Why Is There Another Oil Spill?

This is the question that I ask myself after viewing the following picture on twitter below:

Usually, the next question is the following:



How many gallons spilled this time?



Sounds like I am beating the same old drum.  I am.  A correction first in my initial question.  According to the news, gasoline spilled, not raw oil from the ground.  Other news sources quote oil.  Regardless, large volumes of any chemical that spills in any geographical area is not great for the environment.  Why? First, the following question:



Why can't these large oil companies get their act together and put infrastructure in place to stop such large volumes from polluting the environment?



In order to agree or disagree with me, we should explore the amount of oil that actually spilled in the cited case in Alabama.  First, I want to highlight that based on previous blog posts on my site under the theme "Large Volume Spill" -- the reported amount can be put immediately into perspective.  That is to say, if you have been reading the past blog posts, then upon reading the reported number of barrels of oil spilled, the volume should make sense.



To an extent, that realization is rather disappointing since that means this is not an isolated case.  Before we draw out more emotions, lets look at the numbers reported and subject the values to dimensional analysis.  Below is the result.  Enjoy!

How Many Gallons In A Barrel?

In order to understand the magnitude of the spill in Alabama, there are two values that need to be known.  First, the volume of oil that actually spilled -- usually reported in units of 'barrels'.  Next, the conversion factor from 'barrels' to 'gallons'.



According to the news site "NBC News," the amount of oil that was spilled was in the range of 6,000 to 8,000 barrels.  Here is an excerpt about the spill taken from the article:

It's unclear when the line started leaking, but Colonial said in a statement that the leak was detected on Sept. 9, and about 6,000 to 8,000 barrels of gasoline had been lost.

The company said there are no threats to public safety because the leak has been contained, but warned that parts of Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, North Carolina and South Carolina gas markets would first be affected by the "disruption in supply."

Patrick DeHaan, a senior petroleum analyst with Gasbuddy.com, said prices at the pumps in those states could swell by 5 to 20 cents a gallon. "And it could be even worse," he said.

Where did the gasoline go?  According to the reports, the gasoline has 'pooled' into a 'retention pool' nearby preventing the gasoline from leaking into either the ground water or the nearby river.



Why is this so sketchy?



Why do we run a pipeline next to an important river?



Time and again, we see these designs in the interest of improving the bottom line of the petroleum companies on top of keeping Americans depend on cars.  Over the last two years, there have been enough examples of the failure of retention pools.  Think of the Gold King Mine waste spill in Colorado.  How about the Brazil mine wastewater spill?  And just a couple of days ago, there was a spill in Florida -- which I will write about in the next week or so.  In times such as these, one has to wonder why the companies want to risk damage to the environment too?



Lets put that discussion on pause for a minute in order to understand the magnitude of the spill here.



How many gallons does this volume equate to?



The conversion factor from a 'barrel' of oil to a 'gallon' of oil is the following provided by the website "asknumbers.com":

There are 42 gallons in one barrel.  If you perform the following calculation take 1 and divide the number (decimal number above) as follows: 1/ 0.0238 to get 42 gallons.  With these two values, the range can be calculated as shown below:

Wow!  Earlier, I suggested that based on the previous posts on this blog, the numbers should be easily put into perspective.



What did I mean by the statement?

How Does The Spill Compare To Refugio?

A couple of years ago, the California coast was once again rocked by an oil spill.  Again, in Santa Barbara.  The name of the spill was Refugio after the beach on which the oil washed up.  I wrote a blog post about the spill that has tainted the beaches below the northern beach.  We still see the effects to the environment -- which are not pretty and devastating.  Unfortunately, we accept them as part of our dependence on oil.





How does the current gasoline spill compare to the oil spill at Refugio Beach?



The Refugio oil spill was small (142,000 gallons) compared with the enormous 'Deepwater Horizon' Oil spill caused by the BP Oil drilling off shore (210,000,000 gallons).  Of course, the 'off shore' drilling was further out.  The spill near the beach in California was three orders of magnitude less than 'Deepwater Horizon'.  Still, a man-made disaster should not have happened in the first place.



