Asian markets. Trudeau’s action means that a pipeline many thought might never be built is now on a fast track to completion by 2020. Construction is scheduled to begin this month.
Wow. Adding an additional pipeline would increase the amount per day by nearly tripling the current amount. In order to understand (comprehend) the potential for disaster -- in the case of an oil spill -- the analysis carried out below will shed light onto the new daily amount of oil to be moved through both pipelines.
How Large Is An Olympic Size Pool?
A metric which is commonly used on this blog site in order to cast or shed light onto large (enormous) numbers is an Olympic size swimming pool. The picture at the beginning of the blog post above is that of an official Olympic size swimming pool. In order to determine the volume of water that is needed to fill such a large pool, a search engine (i.e. Google) can be consulted with the following question: How many gallons are in an Olympic swimming pool? The answer is shown below:
In a typical Olympic size swimming pool, there are 660,430 gallons of water. Compared to an average pool (however that is defined?) the ranges of volumes (in gallons) range from 12,000 gallons to over 30,000 gallons. Still, these are small compared to an Olympic size swimming pool. Which also translates to the enormous volume in question in the blog post.
Now that the volume of an Olympic size swimming pool is known, the analysis can be carried out to determine the number of Olympic size swimming pools would be filled per day with a flow rate of 890,000 barrels of oil.
How Many Swimming Pools/Day?
To start an analysis of comparing volumes or flow rates, the initial (and very important) step is to determine the 'units' of measurement in which each value is presented at the beginning of the article. The author above stated the flow rate of oil per day in the units of 'barrel per day' -- specifically 890,000 barrels per day of oil.
The issue at hand is that a direct comparison of flow rate over time [(890,000 barrel/day) x (1 day) = 890,000 barrels (i.e. volume)]. Therefore, in order to compare the total amount of oil to the volume (a metric) of an Olympic size swimming pool, the volumes must be expressed in the same units -- i.e. 'gallon'. In order to determine the amount of gallons in a barrel, we consult 'Google' again with the following question: How many gallons of oil in a barrel? The answer is shown below:
Now that both values are expressed in units of 'gallon', the total amount of oil which will flow per day with the current expansion (addition of a new pipeline) is shown below:
Notice that the flow rate is expressed in units of 'gallon' -- the same as a swimming pool. The final step is to divide the flow rate by the volume of the swimming pool:
The answer indicates that with a flow rate of oil per day through an oil pipeline of 890,000 barrels per day, a total of 56 Olympic size swimming pools could be filled. This is over a 24 hour period. That would be the total amount of oil which would spill into the environment surrounding a break in the pipelines.
Conclusion...
The analysis above indicates that over a 24 hour period, a total of 890,000 barrels of oil transported through the 715 mile pipeline would be equivalent to filling up 56 Olympic size swimming pools. Which is also 37,380,000 gallons per day. That is no small number. Which makes the concern of environmental groups worth entertaining since the fall out of an oil spill would be not be trivial.
Late last week, upon opening a daily newsletter I receive the daily news round ups from the political news website "Politico" - two of which are shown below:
THIRD TIME'S THE CHARM! Opponents of the Dakota Access pipeline received a major legal victory late Wednesday as a federal judge ruled the government's environmental review of the project was inadequate and that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers must redo its analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act. In his 91-page ruling, U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg said the government "did not adequately consider the impacts of an oil spill on fishing rights, hunting rights, or environmental justice, or the degree to which the pipeline's effects are likely to be highly controversial."
But he stopped short of immediately ceasing the pipeline's operation, calling that a "separate question" subject to additional briefing to be discussed at a status conference next week. Tribal opponents of the pipeline, which began operating this month, had failed twice before in legal challenges seeking to block its completion. But they hailed Wednesday's decision: "We applaud the courts for protecting our laws and regulations from undue political influence, and will ask the Court to shut down pipeline operations immediately," Standing Rock Sioux Chairman Dave Archambault II said in a statement.
In a statement, the Grow America's Infrastructure Now coalition said the outstanding claims in the case "do nothing to impact the ongoing operation of the pipeline" and expressed confidence the Corps would allay the judge's concerns. "While we have little doubt that the Corps will ultimately be successful in satisfying the Court's concerns, tonight's decision continues the public saga of the project and jeopardizes ongoing infrastructure investment," Craig Stevens, a spokesman for the group, said.
This was wonderful news for the environmental community. Here is the ruling - click here. Luckily, the judge decided that the history of the Environmental Assessment was insufficiently done and needed more consideration. In the "history section" of the ruling, the crucial consideration of an oil spill is discussed as shown below:
After “becom[ing] aware of the proximity” of DAPL to Standing Rock’s Reservation, the EPA supplemented its comments. See ECF No. 209-8 at 123 (Letter from Philip Strobel to Brent Cossette, Mar. 11, 2016). It recommended that the Corps revise the Draft EA and provide a second public-comment period “to assess potential impacts to drinking water and the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe,” as well as “additional concerns regarding environmental justice and emergency response actions to spills/leaks.” Id. Notably, the EPA took some issue with the Draft EA’s spill analysis, stating that although it indicated only a minimal spill risk associated affect water resources. Id. at 124. Given DAPL’s proposed capacity of 13,100 to 16,600 gallons
per minute of crude oil and the proximity of drinking-water intakes to the Oahe crossing, the
agency explained, “There would be very little time to determine if a spill or leak affecting
surface waters is occurring, to notify water treatment plants and to have treatment plant staff on
site to shut down the water intakes.” Id. at 125. Finally, the EPA urged the Corps to expand its
analysis for purposes of assessing environmental-justice considerations from “the area of
construction disturbance” to “the impacts of the proposed project,” and to look at route
alternatives. Id. at 126; see also ECF No. 209-9 at 209 (Email “Quick Summary of Conference
Call with EPA,” Feb. 25, 2016) (“EPA concerned over the lack of Environmental justice —
Tribal interests have not been addressed sufficiently.”)
