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.
Of the many unanswered questions that exist around the current election cycle, very few are as important than questions surrounding current scientific research and the funding for the future.
Why should the public vote/influence an increase in science funding?
Why do I suggest the importance of such research is so high?
The range of issues that are tied to science funding is enormous. Most people do not realize what issues are encompassed by science funding. If you (the reader) are one that ties research funding only to important issues like - space or defense - then I ask you to please read everything below. The reason is that the range of issues affected by science include climate science (flooding from Hurricane Matthew) to research into better treatments for eradicating the Zika Virus or Ebola Virus.
Additionally, what about the homeless problem that plagues the United States which includes many victims to serious mental health issues and impact the veterans among others roaming the streets without help. Before you go to the voting polls tomorrow, please read the information below which might or might not influence your vote. Either way, after reading the blog post below, you will definitely be better informed. Last but not least, I will provide direct evidence of the wonderful job that artists such as Beyonce, Jay Z, and Leonardo DiCaprio are doing to elevate science and the need to get out and vote -- which is super inspirational.
Note: various words or phrases are hyperlinked to earlier posts on the subject or other research articles. Please read widely and inform yourself on Science Issues.
Pending Issues Which Need To Be Addressed
Just look at the current state of affairs around the nation and the world along with the issues raised in the blog post below. Then we can talk about the importance of such issues. Currently, the entire East Coast of the United States is recovering from the dramatic flooding and winds which struck when Hurricane Matthew swept through and wreaked havoc on the region.
Any discussion of the funding for the destruction and the recovery?
Has the East Coast rebuilt all of the damaged structures?
Not in the least. Why not? If the same lack of attention toward science research into the issues exist today, where will we be as a nation in 4 or 8 years? This is why the issues of science are serious and need to be entertained before we head to the voting polls next week. At this point, you might be wondering the following question:
What are the most critical issues at hand that are associated with science for the candidates to express their views toward?
A recent article from the website "BioscienceTechnology" titled "Coalition Presses US Presidential Candidates to Address Science Issues" offered commentary on the "Top 20 Questions" from the nonprofit organization "ScienceDebate." The author chose to offer up six of the 20 questions as necessary to provide an example. The six sample questions are shown below:
1) Many scientific advances require long-term investment to fund research over a period of longer than the two, four, or six year terms that govern political cycles. In the current climate of budgetary constraints, what are your science and engineering research priorities and how will you balance short-term versus long-term funding?
2) Mental illness is among the most painful and stigmatized diseases, and the National Institute of Mental Health estimates it costs America more than $300 billion per year. What will you do to reduce the human and economic costs of mental illness?
3) 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?
4) Public health efforts like smoking cessation, drunk driving laws, vaccination, and water fluoridation have improved health and productivity and save millions of lives. How would you improve federal research and our public health system to better protect Americans from emerging diseases and other public health threats, such as antibiotic resistant superbugs?
5) 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?
6) Evidence from science is the surest basis for fair and just public policy, but that is predicated on the integrity of the evidence and of the scientific process used to produce it, which must be both transparent and free from political bias and pressure. How will you foster a culture of scientific transparency and accountability in government, while protecting scientists and federal agencies from political interference in their work?
The author seem to want to suggest that the above issues just did not impact science funding, but were of significance to the public at large. I found the paragraph below fascinating:
“Some politicians think science issues are limited to simply things like the budget for NASA or NIH, and they fail to realize that a President’s attitude toward and decisions about science and research affect the public wellbeing, from the growth of our economy, to education, to public health,” Rush Hold, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said in a prepared statement. He said that Americans should have the opportunity to know where Presidential candidates stand on these issues.
All issues that are researched from a scientific standpoint are important. Just because the public does not see the ramifications of such research does not disqualify funding. Of course, there are certain areas that are of immediate importance than others.
Science Lessons For Next President
According to a recent article in the Journal "Science" titled "Science lessons for the next president" there are certain issues that need definite support. Here is a short video of the issues stated succinctly (less than 4 minutes in length):
Below are the critical science lessons that are of upmost importance for the next President:
1) "Pathogens Change Faster Than Our Defenses"
Our ability to stay ahead of deadly pathogens relies on our ability to understand how to dismantle a virus or deadly bacteria. I wrote a blog about new research that recently was uncovered in which scientists discovered a site (a part of the molecule) that is responsible for disabling the effectiveness of the antibiotic. Meaning, if a target molecule hits this site, then the antibiotic is rendered ineffective (useless) and will not work.