If the value of the current gas spill in Alabama is divided by the volume of the spill in Refugio Beach, the answer is the proportion of one spill to the other as shown below:

Which is to say, the results above based on the ranges calculated for the gasoline spill in Alabama suggest that the spill was 1.7-2.3 times the oil spill in Refugio Beach.  The spill overall was small compared to the previous spill entertained on this blog site.  Although, any damage to the marine environment or the public drinking water system is too much damage.



What else can be said about the volume of gasoline spilled in Alabama?



Again, if you are a consistent reader of the site, then you can look at the volume and say the following:



The amount that was spilled was relatively small in comparison to recent large volume disasters.  If we take an Olympic Swimming pool to use as a metric, not even half of the pool would be filled.  Really?  Yes, the volume of an Olympic Swimming pool is around 660,000 gallons.



You might be wondering where I got the idea to include the Olympic Size swimming pool.  In the "introductory post" for this site, I include an Olympic Size swimming pool as a metric in a dimensional analysis calculation.



Should we be worried about the spill?

Conclusion ...

Based on the last few statements, one might not be concerned about the spill due to the 'relatively small volume' of the spill.  Then I would ask the following:



If that volume were small, then why is the price of gas starting to rise as a result?



The answer is due to two culprits.  First, the amount that spilled is contained and not a huge amount -- therefore, we have lost some gas.  The second culprit is the significant parameter in the loss of gasoline.  The infrastructure is a large part of the supply chain and will need to be repaired.  Here is a diagram of the pipeline that busted and leaked gasoline taken from the video in the article mentioned above:

According to the map above, the pipeline delivers 40% of the gas to the region.  

Why do companies build pipelines like this?  

In the event of a break or leak, the entire system is shut down.  I have yet to understand the reasoning behind such construction.  

Maybe a reader can provide us with some information?  

Anyone out there work for a petroleum company want to educate the audience?

Regardless, in the Midwest, there is a current dispute with a native nation about the pipeline crossing property.  Additionally, the proposed pipeline will cross right on top of an aquifer in Nebraska.  Is this a good idea based on the current events unfolding in the nation -- with regard to large volume chemical spills?  Why don't politicians connect the dots between the two disasters?  I hate to speculate, therefore, I will end the post here.

After reading the above post, the spill should be easier to understand.  Furthermore, in the future, a spill will be easier to cast into perspective given the methodology explained in the brief post with the dimensional analysis.  Until next time, have a great day!

How Does The Weight Of A Floating Oil Rig Compare To The Eiffel Tower?

What is the first idea that forms in your mind after looking at the picture below?

Source: BBC News

The photograph is of an oil rig platform that floated ashore after breaking free from a 'tow boat' off the shore in Scotland last week.  What was the first thought that arrived in your mind after viewing the picture above?  Maybe there was no significant thought.  On the other hand, maybe your mind is racing like mine was with follow up questions:



1) How did that get there?



2) How much fuel is still in there?



3) How much has leaked out?



4) How do you dismantle such a large object?



5) How much does the oil platform weigh?



Over the course of a week (and many news cycles), four of the five questions have partial answers.  The remaining question is #4 -- how is an oil rig like the drifted oil rig mentioned above properly get dismantled by crews -- in a safe manner?  In order to understand the process of dismantling a gigantic structure (like an oil rig), we must understand the dimensions of such a structure.  Furthermore, in order to understand the dimensions of an oil rig, a metric needs to be used to compare to oil rig platform to.

How Much Does An Oil Rig Platform Weigh?

If you have been following recent news feeds, there have been various articles detailing the enormous structure that happened to float ashore.  Here are a couple still frames of tweets shown below:

In the two pictures above, the size of the gigantic oil rig platform is placed into perspective by the ocean at one side of the oil rig.  On the other side is the hillside.  This blog post is not about the size and scale of nature (the ocean and hillside -- maybe later).  Returning to the oil rig platform that looks small from afar, here is a video (less than 2 minutes) to shed light on the enormous size of the rig.  The video shown below is from an 'ABC News' article titled "Massive Oil Rig Washes Ashore in Remote Scotland":