The concerns expressed in the excerpt are completely normal from the perspective of a resident of the surrounding area. Which raises the following concern:
Why were the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers so relaxed in their assessment of an oil pipeline traveling underneath a body of water carrying a massive amount of oil per day?
In a blog post from last year, I raised concerns about the scope and scale of the project. The amount of oil projected to travel down the pipeline per day was estimated to be around 470,000 barrels per day. If you are like me then reading the volume of oil transported per day expressed in units of 'barrels per day' is not very useful.
The result of dimensional analysis (unit conversion) yielded that 470,000 barrels per day is equivalent to 19.7 million gallons per day. WOW. To put this into perspective, suppose that a spill occurred over the course of a single day which was undetected -- i.e. underneath Lake Oahe. The amount of oil leaked over the course of a single day would be equivalent just under 2 times the volume of the the historic "Exxon Valdez" oil spill in Alaska in 1989. The total amount of oil spilled was 10.8 million gallons of oil over an area of 28,000 square kilometers.
The volume of Lake Oahe is equal to 7,661,000,000,000 gallons with surface area of 1497 square kilometers. That means that an oil spill of 19.7 million gallons over the course of a day would essentially cover the entire body of Lake Oahe (surface) with a depth varying depending on the crude oil composition. Which would essentially ruin the entire body of water.
The same Lake Oahe which serves as a source of water for the entire region of both Indian Tribes. Oh my goodness. And to think that the oil company almost made it through without a more in depth environmental assessment by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Thank goodness for the judge in this case.
Where does the case go from here?
Stay tuned for more breaking news on this critical matter for the residents of Lake Oahe.
Conclusion...
I would hope that in addition to assessing the environmental impact, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers demand that better sensor technology is installed on the pipeline to yield more information on the integrity of the pipeline over time and various environmental conditions. The technology is out there. Furthermore, improvements to sensor technology are being made constantly. The difficult part of the data obtained is to "mine the data" efficiently to yield the safety results required to mitigate a future oil spill. This ruling is one step toward that improvement. Thank goodness for level headed judges in this case.
If jobs are lost to another Nation, one would think that instead of bringing the same job back, create a new one -- with a more intelligent worker. Hold on here... more intelligent? Yes, skilled workers working on jobs that promote a healthier and more environmentally friendly world. With the recent victory over the North Dakota pipeline by the Sioux Indian Tribe, our mindset should be the following:
1) Inspect, test, and repair the existing millions of miles of pipeline in operation today.
2) Offer more incentives for businesses who are promoting the use of renewable energy to operate.
3) Follow the lead of major corporations moving toward green energy initiatives.
Why do I suggest the above steps as a mindset moving forward?
Below are a few thoughts to initiate the discussion forward.
30 Years Of Oil Spills
In a recent article from 'The Atlantic' titled "30 Years of Oil and Gas Pipeline Accidents, Mapped" Author George Joseph provides us with a great overview of the last 30 years of oil transportation using oil pipelines. The article contains extremely informative infographics and visual illustrations which prove beyond a doubt that the last 30 years has been less than stellar for the oil industry -- as far as accidents go.
Using the recent Standing Rock Sioux Indian tribe's protest of the North Dakota pipeline, he jumps right into hammering down the truth surrounding accidents and oil pipeline with the following statements:
Oil industry supporters argue that pipelines are safer alternative to hauling fuel by tanker trucks or freight trains. “Environmental analysis comparing pipelines to rail finds pipelines will result in fewer incidents, barrels released, personal injuries, and greenhouse gas emissions,” says John Stoody, a spokesperson for the Association of Oil Pipe Lines, in a statement to CityLab. He cites an environmental impact statement conducted by the U.S. State Department comparing the impact of rail delivery of crude oil to that of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. Additionally, a 2013 study from the conservative Manhattan Institute found that road transportation had an annual accident rate of 19.95 incidents per billion ton miles and rail transportation had 2.08 incidents per billion ton miles, compared to 0.89 incidents per billion ton miles for natural gas transmission and 0.58 serious incidents per billion ton miles for hazardous liquid pipelines.
Environmentalists, however, point to a lack of adequate state and federal regulation and the difficulties of maintaining millions of miles of aging pipeline infrastructure in their warnings about the dangers of spills, fires, and other accidents. And data from the federal government suggests such concerns should be taken seriously. Over the last twenty years, more than 9,000 significant pipeline-related incidents have taken place nationwide, according to data from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. The accidents have resulted in 548 deaths, 2,576 injuries, and over $8.5 billion in financial damages. (Not counted in this total are thousands of less “significant" pipeline-related malfunctions.)
Readers of this site will recall the calculations performed in a recent blog post regarding the amount of oil that could potentially be moved per day through the Dakota pipeline -- 19.7 million gallons per day! That is no small amount. Therefore, accidents like those described in the excerpt result in large environmental costs and human costs (injuries) -- which will be commented on shortly.
As if the figures above were not enough to drive home the point surrounding the dangers associated with the transportation of oil in pipelines, he goes onto show evidence gathered in the form of graphs/plots of frequency of occurrence correlated with geography. One snapshot of a plot appears like the following shown below tracking the growth of the pipeline spills over the last 30 years:
The total costs of the spills dotted in the above image total to $8.5 billion over a 30 year period. With that many miles of pipeline developed over a 30 year period, one cannot help but wonder what is the disaster/injury rate. Below is a diagram taken from the same source detailing the number of incidents over a 30 year period from 1986-2016:
Just last week, after the victory of the Sioux Tribe in getting a total Environmental Impact Report, the news did not report another pipeline break that was 200 miles from the Dakota protests. In an article from the website 'EcoWatch' titled "Oil Pipeline Shut Down After Spill, Just 200 Miles From Standing Rock" the author lists a series or recent spills that have occurred with the company at fault in the last few years -- resulting in hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil being spilled. One would ask the logical question:
Why do we continue to build oil pipelines in light of the disasters over the years?
