What Technology Is Being Installed By 'Energy Transfer' To Prevent An Oil Spill?

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.

What Is The Problem With A Pipeline?

In the same article above, the motivation to move oil down a pipeline (and construction) was due to the 'inherent' problem or danger with hauling oil in a truck.  A typical tanker truck which transports fuel is shown below:

Source: John Hewat from Canberra Australia

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 about a train?



Each tanker rail car like the one shown below holds around 30,000-gallons:

Source: Harvey Henkelmann

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.



Until next time, have a great day!

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?

Is 94 Million Barrels Of Oil A Large Amount? That Is The Global Daily Demand!

Climate change is an ongoing debate that attracts news often due to the changing weather on the planet.  We (the world) share the atmosphere.  Therefore, all participants should be concerned when we see dramatic examples.  What are these dramatic examples?  China has an atmosphere that is opaque as shown in the picture below:

The take home point is that the issue of climate change is starting to permeate through various circles (board rooms) of various large corporations.  One such corporation is Exxon Mobil Corportation.  Recently, there have been questions generated at the top of the corporate structure about the direction of the future.  Where do we stand?  The global oil demand is 94 million barrels (by one estimate) every single day.  WOW!  How do we visualize that large of volume?  Below are a couple of ways that might be helpful.

Investors Push Board Of Exxon For Answers!

In a recent artile from the New York Times titled "Exxon Investors Seek Assurance As Climate Shifts, Along With Attitudes," the authors discuss the new emerging trend of investors starting to inquire into mitigating risks associated with climate change.  Here is the new revelation of investors which is indicative of a changing energy landscape:

At the company’s planned annual meeting on Wednesday in Dallas, shareholders will vote on a resolution to prod Exxon Mobil to disclose the risks of climate change to its business.

Such resolutions have been floated before, and they typically do not pass. But there is a growing chorus of investors, many of them large institutional shareholders, who say they are worried that Exxon Mobil, the largest publicly traded energy company in the world, is not adequately preparing for tighter times if countries start acting on the pledges they made last December as part of the Paris climate change accord.

Exxon Mobil, for example, projects that global demand for oil will keep growing — by just over 13 percent from today, to 109 million barrels of oil a day by 2040.

But the International Energy Agency’s projections include one situation where demand could drop by 22 percent, to 74 million barrels a day by 2040, if measures are put in place to keep global warming at levels that, while still dangerous, could avoid the most devastating consequences.

The shareholder resolution calls for Exxon Mobil to publish an annual assessment of impacts of various climate change policies, including ones that would lead to the steep drops foreseen in the most severe energy agency’s forecast. Another resolution calls for the company to give shareholders a bigger say over governance.

The excerpt above highlights the major issues that society faces in today's fast-paced changing world.  I think that the authors did a great job of summing the issue up.  The impact of the Paris Climate Talks is gaining momentum by the fact that the subject is making news.  I was amazed to see that the results of the climate talks last December is actually causing a downstream change which is exerting pressure back up the chain.




To have other corporations start to divest stock in companies that are geared toward future renewable energy technology is a main stay in the current popular media.  Further, to have a story about consumers starting to question the practices of these large corporations occupies the same space as a change in technology.  But to have the investors of a large corporation like Exxon Mobil start to ask questions of the Board is a whole new parameter change in the equation toward moving to renewable energy technology.




The investors are serious players in a company -- for if the investor (who holds a large amount of shares) gets scared, then he/she can dump their stock and cause problems for the corporations.  Here is a question in the form of an excerpt that sums up the issue from the article shown below:

But big owners of the stock worry that the optimism of Exxon Mobil’s outlook for oil demand is dangerously misguided.

“Investors can’t afford to have Exxon become the next Kodak,” said Scott M. Stringer, the comptroller of New York City, whose pension fund owns roughly $1 billion worth of Exxon Mobil stock.

“It is impossible for them to do business for the next 100 years as they have the last 100 years,” added Mr. Stringer, who supports the risk-disclosure resolution

This is a wake-up call for these large corporations.  But, what really caught my eye were the numbers representing the increase or decrease in daily global demand in oil.  Upon first pass (reading), I was trying to figure out what the exact daily global demand is -- really a ball park figure?  I am sure that the process of trying to get the numbers to estimate the total number of barrels in oil on a daily basis is complicated.  I decided to type into google a question -- shown below:

As you can see, the first boxed statement indicates that the daily global demand is around 94 million barrels a day.  Oh my goodness.  WOW.  If you look down the list, there are two other sources that I inlcuded in the picture.  I read both to make sure that the first figure was on par with the range that was mentioned in the New York Times article above.