The video above shows an enormous oil rig floating.  If you stare closely at the video, the gigantic structure slowly floats displaying the force of the waves pushing the structure in toward the shore.  Stop and think for a moment of how powerful the waves must be to push a structure which weighs 17,000-tons into the shore (Source: 'The Sun' news).  In order to drive home the point that the oil rig which washed into the shore, here are two more pictures shown below taken from the BBC article:

 

In the three images above, a human body is shown in each to illustrate the scale.  The first time that I saw these pictures, I sat and just thought about the dimensions of the platform.  Oil rigs are and asymmetrical shape and should not be towed.  New pictures emerge daily from different visual perspectives that amaze me continuously.  An example is shown below from "BBC":

Now that the gigantic oil rig platform has been put into perspective.  

How do we start to understand the dismantling process of such a structure?

From a perspective of the weight of an object, the oil rig platform weighs around 17,000 tons.  In order to understand such a structure, we need a metric.  By metric, I mean an object which to compare the structure to with an equivalent weight or an integer value of the weight.

What structure would suffice to use as a metric?

To determine that, first, lets look at the shape of the oil rig.  The "Transocean Winner" is defined as a "sub-submersible" oil platform as shown below in the image taken from the "Wikipedia" page for 'Oil Platform':

Source: By Office of Ocean Exploration and ResearchNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

The "Transocean Winner" oil rig is categorized as number 7 or 8 in the image above.  In order to find a structure to compare the oil rig to as a metric, we should look for a "tower" of some sort.  Do you know of one to compare the oil rig to?  If so, write in the comments section and I will write a update post with the appropriate calculation.

How about the Eiffel Tower in France?  

Eiffel Tower vs. Transocean Winner?

In order to compare the two enormous objects, the weights of the two need to be known.  The Eiffel Tower is shown in an image below take from the 'Wikipedia' page:

Source: Benh LIEU SONG

The Eiffel Tower is enormous.  Built for the world fair as a monument for France, the tower is a popular tourist attraction with a visitation center and a restaurant.  Furthermore, the structure is made of metal and can serve as an appropriate metric to compare the weight of an oil rig platform.  We need a weight for the Eiffel Tower.  Lets ask Google.com as shown below:

The weight of the Eiffel Tower is 7,300 tons.  At first sight of the value, I was a little surprised to find out that the weight of the oil rig platform (which was reported to be 17,000 tons) was greater than the Eiffel Tower.  Since the weights are both expressed in units of 'tons' a direct comparison (division) is possible as shown below:

What does the result mean?  The result of the calculation above means that the oil rig floating off of the shore in Scotland weighs just under 3 times the weight of the Eiffel Tower.  Therefore, just under 3 Eiffel Towers would be required to match the weight of an oil rig -- like the "Transocean Winner" in the pictures above.  Amazing.

Although, when you stop to think about the function of each object, the difference in weight makes sense.

What is the difference in function of the two enormous objects?

The Eiffel Tower serves as a tourist attraction.  Not to say that the structure is static.  The weather surrounding the structure with height varies tremendously.  In order for the Tower to withstand forces of nature, the structure needed to be designed accordingly.  For the design of the Eiffel Tower, I defer the reader to the "Wikipedia" page.

As far as the oil rig is concerned, the function is to serve as a platform for drilling oil far beneath the ocean surface.  How far you might ask?  For this class of oil rigs, the distance is typically around 200 to 10,000 feet.  WOW!  

You can imagine that the oil rig design needs to be able to withstand the weathering due to the moisture (salt concentration) around the rig.  Additionally, the ocean is not static.  The ocean is not forgiving either and exerts a tremendous force in all directions with time.  Varying based on weather patterns -- which also contributes to the huge weight difference.  An additional function is to temporarily store oil in the rig.  

Where is the oil stored?  

Maybe in a future post, I will answer that in more detail.

How Much Oil Was Stored In The Oil Rig?

After hearing about the accidental occurrence of the oil rig floating ashore, naturally, one might wonder whether there was any residual oil stored in the rig that leaked out into the environment.  In order to answer that question, we can look to the news site "BBC" for an answer:

Last week it emerged that the two other tanks had been breached during the grounding and more than 12,000 gallons (56,000 litres) of diesel oil lost.

