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!

A California Dream Spoiled By Big Oil

My wife tells the story often to strangers of her evolutional history of becoming a resident of California.  The story usually starts off with a brief introduction to her bedroom as a teenage girl with a poster of the California coastline -- the beach on it.  Dreaming, she says of the following: basking in the sun, meeting her husband, and living near the beach.  In a sense, she has obtained each.  I am a native Southern California guy.  We live inland around 40 minutes drive (without traffic) from the beach.  Periodically, we find ourselves at the beach -- like we did yesterday.  What is the issue you might ask?  Let me explain below.

The California Dream?

As I mentioned, I am a native of Southern California.  I grew up in Corona (California) which is inland from the beach aroun 60 miles.  Corona during that time was a small city.  My parents both grew up in Santa Monica by the beach.  As a result of the tremendous growth, they decided to move inland away from all of the commotion.  Of course, their family still stayed in the area, so the opportunity to visit was always present.




Corona was not the beach.  Although, Corona (during that time) had special attributes of its own.  Originally, Corona was a citrus station filled with orange trees, the urban sprawl was large.  As a result, as children we would ride our bicycles all around town distances 5 or more miles in a single direction.  In hindsight, this training turned out to be useful in motivating our  nonprofit organization -- bikecar101.




Over the years, my siblings and I spent a considerable time at our grandparents house near the beach.  We would go to the beach very often and run around burning off all the excess energy which had been built up throughout the day with other activities.  Surfing was included in the beach trips.  For us, living in California meant both the beach dream and the small town feel which is much different than living in downtown Los Angeles.  Although, today, the city of Corona has grown considerably and has but only a few orange trees left.  The rest is growth (housing and commercial buildings).




Why am I carrying on like this?  What is the point to all of this rambling?




The reason why I discuss my background is to set the stage for the following observation which I am told quite frequently.  My wife, who is from Omaha (Nebraska) will often tell me that I do not appreciate California.  At first this was strange.  I had been to quite a few other countries while serving in the US Air Force -- but that is another story for another time.  Over time, I came to ignore her when she said this to other people.  California is a wonderful place, but just like every other place in this great nation, there are wonderful attributes and not so wonderful attributes associated with the State.




More specifically, within Southern California are the same distinctions.  I am constantly amazed by this observation.  People are interesting and amusing (myself included).  Alright, now that we have that out of the way, lets get down to business.  The "California Dream" was ruined yesterday for me -- sounds strange right?  Is that even possible?  I believe that the possibility exists, let me explain.




Last weekend, a mutual friend of ours wanted to surf at Venice Beach on Saturday.  I have not surfed for a couple of years and had no board, therefore, I was not super motivated to go with him.  I did want to visit and he wanted to surf with a passion.  Turns out he just bought a board rack for his bicycle and wanted to ride down with us and hang out and surf a little.  No problem.




We got to the beach and had a great lunch.  After, he rented a wet suit and we settled on the beach near the water to watch him hit the waves.  To my amazement, the following observations were made by us on the beach that day:




Observation #1: Stain on wet suit




The first observation was a strange smeared stain that was black that ran across the wet suit that Bryce rented.  He really wanted to surf.  So much so that he was willing to wear a wet suit that had a stain which appeared like the suit had been used as "toilet paper" in the rest room.  I am not joking.  Very strange I thought to say the least.




He set out and paddled around for a while until he was tired and returned only to want to immediately get out of that wet suit.  The suit smelled dirty and as a result made him disgusted.  I thought -- after surfing for years -- that is what you get when you rent a wet suit.  At least the water washed the suit off as he was using the suit.   So I thought ...




Observation #2: Mysterious black sticky compound on my feet



When we were leaving the beach, I decided to wash my feet before putting on my shoes to bicycle back home.  I noticed that there was a black sticky compound on my feet that had sand stuck adhered to the patch.  I thought at first that upon walking across the grass near the beach, I might have walked through a patch of "dog poop."   Nope.




When we arrived at the showers, I tried to wash the stuff off of my foot.  To no avail, whatever was adhered to my foot was there to stay.  Kayla even tried to wash is off and smelled the substance to identify the smell as "bong resin."  Bong resin is the tar that accumulates at the bottom of the pipe used to smoke marijuana and stinks while having the property of being "super sticky."  I thought that the possibility of that substance stuck to my foot being "bong resin" was strong since the smell of marijuana is all encompassing Venice Beach.  I decided to stick my sock on and ride home to deal with the sticky substance stuck to my foot after in the shower.




Observation #3: Sticky substance was not "bong resin"




To my astonishment in the shower, the substance was definitely not "bong resin."  How do I know?  There was no smell or trace odor of marijuana upon closer inspection.  What was this substance?  Turns out later while talking with some friends over dinner that night who surf down at Venice, the substance was "tar."  Basically, the tar had been more common place since the oil spill by the company -- Plains All American Pipeline -- up the coast last year in Santa Barbara.  What?  That was "oil tar."