Another statement that caught my attention was on the website "Watchdog.org" listed as the 3rd entry above.  Here is an interesting and eye-catching statement guiding the reader to put the huge global daily demand of oil into perspective.  The author uses dimensional analysis with no equations but with dimensions that have been used on this blog site before -- the Olympic Size Swimming Pool.  Here is the excerpt:

“It’s mind-boggling,” Peter Tertzakian, the chief economist and managing director of Canada’s ARC Financial Corporation told participants at the Platts North American Crude Oil Summit last Thursday.

To put that number in perspective, Tertzakian offered this nugget: “That’s the equivalent of draining an Olympic-size swimming pool every 15 seconds.”

“You can say, pardon the pun, the world goes ’round on oil,” Tertzakian told Watchdog.org.

Previously on this blog site, I have used the Olympic Size Swimming Pool to put a large volume of water into perspective.  You will recall here on the introductory post!   In that post, the calculation involved determining the amount of Olympic Sized Pools that would be filled with 20 million gallons of oil -- which was spilled in the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill in 1987.  Kind of ironic with the subject matter in the current post -- right?  The calculation revealed the spill would fill 30 Olympic Swimming Pools.  I thought that volume was large.  Keep on reading.

How Many Olympic Size Pools Could Be Filled?

In the article, the author included a picture of an Olympic Size Swimming Pool to drive home the result of dimensional analysis.  Here is a picture of an Olympic Swimming Pool from "Wikipedia":

Source: Wikipedia

Without further ado, the volume has been stated in the excerpt above of 94 million barrels of oil per day -- represents the daily demand for the world.  Further, in the article from "Watchdog.org" the statement says that the volume corresponds to an Olympic Size Swimming Pool being filled every 15 seconds.  Is that correct?  How does a person check this fact out through dimensional analysis?





First, the amount of water that occupies the typical Olympic Size Swimming Pool needs to be known.  Taken from "Wikipedia" the amount if 660,000 gallons.  Additionally, the conversion of barrels to gallons needs to be known too.  First, I calculate the amount of barrels in 15 seconds as shown below:

The amount of barrels delivered in 15 seconds is 17,000-barrels.  How many gallons are in a barrel of oil?  The news typically reports volumes of oil in barrels rather than gallons or liters.  Shown below is the image of typing the question of conversion units from google:

The image above is helpful or should be to the reader.  Not all conversion factors have to be taken from a reference book or a text book.  To lower the barrier toward carrying out the calculation, just ask google.  With the conversion, the amount of gallons in 15 seconds can be determined as shown below:

There are 710,000-gallons in 17,000-barrels of oil.  Additionally, I took the liberty to complete the calculation of comparing the amount of barrels to the volume of an Olympic Sized Swimming Pool.  Basically, the statistic cited in the "Watchdog.org" article was correct.  Nice, I like when the media do their calculations correctly.




Is there any other dimension or volume that could be chosen to further put the volume in perspective?




How about the world's largest swimming pool?




Located in Chile, the world's largest swimming pool is 66,000,000-gallons.  WOW.  Here is a photo taken from the "Wikipedia" site:

Source: Wikipedia

I wondered how many of these would be filled up by the total daily volume for the global demand -- 94 million barrels.  Here is the calculation below:

64 pools -- how is that possible to put into perspective?  My mind was bent.  I like large numbers and see them a lot in science, but this number is incomprehensible.  As usual, I like to look for a variety of volumes to compare the numbers.




How about the Mercedez Benz Super Dome?

How Many Super Domes?

In order to figure this out, I needed the volume of the interior space of the Mercedez Benz Super Dome in Louisiana.  The volume is 3,500,000 cubic meters -- interior space.

Source: Wikipedia

How does a person calculate the volume and compare the result to 94 million barrels?




To start with, the proper conversions need to be carried out;  Specifically,

The next time that you (the reader) are inside the Super Dome think about the fact that 4.5 of these could hold the daily global demand of oil.  Absolutely amazing to say the least.