More money should be devoted toward understanding and developing ways to counter that pathway toward disabling the antibiotic -- which is commonly termed as "Antibiotic Resistance." Additionally, this relies on funding to develop drugs that will be effective and can be tuned to treat evolving pathogens. In a blog post that I wrote recently, there was a short video outlining with an explanation the drug development process which is worth looking at and reading. If you are still not convinced after reading the blogs, then read below the excerpt from the Journal 'Science' on critical issues which offers an alternative explanation of the importance of such research:
Importance:
Why it matters: Evolving pathogens can threaten our food and water supplies, natural resources, and health. In the United States, 2 million people develop antibiotic-resistant infections each year, and 23,000 die. Globally, the World Health Organization estimates that in 2015 there were 580,000 new cases of tuberculosis resistant to the two most powerful drugs used against this disease. Increasing drug resistance in malaria, HIV, and other major diseases threatens to undermine control efforts. And recently emerged threats, such as the Zika and Ebola viruses, are certain to evolve in ways that can be hard to predict. To develop treatments, scientists often must work with the most dangerous pathogens in laboratories, and sometimes even engineer new strains; this creates the possibility of accidental or intentional releases that could have dire consequences.
With the emergence of stories surrounding the spread of diseases throughout the world, research into these diseases is critical. The issues above are due to evolving chemical systems that are natural and are constantly challenging us to keep ahead of the game to fight new pathogens. If we switch gears and look at issues that are brought on by our own actions, we find challenges that definitely need to be addressed immediately. One such issue is 'genetic engineering.' The question is raised below:
What about potential problems brought by our own actions?
2) "CRISPR Raises Tough Ethical Issues"
Recently, the field of 'genetic modification' has been getting alot of attention and rightly so. The prospect of changing an organisms "genetic code" seems strange and straight out of a science fiction book. Although, if I were to tell you that certain foods you eat have been genetically modified and you still love them -- what would you do? Furthermore, if the so called 'genetic modification' was to help the crop avoid destruction -- i.e., preserve a given crop in order to provide you food, would your opinion change? The current benchmark (among other methods) is the rising CRISPR-Cas9 method. You can read more about the method on the 'Wikipedia' page if you wish. In order to understand the importance of funding such research along with the potential implications, lets turn to the same article from the Journal 'Science' with the following explanation shown below:
Importance:
Why it matters: A powerful tool for basic research, CRISPR could also lead to new treatments for genetic disease in humans, pest-resistant crops with higher yields, and disease-resistant livestock. But uses of CRISPR could also raise profound ethical and regulatory concerns. It could allow the creation of human embryos with modified genes in their germ line—eggs and sperm—meaning the changes would be passed on to future generations. And, in an approach known as gene drive, CRISPR could be used to permanently alter the genome of an entire species in ways that could shift its evolutionary path and ecological role, or even wipe it off Earth. In principle, gene drive could give an endangered species a boost, wreck the genetic defenses that allow some weeds to resist herbicides, or drive a disease-carrying mosquito to extinction.
The promises are huge as well as the payoffs if the CRISPR method is perfected. And I say "perfected" -- why? Because, according to a certain part of the science community, the method does not work "perfectly." Professor Karmella Haynes at Arizona State University is performing research that investigates which environments where the CRISPR method works well. The method does not work well in human embryo cells. The DNA is coiled differently (slightly as a defense mechanism) which presents a large challenge. Of course, in the popular science news, positive results are published rather than discouraging results. Nonetheless, the method is still a strong method.
As an example, here is a short video of a reporter trying to perform the CRISPR method and failing shown below:
The above video shows the extent to which science is a profession of tireless effort. Time is put into get results and verify the methodology of a given experiment. Often, people think that scientists have an easy job -- but in fact, the development of research that is reproducible and clear to the public is a difficult task which takes time and money.
Certain areas require more time than others to delve into a given research inquiry. How about the atmosphere? The time scale of global warming is seemingly long. Although, according to current reports, action is needed immediately. The danger associated with the lack of immediate action is catastrophic. I find the fact that certain politicians are in denial a terrible observation and can only exacerbate the problem and solution.
3) "Sea Levels Rising"
As a nation, the United States public has been engulfed by the current chatter on the television along with the myriad devices that each of us carry around. Not too long ago, their were three presidential debates. Did you watch the debates? Were you able to watch the debates? Why do I ask such questions?
Because, while some were watching the debates, other East Coast residents were in the midst of cleaning up their lives which were ripped apart by Hurricane Matthew. The depth of the destruction along with the cost of the damage to the U.S. has not yet been realized. What is realized is that there have been some crazy weather patterns lately. Further, the seas have been rising. Both situations are not good indicators for the future. The amount of rain that dropped during Hurricane Matthew was insane compared to other large storms around the globe. You can read about the comparison here.