Even when the disasters have such long term (and unknown) consequences to the environment. The points made above do not take into account the tourism industry which suffers greatly as a result of any oil spill. In a blog post I wrote last spring, I discuss the traditional 'California Dream' being destroyed by the operations of 'big oil.' The effects of pipeline disasters are unknown and loom largely in the background -- which is why the last question is extremely important to consider repeatedly when the discussion of energy demand is on the table.
Of course, the default answer to the energy trade is the that the national demand drives our dependence on cheap fossil fuels rather than costly renewable energy. I am not arguing against the fact that demand does drive the default (lowest cost) solution. What I will propose is to build upon the existing pipeline (improve conditions) along with growth toward renewable energy. Growing the renewable energy sector will demand a more intelligent workforce (which we have) and improve the conditions of working overall. Let me explain below.
Grow Renewable Energy!
First, before we grow renewable energy, the existing oil and gas infrastructure needs to be approved upon. When I was a graduate student at University of California at Riverside in the Chemistry department, I got to work closely with the machine shop. Some of the machinists had come to work for the University after working along the pipeline in the North West of America -- Alaskan pipeline.
According to a welder, the work was tedious and not challenging since it was highly repetitive. Although, I have met a number of people in my life who thrive in those conditions. They love repetitive work. Work the shift hard and then go home -- sounds like a perfect fit to me. Which raises the following question:
Why can't we get workers back to work improving existing oil and gas pipeline?
According to the article cited above in 'The Atlantic,' there exists millions of miles of pipeline.
What a great fit?
Could you imagine the amount of jobs required to inspect and repair millions of miles of pipeline. The number of hires needed would be in direct proportion to the time required to complete and upgrade our oil delivery system. By update, I mean repair and make sure that the existing oil pipeline is in good shape.
Additionally, the employees could also install 'sensors' with accuracy to detect when the flow at a given point has changed dramatically. Sensor technology has advanced quite a bit in the last couple of decades. Piezo-electric technology has the ability to offer such solutions to the oil and gas industries to detect major changes. In an article from the website "Scientific Computing" titled "Aviation Enhancements, Better Biosensors Could Result from New Sensor Technology" an update is given by the author on the state of piezo-electric technology by the following excerpt:
Piezoelectric sensors measure changes in pressure, acceleration, temperature, strain or force and are used in a vast array of devices important to everyday life. However, these sensors often can be limited by the "white noise" they detect that can give engineers and health care workers false readings. Now, a University of Missouri College of Engineering research team has developed methods to enhance piezoelectric sensing capabilities. Enhanced sensors could be used to improve aviation, detect structural damage in buildings and bridges, and boost the capabilities of health monitors.
Guoliang Huang, an associate professor of mechanical and aerospace engineering in the MU College of Engineering, and his team's new platform improves sensors by amplifying the signal, allowing the same amount of sensors to read more data. Their new device also cuts costs by allowing fewer sensors to cover larger structures and longer distances.
The author goes onto describe the changes from previous sensor technology. Further, the sensors can be "tuned" to a specifically weak signals which would neglect other signals. These sensors are an example of the type of technology appearing on the market that has been developed and is currently in use in a wide range of applications from aerospace to the biomedical field. Understanding that the technology exists raises the following question:
Why is this technology not being deployed to prevent oil and gas spills?
This prospect would be beneficial to society and the world at large. No one likes to see an economy that is adversely impacted by a large number of spills resulting in a large amount of environmental damage. Moving toward a sustainable future is where the world is headed. The question becomes then:
Is the current administration headed in the same direction?
Toward a more sustainable and healthy environment through the promotion of green energy?
Unfortunately, at the current moment with the announcement of reductions in climate funding and science funding overall, the direct seems to be counterintuitive to that of forward progress. Not to worry though? There exists powerful people (CEO) that are in charge of large corporations that can and are promoting change toward renewable energy.
Private Investment In Renewable Energy!
In addition to whatever funding is sought after to elevate the use of renewable energy in the future, a portion of that money will be inevitably from 'Private Sector' funding. Years ago, I was watching a Charlie Rose interview with a rear Admiral who was explaining that funding sources occur in two different ways: either government funding or private sector funding.
At any given time, you can limit the source to either funding avenue. Furthermore, he stated that the funding source can change between the initiation of the project and the end point of the project. With the recent Paris Climate talks just completed (less than a year ago), there is enthusiasm on part of the private sector through an initiative called "Breakthrough Energy Ventures" spearheaded by top CEO's like Bill Gates. This is encouraging.
Although with the news of the incoming administration's intention to back away from these environmentally friendly improvements, the Coalition has had to step up with a press release. In an article from the website "Laboratory Equipment" titled "Billionaires Launch Massive Green Energy Fund to Spur Breakthroughs" the author introduces the Coalition's intention of elevating the renewable energy market by competitive bids. Here is an excerpt describing the thought process behind the initiative:
Breakthrough Energy Ventures counts Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Jack Ma of Alibaba, Richard Branson of Virgin, Reid Hoffman of LinkedIn, and a handful of others among its board.
Their goal: to invest in new breakthroughs that have the potential to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions “by at least half a gigaton.”
That difference must be achieved across five areas, they said: electricity, transportation, agriculture, manufacturing and buildings.
“Some of these investments will result in ideas that move forward and some won’t; developing some may even make work on others unnecessary,” they said.
Together, the group’s combined total wealth is about $170 billion, according to Business Insider.
Ventures is part of a larger Coalition founded last year to inject private innovation and research dollars into new energy technologies. Government research alone will not solve the open-ended conundrum, they said. To find the solution, there are probably dead-ends that need to be investigated – perhaps at a net loss of capital.
As you can see by the names listed in the first paragraph -- the backers are 'heavy hitters'. Very successful Chief Executives that have produced wealth and supported massive change in supply and demand areas in our economy over the years. Their combined wealth is $170 billion -- WOW!
I state that the CEO's listed have produced massive wealth and changes in supply and demand. One might be wondering what exactly I mean by this. I will explain below.
By creating change in the way supply and demand exists in our world, these CEO's have literally transformed our society. Think about the changes alone of just Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates. Bill Gates has competitively changed our life as we know it with the products of Microsoft. Not to mention the purchasing power that the online market offers with the addition of Amazon. A person can order a variety of items (groceries, books, audio products, tech gadgets, etc.) with the push of a button using their distribution system.