Have I given you a good perspective of the global daily demand of oil -- 94 million barrels of oil?

Conclusion ...

The next time that you find yourself at the gas pump think about the complexity associated with computing the daily demand of oil globally.  Undertaking this task would require compiling a bunch of statistics from a variety of organizations.  More importantly, I would ask the reader to consider the opposition on behalf of those civilian's who would like to transition immediately toward renewable energy.  Can the world accomplish this task quickly?  What if all of the major corporations decided to make a transition -- how long would that take?  Probably longer than you could imagine.




Yes, I am speculating on this.  Although, upon viewing the perspective given above through dimensional analysis, what is an appropriate time line?  How do we accomplish this?  These are open ended questions which need to be entertained.  You might be wondering at this point:




What can I do to reduce my consumption of oil and contrabution to the global daily demand?




Imagine if each of us cut our usage by just a little.  That would add up to a large number.  Lets all do our part and move toward using/demanding renewable energy technology.




Related Blog Posts:


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


Science Topics, Thoughts, and Parameters Regarding Science, Politics, And The Environment!

Los Angeles Was Built On Top Of Oil?

Recently, I came across a video that discussed California's Urban Oil Fields.  Specifically, the story of Los Angeles.




Los Angeles currently has around 5000 active and inactive oil wells throughout the County.  Who would have thought?  A video produced by "Vice News" titled "Crude L.A.: California's Urban Oil Fields" gives us a brief (less than 19 minutes) tour of a few of the facilities is shown below:

The video is definitely worth watching.  There are many valid points that have been brought up which have been in the news in the last few months.  Especially, in the aftermath of the Aliso Canyon Gas (Methane) Leak which adversely impacted residents at Porter Ranch.   I wrote blogs on the disaster --the volume and magnitude of the leaked methane over the course of 4 months.  In light of the gas leak, residents that live near oil wells are asking themselves questions like the following:




Who is looking after our well being (with regulatory affairs) with the oil companies?




Are these wells safe near my house?




What about the chemicals that have been negatively effecting my health?




There has definitely been a light turned on to magnify the inequity of the two situations.  For years, big oil companies have operated in Los Angeles.  As a result, considerable attention is starting to be brought on the oil wells that continue to be used -- even though there are blatant violations (in the form) of inspections.  There has been no oversight from the city to keep these companies in check.




As a result, regulations are violated and have had adverse health effects on the surrounding community.  The communities are composed of thousands of houses.  Residents (activists) of the area need to desperately stand up to politicians and regulatory agencies to take action.  This includes neighborhood councils who have considerable political power.  Although, unless the residents are "united," there will be no change.




The problem is magnified by the fact that the oil drilling platforms are spread throughout Los Angeles and are hidden in some cases.  As I mentioned in the second paragraph, there are roughly 5000 active and inactive oil wells in the Los Angeles area.  How long have they been here for?

Los Angeles 5 Decades Ago?

In the video above, there are a few amazing film "clips" that are truth-telling of the past.  Additionally, the photographs highlight the creation of our dependence on oil.  Oil barons took advantage of land rights and just started drilling everywhere.  Here are a few "still" photographs taken from the film and made into images.




Venice Beach:

Echo Park:

The obvious question after viewing these two photographs would be: Where are all of these oil wells now?  They are in the exact same location.    What has changed then? Lets take a look at the present-day situation here in the Los Angeles area.

Present Day Oil Dependent Los Angeles

The answer lies in the change in technology.  Advancements in oil drilling technology has had many positive attributes for the industry.  Before I highlight a couple that were brought up in the video above, a few pictures of the current situation might help you understand the ability of the technology to change the appearance of the situation.




West Los Angeles:

Beverly Hills:

South LA -- Inglewood:

South LA -- Jefferson:

A gated area with a single crane.  Whereas in Beverly Hills, the residents are completely deceived by hiding the tower in construction.  A similar situation exists in West Los Angeles.  What would occur if the residents knew about the frequency of the wells?  Furthermore, that these sites serve as a conduit for hundreds of oil wells that are tapped in that location.  Here is an example from Jefferson shown below:

And...

The two pictures above are the same area that contains the crane or rig in earlier pictures from Jefferson.  As you can see, the space looks rather empty -- except for tiles on the ground.  Each of the tiles is an oil well head.  Think of the collection of oil wells like a cross section of a wire bundle that is composed of a bunch of strands of wire (each well corresponds to a strand of wire).  The bundle of oil wells drop several thousand feet vertically and then expand out horizontally.  Wow!