In order to fully understand the importance of such rising sea levels, lets turn to the article (series) we have been citing about the six lessons for the next president. Here is the "importance" stated below:
Importance:
Why it matters: Nearly 40% of the U.S. population lives near the coast, and shorelines host extensive infrastructure—including roads, rail lines, ports, military bases, and energy, water, and sewer plants—that will cost billions of dollars to protect or replace. Already, shorefront communities in hot spots of sea level rise, such as Hampton Roads, Virginia, and Miami Beach, Florida, are seeing tidal floods—even on sunny days—that clog traffic, poison lawns, and corrode utilities. Key ecosystems are also at risk of inundation, such as wetlands and aquatic grass beds that help protect coastlines from storms and provide important nursery grounds for economically important fish. This rising stage also allows stormwaters to surge deeper and higher inland, exacerbating their damage.
Based on the destruction that we have seen this year in the United States as a result of a rising sea level (flooding rain), there is no question that the above research is vitally important. One candidate (Donald Trump) would like to take funds away from research concerning global warming and fight ISIS. Ask yourself if this is a good idea? Is that where you want your money spent? Money is already available for the Department of Defense for such adventures. If any money should be diverted toward research in defense, then how about toward mental health for veterans returning from war with invisible wounds?
4) "Brain Health Should Be Top Of Mind"
Dr. James Watson once posed the following question regarding the human brain:
Can the brain understand itself?
The above question at first sight appears to be quite simple. Yet, over the decades that have past coupled with the advancing digital age, science still appears to be in the dark age to an extent. At the other end of this logic, the computational power needed to understand the brain is said to not yet exist. If the second statement is correct, then we need not stop funding research just yet.
Each and every one of us has either experienced or been touched by a person with a mental health issue. Even if we did not realize it at the time. Mental health is an extremely complicated issue that plagues parts of the entire population from the homeless to the ultra rich. Mental Illness is blind to income and wealth. With the new initiative to study the brain put forth by President Obama, we are headed in the correct direction. He has the BRAIN initiative - which can be understood in greater detail by reading more about here. Why is the health of the brain so important? Here is an excerpt from the article in 'Science' below:
Importance:
Why it matters: Brain health touches us from cradle to grave, and when brain disease strikes, the costs—personal and budgetary—are staggering. By 2025, at least 7 million Americans are expected to suffer from Alzheimer's disease, which causes memory loss, personality changes, impaired reasoning, and, eventually, death. This year alone, treating and caring for Americans with Alzheimer's and other less common dementias cost $236 billion, with government health programs shouldering two-thirds of the cost. At the other end of life, the prevalence of autism, a disorder of language and social communication, rose by 123% between 2002 and 2012. That year, one in 68 U.S. children was affected; costs to each affected family are estimated at about $60,000 annually.
Other brain health issues abound. Learning disabilities are a big issue in classrooms; mental illness is common in the homeless, in addicts, and in prison inmates; and concussions have become a major concern in sports. The military faces the burden of treating traumatic brain injuries and the psychological aftereffects of combat. Effective diagnostics and treatments could make a huge difference.
As I mentioned above, the amount of computational power needed to fully understand the brain is just being realized. Think about current research just published which shed light on the way proteins behave in their natural environment -- inside a human cell. If research carried out at the current level sheds light on the onset of diseases, then imagine the requirement to understand diseases inside the entire brain (different parts of the brain acting together). The point is that research into the disease causing aspects of the brain as well as our ability to comprehend the world around us is extremely important.
With the rise of the machine in understanding the world around us come other advances of the same technology. Artificial intelligence has been speculated to be around and supposedly proposed to play a large role in our lives in the coming decades. For now, what about simple machines -- drones? self driving cars, etc?
5) "Machines Are Getting Much, Much Smarter"
Elon Musk has been in the news lately for a variety of reasons. His space initiative has cost the private sector of the space industry a pretty penny. He has shown a complete lack of regard for the loss of life in his Tesla cars while operating on autopilot. How? He cannot admit that his technology is not nearly where technology needs to be at in order to let everyone have an autonomous car. I write about this here. In order to have completely autonomous cars, advancements in artificial intelligence will have to be taken toward a whole new level. Currently, we are not there yet. Science can shed light on potential issues that prevent us from proceeding to 'go' just yet -- which are shown below:
Importance:
Why it matters: Although experts say we are still decades away from machines that truly think like humans, narrower applications of AI are already having an impact on society. Products and services from self-driving cars to systems that guide medical care and treatment could bring major benefits, including increased labor productivity, lucrative new markets, and fewer deaths from traffic accidents and medical mistakes. But AI brings worries, too. It will enable employers to automate more tasks and displace workers, and economists predict that some low-wage jobs will be among the first to be eliminated, possibly increasing economic inequality. Letting machines make their own decisions also raises profound ethical, legal, and regulatory questions. Who is responsible if an autonomous car crashes, a piece of software wrecks an investment portfolio, or a sensor switches a stoplight to green at the wrong time? The stakes are even higher on the battlefield, where the military is exploring the possibility of fielding autonomous lethal weapons that would make their own decisions about when to fire.