Now, a person might be reading this blog post and cite the jobs lost as a result of technology change with the production/distribution lines in factories being lost to Robots. I would argue that a loss of a job going to a Robot is a creating of a job going toward a renewable energy position. 'Work smarter not harder.'
Putting employees in high level jobs -- creating renewable energy -- would offer the new employees experience in operating data collection systems. These systems that monitor the creation and distribution of energy would result in optimizing the system and reduce threats to the system over time. The overall achievement would be to have unemployed people working and a more intelligent (more highly skilled) labor force.
Other CEO's listed above are spearheading 'green movements' on their own which enable them to join the coalition. Sir Richard Branson has a large part of his business 'Virgin Atlantic' devoted to thinking sustainably. Back in 2014, he purchased a 74-acre island (Necker Island) in the British Virin Islands and started thinking about powering the land solely by 'renewable energy.' This thought process led to the creation of "The Carbon War Room" -- whose mission is stated in 2 minutes in the following video below:
As highlighted in the video above, the total thinking on behalf of companies has shifted toward a renewable energy based mindset. And as a result, there will be inevitably job creation as these new industries develop solutions to the challenge of reducing the carbon footprint by a gigaton per year.
What Does The Data Say?
In a recent study highlighted on the website "Science Daily" in an article titled "Natural gas and wind are the lowest-cost generation technologies for much of the U. S." a wonderful and positive result for the renewable energy industry was reported. The study aimed to map the "Levelized Cost of Electricity" per county across the United States.
Result: wind and natural gas technologies stand out as the cheapest across the Nation!
How did the authors arrive at the conclusion? What were the considerations in the study?
Here is an excerpt from the paper on 'Science Daily':
Researchers categorized the electricity system into three principal components: consumers; generation technologies; and the wires, poles, storage and other hardware required to connect end users and generators. Taken as a whole, the white papers assess the interaction among these three components, as well as costs often considered external to the electricity system, such as environmental effects and public health impacts.
"These are complex, interrelated issues that cannot be adequately addressed from one perspective," said Dr. Tom Edgar, director of the Energy Institute. "We assembled a cross-disciplinary team to provide a fuller understanding of these costs and their policy implications."
For the white paper on power generation costs, researchers used data from existing studies to enhance a formula known as the Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE). In addition to including public health impacts and environmental effects -- which the LCOE typically does not -- the research team used data to calculate county-specific costs for each technology.
Other considerations include:
The FCe- study examined numerous factors affecting the cost of electricity generation, including:
1)Power Plant Costs (both operating and capital costs)
2)Environmental and Health Costs (air quality, greenhouse gases)
3)Infrastructure Costs (transmission & distribution lines, rail, pipelines)
4)Fuel Cost (variability, full fuel cycle)
5)Integration of renewable and distributed energy resources
6)Energy Efficiency
7)Government financial support for electricity generation (subsidies)
This is just one of a few studies that have emerged with indisputable data showing that renewable energy is starting to become a prominent player in the energy market. The 'white paper' for the study above can be found by clicking - here. The diagram with low resolution of the different sources and their geographical location are shown below:
I will be the first person to admit that certain aspects of renewable energy have a distance to go before being realized. A major obstacle to the generation of renewable energy is what to do with the energy afterward? How do the energy companies deal with the tremendous amount of energy to be stored? This is where battery technology could be further developed and optimized to fill in the gap.
Regardless, the data from the study above and others like it are promising and cannot be denied. More on this subject in the future on this site.
Conclusion...
Renewable energy offers the opportunity for large job growth in the future according to the accounts above. You don't have to believe me necessarily. There are plenty of high-level CEO's discussing the possibility. Which is great. I am a huge proponent of the private sector contributing to 'science funding'. In a blog post a few months ago, I wrote about how the supposed '1%' could give (in funding) to elevate science research. As highlighted above by Mr. Bill Gates, the funding will be multi-faceted and long range down the line. The process is not a short sprint, but a long marathon for the future of renewable energy production.
As with any race or run, there must be a course to run (a plan), the proper protection (i.e., police) of the course during the run (Federal dollar protection - investment). And there must be 'runners'. In the paragraphs above, the 'runners' (Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Sir Richard Branson, etc.) do exist -- which is extremely encouraging.
Lets hope in closing that the support of the plan comes in by enlisting the federal government to back these projects up. With the support of all entities, growth in the renewable market is not only possible, but jobs will be created in the process. This will be directly in line with the President-elect's 'bringing jobs back' and 'making America great again' slogans.
If the last few decades are used as a litmus test, the following questions can be raised regarding large oil operations inside the United States:
Does our demand out strip our ability to provide safe oil/gas to various parts of the U.S.? Have regulators lost control of the ability to regulate large oil companies? How many more oil/gas spills must occur before meaningful change can occur?
The above questions are real and meaningful to each of us. Below is evidence that these statements might be true or stand to be questioned.
Man-Made Disasters
There is no question that the world demand for oil is out of control. By out of control, I mean that our dependence on oil is so large that the flow of oil around the world is imperative and not an option. With the rise of research and development into renewable fuels/energy, the options could change depending on the magnitude of the output of such emerging technologies.
How big is our dependence on oil? What is the daily dependence of oil on the world scale? How about a developed nation like the U.S.?
I wrote a blog about the magnitude of the world daily usage of oil a few months ago. The estimated number of barrels required to fuel the world is around 94 million barrels of oil per day. In the blog post, I point out by using dimensional analysis that 94 million barrels of oil is equivalent to 4.23 billion gallons of oil per day. A metric that is commonly used on this blog site is the Mercedez Benz Super Dome shown below:
Source: Nwill21
Which has interior space of 125,000,000 cubic feet of interior space which looks like the picture below taken from 'Wikipedia':
Source: David Reber
Just imagine, nearly 5 Super Domes (4.6) could be filled with the daily Global demand of oil. WOW. That puts the global daily demand of oil into perspective. If you are interested in viewing the calculations, click here to access the post.