Activists and residents are concerned about fumes from chemicals used in the drilling and recovery process.  In the last photo there are visible "containers - large containers" of "solvents" and "acids" which are used in the extraction process.  Here is a diagram below which was taken to illustrate the point of the potential hazards of using such chemicals (acids, solvents, etc.):

Acids are used to break up the oil and make the extraction process easier.  The problem with using these chemicals is the amount of "hazardous waste" generated along with the gases that are given off during the process.  If there was sufficient space between the oil well and the nearest house, an argument might be possible on behalf of the oil companies.  Shown below is a picture of a resident who was interviewed for the article -- who has studied the problem extensively:

The resident is part of the entire neighborhood that is "silently" concerned about these extraction sites all over the city of Los Angeles.  Two blocks away is an elementary school from which children and parents walk home each weekday.

These people are being exposed to "hazardous chemicals" on a daily basis.  The problem is centered around linking the use of these chemicals to adverse health effects.  Additionally, the lack of concern from the politicians and regulatory agencies is not going over great with the public -- as expected.  I use sarcasm due to the astonishing realization that there is a lack of care by these publicly held offices.  Change needs to occur and soon -- very soon.




Of course, the greater question is centered around demand.  If California residents to continue to increase their use of cars rather than public transportation, there will be a corresponding increase in demand for oil.  Which in turn will outweigh potential hazards to the surrounding community.  This is a reality.  According to the California State Board of Equalization's "Economic Perspective," a semi-accurate estimation for annual fuel consumption in 2014 would be around 15 billion gallons of fuel.  California residents drove a combined 300 billion miles annually -- Wow!  Couple this stated statistic to the subject of the blog -- Oil out of Los Angeles and the obvious question pops up:




How much oil is extracted in Los Angeles Annually?



According to various sources, the figure is around 24 million Barrels of Oil (annually).  If we convert the number of Barrels of oil extracted annually into gallons of oil, then a direct comparison of demand versus supply can be carried out.  I show the calculations of the unit conversion below:

According to the results, the amount of oil that is extracted annually is not negligible.  6.72% is important.  Especially, when we consider moving the oil to the refineries and processing and delivering back to the stations (for consumers to suck up into their cars).  Is that worth the danger of a disaster similar to the recent methane leak at Aliso Canyon Gas Storage Facility?  Hard to say.  If you are the resident living near the oil well the answer would be "no way."  Whereas, if you are a resident of Bel Air who lives far away, the answer may be "Sure."

Inequality Seems To Outweigh Reason

The oil well issue has been around for decades as shown in pictures taken from the film.  With the blatant void in the regulatory agency within city hall, one is led to believe (unfortunately) that the situation will not change soon.  At least, not by any politician or regulatory agency anytime soon.  In the meantime, there is another issue that takes up just as great of precedence in the South Los Angeles Area.




That problem is centered around the company Exide that operates a "lead acid battery" plant in Vernon, California.  For an excellent detailed account of the issue see the articles located on the blog Streetsblogs (access them here).  For more information, search "Sahra Sulaiman" for her continuing coverage of the inequality and dangers of this situation.




Exide might have had a less difficult time dealing with the problem of a clean-up if the disaster at Aliso Canyon Storage Facility had not happened.  From a regulatory standpoint, the situation is a disaster.  Whereas from an activist standpoint, the disaster is not great, but is a great starting point to motivate change on part of the regulatory agencies.  Of course, any part of change requires that each of us take action in our own lives.  For starters, we can keep the agencies accountable by asking questions about toxicity, regulatory procedures, and change toward a more sustainable environment.



Additionally, each of us can start looking toward the future with a greater "sustainable" mindset intact.  To start with, we can cut our consumption down of oil.  Currently, the Los Angeles area extracts 24 million Barrels of oil each year.  What if there is a disaster?  Any improvements in sustainability measures might be wiped away.  What part are you doing to solve the problem?  These are the questions that I think about.  Of course, sometimes I think about these questions while driving my car on the freeway while stuck in traffic.  No one is perfect.  Change has to start somewhere for each of us -- individually and collectively.  Have a great weekend.