Eight experts scaled the rig at Dalmore beach on Lewis with ropes on Sunday and were able to check the two other tanks.

Six more workers are due to join them later this week.

Efforts are to be made to pump the diesel oil still in the hull, 137 tonnes, to other tanks above the waterline.

The total amount leaked thus far has been around 12,000-gallons -- which is small by comparison to other blog posts regarding oil spills on this site.  None the less, any oil spill is too much to have enter the environment and damage the surrounding beaches or marine life.  Too many accidents like these are occurring as a result of "offshore drilling" and need more regulatory oversight.



In the excerpt above, the remaining oil in the 'hull' is around 137 tons.



How many gallons is contained in 137 tons of oil?

To answer the question, a conversion factor needs to be known.  The density needs to be known which is a conversion factor from weight to a given volume.  A relation of weight and volume of a substance is given by its density.  For oil, which is a complex mixture of hydrocarbons of various chain lengths, the density can be approximated.

If Google.com is consulted, the results are listed below:

For the purpose of approximation, we can use the value of 900 kg/m^3 for the density of crude oil.  That is the value for the density is 900 kilograms per cubic meter.  If the value for the weight of the oil above is inspected, the weight is expressed in units of "tons."  In order to calculate a volume in cubic meters, a conversion from units of "tons" to "kilograms" is needed which can be obtained from Google.com.  For each ton, there are 907.185 kilograms.

With the conversion factor from units of 'tons' to units of 'kilograms' in hand, the amount of gallons can be calculated as follows:

  

According to the result, there are 34,480 gallons in 137 tons of crude oil.  That is just over 3 times the amount of crude oil that has already leaked out of the oil rig platform according to the news account above.  Amazing.

Conclusion...

Given the results of the calculations above, the length of time needed to dismantle the oil rig that washed ashore last week.  Looking at the Eiffel Tower in a picture gives me a new respect for the manufacturers of the "Transocean Winner" oil rigs.  In the coming weeks, the dismantling process will be fascinating to watch.  Hopefully, the news will show the various stages and continue to report about the process.  Even though the dismantling process might not be "hot news" -- covering the process is crucial to show the public another perspective of the oil drilling industry.

Until next time, have a great day!

Iraq Has Enough Oil To Support The World For 4 Years -- What?

Source: Hindustantimes

If you are a routine reader of this site, then you will recall a blog post that I wrote a couple of weeks ago titled "Is 94 Million Barrels Of Oil A Large Amount Of Oil? That Is The Global Daily Demand".  In that post, I mentioned the staggering amount of oil that is needed to fuel the global daily demand (around 94 million barrels of oil).  This number seemed incomprehensible to me at the time and still is quite difficult to grasp.  I recommend reading the blog post to grasp the following subject matter contained in this post.




Recently, another number popped up into the news regarding oil.  The conflict over the country Iraq has plagued our nation for the past couple of decades.  Some people speculate our presence is attributed solely to our dependence on oil.  If that is the case, then just how much oil does Iraq have underneath it?  Below is a blog post that explores through dimensional analysis the sizable amount of oil underneath the country of Iraq -- which is no small amount.

How Much Oil Is Iraq Sitting On Top Of?

I have pondered this question for quite a while.  Back in 1996, I had the opportunity to join the US Air Force for four years.  I spent a considerable time in the surrounding countries to Iraq.  The importance of me telling you this is that while I was over there, some speculated our presence was solely a "selfish" one to satisfy our dependence on oil.  I thought if that were the case, then Iraq better have a large amount of oil.   I would have to wait (due to focusing on other interests another two decades to find out).




Fast forward to last weekend.  I was reading an article in the Los Angeles Times titled "In Iraq, a former oil boomtown becomes a relic" in which the destruction caused by the conflict has extended over the oil fields which contribute a sizable amount of oil.  That destruction in some cases would cost billions of dollars to repair aside from the military presence.  There were two paragraphs that in particular caught my eye.  The first was describing the destruction to the city of 200,000 people:

The city, once a bustling home to 200,000 people, is so utterly destroyed that there is little, if any, hope of rebuilding. It is deserted aside from security forces essentially left to defend a memory of hope amid the remains of buildings wrecked by a hailstorm of burning metal chunks caused by the battles.