The daily U.S. demand of oil is 814 million gallons a day. Wow. Further, the oil demand is dispersed throughout the entire U.S. for consumption. This begs the question:
How does the oil get distributed throughout the U.S. to meet the daily demand?
The three major avenues of distribution are shown below:
There is no doubt that each form of transportation involves an inherent risk associated. Over the last couple of years, the oil pipelines have become a hot topic of dispute. Just recently, a protest has been brewing in North Dakota over the proposed pipeline. The energy company 'Energy Transfer' wants to run a pipeline through North Dakota underneath a water supply for the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe.
In a blog I wrote last week, I discussed the battle that has erupted over the pipeline. An article I quoted from 'The New York Times' cited the two following statements regarding pipelines and the safety surrounding them:
Amount of pipeline in the U.S.:
The United States has a web of 2.5 million miles of pipelines that carry products like oil and natural gas, pumping them to processing and treatment plants, power plants, homes and businesses. Most of the lines are buried, but some run above ground.
Safety of pipelines:
Energy companies and their federal overseer, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, promote the safety record of pipelines. Pipeline companies say it is far safer to move oil and natural gas in an underground pipe than in rail cars or trucks, which can crash and create huge fires.
But pipeline spills and ruptures occur regularly. Sometimes the leaks are small, and sometimes they are catastrophic gushers. In 2013, a Tesoro Logistics pipeline in North Dakota broke open and spilled 865,000 gallons of oil onto a farm. In 2010, an Enbridge Energy pipeline dumped more than 843,000 gallons of oil into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan, resulting in a cleanup that lasted years and cost more than a billion dollars, according to Inside Climate News.
In a 2012 examination of pipeline safety, ProPublica reported that more than half of the country’s pipelines were at least 50 years old. Critics cited aging pipelines and scant federal oversight as factors that put public health and the environment at risk.
In the same post, I pointed out that the amount of oil is far less in a given accident by fuel truck compared to a break in the oil pipeline. A typical fuel truck carries (less than 4,000 gallons) along with a rail car (train car capacity is around 33,000 gallons per car). The article out of 'The Times' used in the post cited a daily volume of around 470,000 barrels would be moved throughout the pipeline. That equals around 19.7 million gallons per day being pumped through the pipeline per day. See post for calculations!
Now, compare the relative volumes being transported by each method. Here are two images of 'Tweets' that appeared within 24 hours of me publishing the previous post shown below regarding disasters brought on by transporting oil/gas:
Tweet 1:
Tweet 2:
In the first tweet, a pipeline exploded and caused great damage to the surrounding area. Whereas in the second tweet, a local fuel truck tanker overturned and caused a spill of 1,800 gallons. Further, a couple of years ago, the company whose pipeline broke due to an explosion has had multiple (5 violations) so far in 2016 as shown by the tweet below:
The energy company 'Colonial' just had a pipeline burst a couple of months ago which spewed around 6,000 - 8,000 barrels of fuel spilled into the forest. I wrote a blog post about the spill. According to the company, the spill was small (supposedly) in comparison to others in recent history. You don't say?
In comparison to the volumes listed in the excerpts above from 'The Times' article which I used in a previous post, Colonial would like you to think the spills are small. As I calculated in the blog post, the range of 6,000 - 8,000 barrels corresponds to 250,000-330,000 gallons of fuel does not compare well (Really?) with the respective volumes 865,000 and 843,000 gallons of oil.
With all of the oil being dumped and not necessarily reported, one cannot help but wonder where are all of the regulators at?
Are they being paid off by the energy companies to remain silent of overlook disasters?
Have we as a nation reach a point with 2.4 million miles of oi pipelines throughout the U.S. at which regulation becomes impossible?
Do we have enough regulators to handle the job needed to maintain safe oil pipelines?
These questions remain unanswered. In the United States this coming Tuesday, a national election is going to take place. If the answer lies anywhere, the answer that involves change will be held with a future President of the United States. In the next section, each candidates views on regulation, climate change, and business relations will be presented.
Regulation Is Needed!
As I just mentioned, a national election is going to take place this Tuesday. If an answer to the above questions is possible, the next President should be able to shed light on the matter based on the platform on which they are running for office. I wrote a blog a couple of days ago which just listed 20 questions that Presidential candidates should answer. These questions are important in providing any guidance as to the next four years of funding and support for reform and regulation will look like. See the previous post for all of the 20 questions - only those pertaining to the subject of the post will be displayed below.
The questions and answers below were directly taken (cut and pasted) from the nonprofit's "Science Debate" website under "20 Questions" for candidates about science issues. Over 56 organizations signed on to make these questions which represent 12 million scientist around the country.
Without further ado, here are the questions and answers:
Climate Change:
Question 3:
The Earth’s climate is changing and political discussion has become divided over both the science and the best response. What are your views on climate change, and how would your administration act on those views?
Answers:
Hillary Clinton:
When it comes to climate change, the science is crystal clear. Climate change is an urgent threat and a defining challenge of our time and its impacts are already being felt at home and around the world. That’s why as President, I will work both domestically and internationally to ensure that we build on recent progress and continue to slash greenhouse gas pollution over the coming years as the science clearly tells us we must.
I will set three goals that we will achieve within ten years of taking office and which will make America the clean energy superpower of the 21st century:
1) Generate half of our electricity from clean sources, with half a billion solar panels installed by the end of my first term.
2) Cut energy waste in American homes, schools, hospitals and offices by a third and make American manufacturing the cleanest and most efficient in the world.
3) Reduce American oil consumption by a third through cleaner fuels and more efficient cars, boilers, ships, and trucks.
To get there, my administration will implement and build on the range of pollution and efficiency standards and clean energy tax incentives that have made the United States a global leader in the battle against climate change. These standards are also essential for protecting the health of our children, saving American households and businesses billions of dollars in energy costs, and creating thousands of good paying jobs.