Advancing forward, a fair amount of research needs to be conducted. From the machine programming and execution standpoint, current research is quite advanced. Just this week, research about a world record was set for NASA surrounding the precision of a satellite with GPS technology. A satellite traveling at a distance of 43,500 miles travels the slowest, whereas at a distance of just under 5 miles from Planet Earth -- the satellite can travel at speeds of 22,000 miles per hour. The precision offered in orbit has allowed very precise 3-dimensional images of different aspects of Earth. This is just one of many reasons why space funding is extremely important. Better precision, better time, new technologies.
Although, with space research comes risk. Over the decades, risk has been studied and worked on by scientists over various scales within various problems. From the small scale - quantum error correction to the enormous scale of space flight - risk remains a crucial area of need to study in greater detail.
6) "We Aren't So Great At Assessing Risk"
Communicating risk to the public without posing great fear is extremely complicated. In many areas of research, communication of results is equated with great fear surrounding the research which leads to reductions in funding and possible cancellations of investigations all together. This highlights the demand to understand how to greater understand risk and the ability to convey risk to the greater public. Two areas seem to be polarized with regard to risk: 'genetic engineering' and 'climate change'. These two areas stand at opposite ends of the spectrum, but are equally important. In the area of 'genetic engineering' - the scare lies in the unknown product and effect toward civilization. Whereas in the other area -- climate science, the scare lies in the incomprehensible. Thinking on the global scale couple with temperatures rising to the point of civilization not being able to occupy the Earth is unfathomable and science fiction -- as far as some are concerned.
Therefore, understanding how to communicate and assess risk is crucial. Science says:
Importance:
Why it matters: Misperception of risk can push a president to overreact to lesser threats and underreact to greater problems, or to embrace policies that may make people feel good but end up being costly and ineffective—or even counterproductive. And how a president communicates with the public about risk can mean the difference between sowing panic and maintaining calm. Talking realistically about risks in advance—as opposed to promising absolute protection—may help prepare people for the inevitable disasters and minimize calls for a policy response that's out of proportion to the actual threat. To do this effectively, the president will have to maintain the public's trust, which is much harder to earn than it is to lose. Understanding the basic psychology of risk can help avoid missteps.
Again, transmitting the unfathomable to the public is complicated. The best hope is that the communicator is a good communicator (patient, humble, and intelligent) with a great audience (patient, humble, and intelligent). Yes, each of us need to do our part to achieve transmission of information (i.e. communication) between one another. Hollywood does this quite well. Science is a work in progress.
Celebrities Elevate STEM and Voting!
Beyonce (the singer) recently promoted the presidential candidate Hillary Clinton along with her husband Jay Z. With good reason. It has taken over a hundred years to achieve equality (and we are still fighting for it) - a work in progress. Having the first female president would be a major step in the right direction. Furthermore, this would reinforce the idea that any woman can go as far as she is willing to work to go. My wife is a scientist and I encourage her to be the best she can be -- break all barriers.
Although, the fields -- Science Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) still need more women and minorities engaging in them for careers. Each of us is smart in our own unique way. There are plenty of women and minorities out there to help take science and society to the next advanced level. Having celebrities elevate science is critical. Science usually gets a bad rap. Why? Movie portrayals (such as "The Accountant") portray scientists as strange with disorders but super smart. Not all are strange. I promise.
Recently, the actor Leonardo DiCaprio became the 'Messenger of Peace' for the United Nations -- an honor he holds dearly and sincerely. He speaks about the role in a documentary he recently released investigating the state of global warming and explored all possible solutions. We need more people like him with the unparalleled ability to communicate to a large audience the importance of research and world problems. Here is the video below (just over an hour and a half in length) - but worth watching before or after the election:
I think that I have provided you (the reader) with an eyeball full of information to think about before you hit the voting polls. Get out and vote. Listen to the stars, listen to your family, just be sure to vote. Exercise your place in our democratic society. Yes, your vote does count.
Conclusion ...
Science funding impacts all areas of our lives. If you do not believe me, just try to think of an area which has nothing to do with science. Leave the answer in the comments below and I will try to provide a rebuttal to your answer. There is no rebuttal for the issues that can be solved with science but lack funding. We need all of the help that is possible to educate the public about the importance of science. How do you help?
The most important learning begins at home. What about science do you not understand? Why don't you care? What kind of world are you leaving to your children? These questions do have answers. The unknown is centered around how those answers will surface in the days and years to come. Whether we find out the answers through your vote, your children, your family, the answers will become apparent. Why not educate yourself and others on critical issues for a better society?
I hope that each of you go out and vote tomorrow. Further, I hope that each of you are inspired to educate yourself more after reading this post. Until next time, Have a great day!!!
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.
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:
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.
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?
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!
.jpg/800px-Tour_Eiffel_Wikimedia_Commons_(cropped).jpg)