Here in the US, we have no idea of how to comprehend the description from above other than to compare it to either a passage in a fiction novel or a movie.  The debate over our presence is not the dominant subject of this blog post.  Therefore, I will jump into the other paragraph that caught my attention and which is the subject of this blog post:

Much of Baiji’s output relied on a steady supply of crude from the northern province of Kirkuk — which reportedly has about 10% of the country’s total reserve of 140 billion barrels — an arrangement that worked when Iraq was unified under the rule of strongman Saddam Hussein. It is unlikely, however, to continue; the semiautonomous Kurdish administration in the north is intent on severing ties with the central government and keeping the oil. 

I am no mind reader, but if you look at the paragraph in context to the article on the website -- the majority of readers might have missed a critical statistic.  That is, Iraq sits on top of 140 billion barrels of oil?  OH MY GOODNESS!




Is that number even comprehensible?




Here I thought that the daily global demand of oil -- 94 million barrels of oil was a huge number.  I am continuously amazed at these reported figures for oil demand, consumption, supply, projections made by the popular news.  And here people walk and talk on their cell phones and devices without even considering these staggering amounts.  No wonder there are conflicts in the world.




How do we comprehend 140 billion barrels of oil?

How Many Gallons Are In A 140 Billion Barrels Of Oil?

I am not an oil trader, not an oil speculator, or an employer of a producer, etc.  Therefore, I like to view the volume of oil projected/spoken about in columns in units of gallons.  Below I converted the amount of oil in a 140 billion barrels to units of gallons:

WOW.  WOW.  Yes, the total amount of oil under the country of Iraq in gallons is 5,900-billion gallons.  Now, I wanted to compare this number to the number reported in my previous blog post on the global daily demand.  In order to make the number more meaningful, I decided to convert to the annual consumption of the global demand of oil.  More meaningful, meaning, more mind-bending.  In the last line of the above calculation, I show that Iraq could support the global annual demand for 4 years!!!!




Where did the number with the units "gallons/year" come from?





Here is the conversion of the daily global demand of 94 million barrels/day to "gallons/year" shown below:

Are you satisfied now?  I try to make a large effort to clarify each number.  One of the most bothersome aspect of reading the news is observing a number while not being able to put that number into context.  Dimensional analysis relieves me of this bothersome feeling.




That is rather disappointing.  We are fighting a war in the Middle East or keeping a large presence for just 4 years worth of oil?  Not true exactly.  If the United States annual consumption was only taken into consideration, the number of years that Iraq could support us would be much longer.




Do you believe me?




Fortunately, for the purpose of this blog, you do not have to.  To get the annual consumption for the United States, I asked google as shown below:

All that was needed to carry out the calculation was the number for the annual oil consumption for the United States -- which is around 19.4 million barrels/day multiplied by 365 days/year -- right?  I show the calculation below:

Now, the total reserves for Iraq -- 5,900 billion gallons can be directly compared to the annual consumption of the US (number above) as follows:

The above calculation sheds light onto the thought process behind the large oil industry in the United States.  Thinking in selfish terms, there is plenty of oil to be had without thinking about the rest of the world.   Although, in the larger picture, the amount of oil is not going to last us forever.





Where is the rest of the oil?





Since the amount listed above is only from a single country in the Middle East, what about the other "oil-rich" countries in the region?

How About Saudi Arabia?

Saudi Arabia contains the largest amount of oil in the world just behind the country of Venezuela.  How do I know this?  Here is an excerpt from the "Wikipedia" page for Saudi Arabia shown below highlighting the supposed fact:

The proven oil reserves in Saudi Arabia are the second largest in the world, estimated to be 268 billion barrels (43×109 m3) (Gbbl hereafter), including 2.5 Gbbl in the Saudi–Kuwaiti neutral zone. They are predominantly found in the Eastern Province.[1] These reserves were the largest in the world until Venezuela announced they had increased their proven reserves to 297 Gbbl in January 2011.[2] The Saudi reserves are about one-fifth of the world's total conventional oil reserves, a large fraction of these reserves comes from a small number of very large oil fields, and past production amounts to 40% of the stated reserves.