These standards set the floor, not the ceiling. As President, I will launch a $60 billion Clean Energy Challenge to partner with those states, cities, and rural communities across the country that are ready to take the lead on clean energy and energy efficiency, giving them the flexibility, tools and resources they need to succeed.
Donald Trump:
There is still much that needs to be investigated in the field of “climate change.” Perhaps the best use of our limited financial resources should be in dealing with making sure that every person in the world has clean water. Perhaps we should focus on eliminating lingering diseases around the world like malaria. Perhaps we should focus on efforts to increase food production to keep pace with an ever-growing world population. Perhaps we should be focused on developing energy sources and power production that alleviates the need for dependence on fossil fuels. We must decide on how best to proceed so that we can make lives better, safer and more prosperous.
Energy:
Question 7:
Strategic management of the US energy portfolio can have powerful economic, environmental, and foreign policy impacts. How do you see the energy landscape evolving over the next 4 to 8 years, and, as President, what will your energy strategy be?
Answers:
Hillary Clinton:
The next decade is not only critical to meeting the climate challenge, but offers a tremendous opportunity to ensure America becomes a 21st century clean energy superpower. I reject the notion that we as a country are forced to choose between our economy, our environment, and our security. The truth is that with a smart energy policy we can advance all three simultaneously. I will set the following bold, national goals – and get to work on Day 1, implementing my plan to achieve them within ten years of taking office:
1) Generate half of our electricity from clean sources, with half a billion solar panels installed by the end of my first term.
2) Cut energy waste in American homes, schools, hospitals and offices by a third and make American manufacturing the cleanest and most efficient in the world.
3) Reduce American oil consumption by a third through cleaner fuels and more efficient cars, boilers, ships, and trucks.
My plan will deliver on the pledge President Obama made at the Paris climate conference—without relying on climate deniers in Congress to pass new legislation. This includes:
1) Defending, implementing, and extending smart pollution and efficiency standards, including the Clean Power Plan and standards for cars, trucks, and appliances that are already helping clean our air, save families money, and fight climate change.
2) Launching a $60 billion Clean Energy Challenge to partner with states, cities, and rural communities to cut carbon pollution and expand clean energy, including for low-income families.
3) Investing in clean energy infrastructure, innovation, manufacturing and workforce development to make the U.S. economy more competitive and create good-paying jobs and careers.
4) Ensuring the fossil fuel production taking place today is safe and responsible and that areas too sensitive for energy production are taken off the table.
5) Reforming leasing and expand clean energy production on public lands and waters tenfold within a decade.
6) Cutting the billions of wasteful tax subsidies oil and gas companies have enjoyed for too long and invest in clean energy.
7) Cutting methane emissions across the economy and put in place strong standards for reducing leaks from both new and existing sources.
8) Revitalizing coal communities by supporting locally driven priorities and make them an engine of U.S. economic growth in the 21st century, as they have been for generations.
Donald Trump:
It should be the goal of the American people and their government to achieve energy independence as soon as possible. Energy independence means exploring and developing every possible energy source including wind, solar, nuclear and bio-fuels. A thriving market system will allow consumers to determine the best sources of energy for future consumption. Further, with the United States, Canada and Mexico as the key energy producers in the world, we will live in a safer, more productive and more prosperous world.
Water:
Question 10:
The long-term security of fresh water supplies is threatened by a dizzying array of aging infrastructure, aquifer depletion, pollution, and climate variability. Some American communities have lost access to water, affecting their viability and destroying home values. If you are elected, what steps will you take to ensure access to clean water for all Americans?
Answers:
Hillary Clinton:
Chronic underinvestment in our nation’s drinking and wastewater systems has sickened and endangered Americans from Flint, Michigan, to Ohio and West Virginia. Outdated and inadequate wastewater systems discharge more than 900 billion gallons of untreated sewage a year, posing health risks to humans and wildlife life, disrupting ecosystems, and disproportionately impacting communities of color. In addition, many struggling communities around the United States have limited or no access to clean, safe water.
We will invest in infrastructure and work with states, municipalities, and the private sector to bring our water systems into the 21st century and provide all Americans access to clean, safe drinking water.
Climate change is also triggering changes in weather patterns, including the increased prevalence of long, hard droughts that pose a dire risk to the health and prosperity of American communities, particularly in the West. The federal government must become a better partner in supporting state and locally-led efforts to improve water security. To that end, we will create a coordinated, multi-agency Western Water Partnership to help fund water efficiency, consideration, and infrastructure modernization projects across the region, including significant new investments in water reuse and reclamation.
We will also work to bring cutting edge efficiency, treatment and reuse solutions to our nation’s water challenges by establishing a new Water Innovation Lab. The Lab will bring urban water managers, farmers and tribes together with engineers, entrepreneurs, conservationists and other stakeholders to develop practical and usable technologies and strategies that can be deployed by local water utilities, agricultural and industrial water users, and environmental restoration projects across the country.
Donald Trump:
This may be the most important issue we face as a nation for the next generation. Therefore, we must make the investment in our fresh water infrastructure to ensure access to affordable fresh water solutions for everyone. We must explore all options to include making desalinization more affordable and working to build the distribution infrastructure to bring this scarce resource to where it is needed for our citizens and those who produce the food of the world. This must be a top priority for my administration.
Nuclear Power:
Question 11:
Nuclear power can meet electricity demand without producing greenhouse gases, but it raises national security and environmental concerns. What is your plan for the use, expansion, or phasing out of nuclear power, and what steps will you take to monitor, manage and secure nuclear materials over their life cycle?
Answers:
Hillary Clinton:
Meeting the climate challenge is too important to limit the tools available in this fight. Nuclear power – which accounts for more than 60 percent of our zero carbon power generation today – is one of those tools. I will work to ensure that the climate benefits of our existing nuclear power plants that are safe to operate are appropriately valued and increase investment in the research, development and deployment of advanced nuclear power. At the same time, we must continue to invest in the security of our nuclear materials at home, and improve coordination between federal, state, and local authorities. We must also seek to reduce the amount of nuclear material worldwide – working with other countries so minimize the use of weapons-grade material for civil nuclear programs.
Donald Trump:
Nuclear power is a valuable source of energy and should be part of an all-the-above program for providing power for America long into the future. We can make nuclear power safer, and its outputs are extraordinary given the investment we should make. Nuclear power must be an integral part of energy independence for America.
Global Challenges:
Question 13:
We now live in a global economy with a large and growing human population. These factors create economic, public health, and environmental challenges that do not respect national borders. How would your administration balance national interests with global cooperation when tackling threats made clear by science, such as pandemic diseases and climate change, that cross national borders?
Answers:
Hillary Clinton:
Many of the greatest - and hardest - challenges facing our country extend beyond our borders and can only be ultimately addressed through global solutions. Climate change is a case in point. And that is why as Secretary of State I elevated the role of climate policy in our diplomacy, appointing our country’s first Special Envoy for Climate Change, making climate policy a key part of our broader relationship with China and other key countries, and helping to create and launch the global Climate and Clean Air Coalition to reduce potent non-carbon climate pollution.
As the world’s biggest and most powerful economy—and as the second-biggest emitter of greenhouse gases and the biggest historical emitter—the United States has a responsibility to lead the global response to the climate challenge. By making strong progress to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at home, President Obama was able to persuade and pressure other major emitters, including China and India, to step up. This dual process, where domestic policy changes helped spur international action, led tot the historic 195-nation Paris climate agreement, the first in our history where every country agreed to be part of the solution to climate change.
The Paris agreement is critical, but it is not sufficient on its own. To keep global warming below the two degrees Celsius threshold and avoid the worst consequences of climate change, we need to cut emissions by at least 80 percent below 2005 levels by mid-century. To get there, we will need to continually work to improve upon the goals set in Paris, both in the United States and around the world. That’s why we must work to support more clean energy investment in emerging economies, help developing nations build resilience to the climate impacts that can’t be avoided, and continue to drive clean energy innovation here at home. And we will continue to work on a bilateral and multilateral basis with our partners, with key countries like China, and with the UNFCCC to protect our nation, our planet, and our children’s future.
When dealing with the outbreak of diseases, we must be sure to act with caution, and rely on science to inform our decisions around trade, travel, and treatment. We are privileged to live in a country that individuals around the world aspire to visit and even immigrate to. It is within our national interest to think beyond our borders, and through our leadership, do everything we can to foster peace, health, and security around the world. In the United States, we need to break the cycle in which our own public health system is beholden to emergency appropriations for specific epidemics. We can do this by creating a dedicated Rapid Response Fund to help shore up our defenses, accelerate development of vaccines and new treatments, and respond more effectively to crises. We will also create a comprehensive global health strategy that moves beyond the disease-by-disease emergency model and seeks to build a robust, resilient global health system capable of quickly responding to and ending pandemics.
Donald Trump:
Our best input to helping with global issues is to make sure that the United States is on the proper trajectory economically. For the past decade we have seen Gross Domestic Product growth that has not provided adequate resources to fix our infrastructure, recapitalize our military, invest in our education system or secure energy independence. We cannot take our place as world leader if we are not healthy enough to take care of ourselves. This means we must make sure that we achieve our goals in tax reform, trade reform, immigration reform and energy independence. A prosperous America is a much better partner in tackling global problems that affect this nation achieving its national objectives.
Regulation:
Question 14:
Science is essential to many of the laws and policies that keep Americans safe and secure. How would science inform your administration's decisions to add, modify, or remove federal regulations, and how would you encourage a thriving business sector while protecting Americans vulnerable to public health and environmental threats?
Answers:
Hillary Clinton:
It is essential that environmental, health, and energy regulations, among other areas, use the best available science to guide decision-making, and I am committed to making sure that continues. For instance, we will have science guide us as we make important investments around health care. We will continue to invest in research to further our understanding of disease, including ramping up our investment in Alzheimer’s and related dementias to $2 billion per year, continuing Vice President Biden’s Cancer Moonshot, and scaling up our broader investment in the National Institutes of Health’s budget to combat all of the diseases of our day.
My opponent in this race has consistently discounted scientific findings, from his comments about vaccines to his claim that climate change is a hoax. These dangerous positions not only put Americans at risk, but can have long term impacts on our country’s growth and productivity. Science will ensure our country continues to progress, and will help our government use its resources to provide the best possible life for all Americans.
Donald Trump:
This is about balance. We must balance a thriving economy with conserving our resources and protecting our citizens from threats. Science will inform our decisions on what regulations to keep, rescind or add. A vibrant, robust free market system will regulate the private sector.
The above responses give us a starting point on which to form our opinion when we head to the voting polls next Tuesday. At this point, you might ask the following question:
Mike, there are more than two Presidential Candidates?
Regardless of who wins next Tuesday at the national election for the next seat as President of the United States, the issues at hand will still remain the same. Although, armed with the answers to the questions above along with the remaining questions, each of us can get a sense of where the support lies in protecting us and the environment. Our transition toward renewable energy is not just a "must happen" but a "when will it happen" statement. With a more educated voting population, the process can move forward more easily. Each of us should consider the above questions and answers seriously and plan for the future.
At first sight, the following picture of a tweet from the website 'Twitter' might be confusing:
Although, across the nation over the past few years, 'Big Oil' companies have had the opportunity to conduct business as usual without a word (in the news) or penalty of recent 'oil spills'. In light of this, the question remains over the current feud across the Dakota Pipeline:
What measures (technological advancements) are being installed to prevent another oil spill?
The company mentioned in the above article (Tweet) is named 'Energy Transfer' - an oil company out of texas whose roots are in the oil pipeline business. The above question is a fair question. Especially, if we look further at the amount of oil that will be moving across the pipeline per day. Readers of this blog site are used to dealing with the dimensional analysis of large volume oil (and here) and large volume gas spills.
In the paragraphs below (a brief), dimensional analysis is performed to illustrate the potential liability and environmental danger posed by such a massive project. After reading this, you should have a better grasp as to the reason why technology should be used and required to be installed to ensure no oil spills occur in the pipeline.