What?  That is amazing.  Again, with this volume of oil possible to extract, I am no longer wondering why these countries are under pressure to produce and do business with other countries.  Since, the amount of oil under Iraq has been analyzed using dimensional analysis above, both Saudi Arabia and Venezuela can easily be outlined below to shed some surprising results for the future of oil.




To start with, how long could both countries support the global annual demand (as listed and calculated above)?




The results are shown below -- Saudi Arabia first:

 

Next, the results for Venezuela:

Again, these two calculations highlight the massive dependence on oil that is spread across the globe.  Wow!  This shows that each of us should start thinking about other sources of energy - to say the least.  The number of years listed above should be a "wake-up" call for the world.




The "wake-up" call should entail sourcing other renewable forms of energy along with reconsidering each trip (needed or unneeded) that uses fossil-fuels traveled throughout the day.  I guess that these numbers highlight the recent demand by shareholders to deal with the potential direction (and shareholder losses) associated with the future of fossil-fuels and investments.




What if we look at both Saudi Arabia and Venezuela selfishly to satisfy the US only?




Here are the results below:

Even if the rest of the world ceases to use oil, there is a "finite" amount of time and oil available for future generations.  This is truly astounding.  Of course, I did not take into account other oil producing countries.  Still, looking at the top 2 provides the best case scenario.  These numbers are not large and need to be taken seriously.

Conclusion . . .

What is next?  Where will the energy come from?




Will the world switch to a different fuel besides "fossil-fuels"?




What happens if the research does not turn out positive results?




These questions are worst case scenarios -- but should still be entertained.  Now is the time to reconsider the global use of these precious "fossil fuels" and other resources which daily are being consumed at a despicable rate.  I am not trying to sound like a crazy environmentalist.  The numbers listed above are approximations -- but should be alarming.  Notice how the top two oil producing nations reflect the support in only double digit proportions.  None indicated triple digit support (i.e., 100 years worth of oil).




Further, the development of renewable energy will take time to research and bring to market.  Now is the time to start supporting such research.  Alternatively, now is the time to consider your use of oil.




How much oil do you use on a daily basis?  How about an annual basis?





These questions might seem humorous from your vantage point, but let me propose another question:





What would you do if oil was not available?




How would you run your life?




Obviously, life would go on.  But, entertaining these drastic questions which eventually will be turned into measures (conservation, divestment, etc.) is a useful skill to start practicing.  Especially, while resources are still abundant.  The next time that you jump into the car or SUV to drive a couple of blocks to the store for a single item ask yourself:  Do I really need to drive?





This practice might seem trivial (you as a single person or car), but multiply yourself by a few hundred million and compare that gas consumption to the figures listed above, and then the numbers are not so extreme from one another.  Lets conserve and divest more money into a renewable future.  As scientists and researchers, we need time to test out hypothesis and get things wrong before we get them right and the technology proceeds to the market (i.e., your door).  Help us out!




Related Blog Posts:


What Is Dimensional Analysis?


Dimensional Analysis Of Statistics And Large Numbers - Index Of Blog Posts


1,600 Cattle Consume Equivalent Amount Of Water As A Bel Air Resident Per Day?

Was The Recent Oil Spill in China The Largest In History?


LimeBike Dockless Bikeshare Riders Travel A Distance Of 13,000 Miles In Just Over 3 Weeks?

How Many Cigarettes Can You Roll With 18,000 Pounds Of Marijuana?


How Many Turkey's Are Served On Thanksgiving Day? How Many People Served?


How Much Trash Would Be Required To Fill The Great Wall Of China?


How Many Birds Per Minute Can Be Processed On A Single Line At A Poultry Processing Plant?


Hurricane Harvey Drops Enough Rain On Houston To Fill 560 Dallas Cowboy Stadiums

If Technology Fails, Use Basic Math Skills - Count Manually!!

How Much Water Is Contained In All Oceans Around The Globe?


 Wasteful Water Use Tied To 'Education and Poverty' - Really?