How Much Oil Is Moved Per Day?
In a recent article in 'The New York Times' titled "North Dakota Oil Pipeline Battle: Who’s Fighting and Why"
the opposition toward the pipeline was discussed briefly. A few points were made by either side. Here is a video - from the article illustrating the cohesive opposition toward such a project:
As you can see, the project has spurred cohesion among indian nations that might otherwise have not banned together in opposition toward the future pipeline. Given that their interests are shared, the cohesion is expected. In order to understand the dangers at hand with the construction of the pipeline, we must explore the amount of oil that will be moved across the region on a daily basis. Here is an excerpt from the article regarding the flow rate:
The Dakota Access pipeline is a $3.7 billion project that would carry 470,000 barrels of oil a day from the oil fields of western North Dakota to Illinois, where it would be linked with other pipelines. Energy Transfer says the pipeline will pump millions of dollars into local economies and create 8,000 to 12,000 construction jobs — though far fewer permanent jobs to maintain and monitor the pipeline.
At first sight, the amount of jobs created seems worthy of the project. Further, the dangers posed by transporting the oil by truck were also highlighted to motivate the use of the pipeline as shown below:
Energy companies and their federal overseer, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, promote the safety record of pipelines. Pipeline companies say it is far safer to move oil and natural gas in an underground pipe than in rail cars or trucks, which can crash and create huge fires.
Yes, the above might be true if the incidents of trucks hauling oil were that frequent. Further, a truck typically carries around a few thousand gallons of oil. This begs the question regarding the pipeline:
How much oil (in gallons) will be transferred per day across the region?
In order to answer the question, we need to convert the amount of oil contained in a single barrel to units of gallons. According to Google, there are 42 gallons of oil per barrel of oil. In an equality, the statement can be viewed in the following expression:
Taking the conversion factor of 42 gallons of oil per barrel of oil along with the volume stated in 'The New York Times' article of 470,000 barrels of oil per day, the following conversion can be carried out below:
Wow! This highlights one of my major problems with the news media. Too often, the preferred units of oil are 'barrels' -- which prevents a true grasp of the actual scale. Why? When I see the number 470,000-barrels, I find the calculation difficult to carry out in my head immediately = 470,000 barrels x 42 gallons/day???? See what I mean?
If I am having trouble, then the average person who has an aversion toward math does not even try. Therefore, the value of the reported statistic gets lost in the news report.
The capacity of both tracker and trailer is a whopping 6,000-gallons. Each tank holds an average of 3,000-gallons. In the excerpt above, the danger of a spill associated with transfer in a truck was mentioned.
As a reader, should we believe the excerpt?
How can we verify the inherent danger of hauling oil in a truck?
How about a calculation?
If the above volume being transferred per day of 470,000 - barrels of oil or as calculated 19.7 million gallons is considered for dimensional analysis, the above questions can be answered. In order to compare the relative dangers of transporting oil by truck or in a pipeline, the rate of flow needs to be expressed in units that are within reach.
The number of 19.7 million is meaningless to compare to a potential truck spill on the highway. Why? Because, the value is expressed per day. If a truck can carry a total load of 6,000 gallons over a given distance in a given amount of time, then the relative times should be the same. What do I mean by this? In the unfortunate event of a spill (say an overturned truck) with 6,000-gallons, the typical clean up time would be on the order of hours. Maybe even a day.
In the event of a day, the following statement could be made about comparing a truck full of oil (6,000 gallons) to a break in an oil pipeline. The total damage (in terms of volume) spilled by the truck would be 6,000 gallons. In the case of the oil pipeline, if the spill occurred over a day, then the total would be 19.7 million gallons? Wow. Obvious in this comparison, the safety would be with transporting the oil by truck.
How much oil would be spilled per hour in the pipeline case?
To answer the question, the following calculation is carried out to switch units from "gallon/day" to "gallon/hour" is illustrated below:
Over the course of 1 hour, a break in the pipeline could result in the maximum amount of 820,000-gallons/hour. Oh My! Still no comparison to either a train tanker or a truck tanker? Right?
In the article mentioned above from 'The New York Times' the following evidence of recent failures of various pipelines were given. Here is an excerpt below:
But pipeline spills and ruptures occur regularly. Sometimes the leaks are small, and sometimes they are catastrophic gushers. In 2013, a Tesoro Logistics pipeline in North Dakota broke open and spilled 865,000 gallons of oil onto a farm. In 2010, an Enbridge Energy pipeline dumped more than 843,000 gallons of oil into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan, resulting in a cleanup that lasted years and cost more than a billion dollars, according to Inside Climate News.
As you can see, the volumes that are mentioned in a typical oil spill associated with pipelines result in 'hundreds of thousands' of gallons. Not in the 'tens of thousands' like what are transported with either a truck tanker (6,000 gallons) or a railcar - oil tanker (30,000 gallons).
What New Technology Can Be Installed On Pipelines?
Why have regulators refused to come down hard on companies when oil or gas spills occur? Specifically, when a spill occurs, regulators jump up and catch the spotlight on TV along with politicians pointing fingers and promise the american people that "tough protocols" are in store for these perpetrators. Does any real change occur though?
It would seem that with the drop in cost of technology (sensor technology) that these large companies could stick a sensor on many points along the pipeline to measure leaks or breaks. Couple this to installing various valves at more points to prevent large volumes of oil or gas to spill at any one point. Instead, we just see the same stories appearing with values reported in the 'hundreds of thousands' of gallons spilled with no real surprise.
In any of this reporting, there is never any real accurate account of the actual spill or the total cost of such a spill on the environment and economy. I know -- the answer is complicated. Although, the longer the answer takes to figure out, the more of our environment will be damaged by future spills. Lets hope regulators come on strong next oil spill and actually regulate to prevent future spills.
There is no wonder in my mind why these indian nations are protesting. Would you want a giant oil pipeline running over your water? Especially, after hearing about the various spills recently. Something has to be done. Change needs to start now. Change is happening now with the education from this blog post. Go make a difference and be concerned about environmental damage around your house.