Oil Spills Aftermaths Linger For Years

I remember reading the in depth coverage of the oil spill in Santa Barbara caused by the Plain Oil Company which resulted in around 140,000 gallons of oil dumped onto the coast.  My first thought was to compare that amount to the gigantic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico by the BP Oil company years ago.  Here is a direct calculation of the ratio of the spills:

Yes, the number is super small in comparison.  For this reason, I did not think to much of this spill.  In the initial blog post of this website (introductory blog post), I calculated the number of Olympic sized swimming pools that would be filled with the equivalent volume of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill in 1989.  This turned out to be 30 Olympic sized swimming pools -- Wow.  What about the oil spill in Santa Barbara of 140,000 gallons of oil.  Shown below is the calculation:

Compared to other oil spills, the Refugio oil spill in Santa Barbara did not seem that large.  I would have thought that over the course of a few months, the oil would have dispersed enough to be "non-existent" -- or removed from the local beaches.




Of course, any spill can be catastrophic -- regardless of volume.  According to the news accounts, the damage to the environment was not known at the time and would take a while to tally.  There was a large difference between the oil spills that I should mention before proceeding.  The Refugio Oil spill that occurred in Santa Barbara (California) was very close to the coastal beach.  Whereas the gigantic oil spill off the Gulf Coast of Mexico was a distance offshore.  This point of distinction needs to be made before proceeding further.  Regardless, according to the news accounts, the damage was serious.




According to a news story released nearly 10 days after the spill that appeared on the website "The Guardian" titled "Globs Of Tar Was Ashore, Closing Los Angeles Beaches," the beach was not inhabitable by visitors.  Here is an excerpt from the article:

Popular beaches along nearly seven miles (11 kilometres) of Los Angeles-area coastline were off-limits to surfing and swimming on Thursday as scientists looked for the source of globs of tar that washed ashore.

The sand and surf on south Santa Monica bay appeared virtually free of oil after an overnight clean-up, but officials weren’t sure if more tar would show up. They planned to assess during low tide at midday.

Public health officials told people to avoid contact with the water, wet sand or any material that washed up in the area. They warned that contact with petroleum products can cause skin irritation and result in long-term health problems.

In the initial accounts, officials did not really have an idea of the magnitude of the spill or the potential aftermath of the spill.  The only concrete piece of knowledge that could be disseminated was that "tar balls" would show up?  Alright.  Furthermore, they closed the beach while cleanup crews walked the beach as shown in a photograph taken from the article and shown below:

Source: The Guardian

Can you imagine the concerted effort that was involved in order to get the oil removed from the beach?





A month later, the news was no less reassuring that the cleanup effort was successful thus far.  In another article appearing on the website "The Guardian" titled "Cleanup Of California Oil Spill Goes Low Tech To Limit Environmental Impact," the estimate of the total cleanup was to be around $64 million dollars -- wow!  That did not include the potential damage of the spill on the environment.  Here is an excerpt from that account regarding the cleanup effort at the time:

In the latest spill, workers shoveled tar balls and contaminated sand into plastic bags that were then carried away for disposal. They also had to be careful not to disturb populations of western snowy plovers that were in the middle of their breeding season.

 “We’re more concerned about the impact of the cleanup doing more injury than the oil did originally,” said Kim McCleneghan of the state department of fish and wildlife, who responded to both spills. 

About 91% of 97 miles of coastline – mostly sandy beaches – surveyed by teams of experts from various federal and state agencies has been given the all-clear.

Since the accounts surrounding the oil spill (within a few months), the subject has gone dark.  Meaning, that the news agencies are not spending coverage on the aftermath -- a year later.  That was (so I thought over the weekend after peeling oil off of my feet) until yesterday.

Plains All American Oil Gets Fined

An article that appeared in the "New York Times" titled "Company Says It's Been Indicted For The California Oil Spill" with a picture that reminded us of the extent of the spill shown below:

Source: New York Times

We are reminded of the extent of the damage of the oil spill by the excerpt shown below which was taken from the article:

On May 19 last year, the corroded, two-foot-diameter underground pipeline broke open near Refugio State Beach, west of Santa Barbara. Much of the oil flowed into the ocean, in an area that is home to an array of shorebirds and marine mammals, and is near the migratory path of gray whales. It formed a dark plume in the water that stretched for miles and coated several beaches, harming tourism, and officials have said that tar balls from the spill washed ashore as far as 100 miles to the southeast. 

The company initially estimated the spill at 21,000 gallons, but later revised that to more than 140,000 gallons. In documents supplied to lawmakers, Plains acknowledged that it had not alerted federal regulators until more than three hours after discovering the spill.

Here is an excerpt from the article discussing the possible distribution of charges being brought by the Attorney General of California -- Kamala Harris:

The California attorney general, Kamala D. Harris, and the Santa Barbara County district attorney, Joyce E. Dudley, said a Santa Barbara County grand jury had handed up an indictment charging the company, Plains All American, with four felonies and 42 misdemeanors, and charging an employee, James Buchanan, an environmental and regulatory compliance specialist at Plains, with three misdemeanors.

The company also faces multiple civil cases in the oil spill, but criminal charges in such a case are more unusual. Ms. Harris, who is running for the United States Senate, said the indictment reflected what the company knew or should have known of the dangers posed by its actions.

“The negative impacts of this conduct were immediate and tragic,” Ms. Harris said. “Anyone who violates the law and endangers our environment is going to be held responsible.”

I am happy to see that justice is being served toward the giant oil company "Plains All American Oil" by the Attorney General.  Accidents like this should not ever go away with time.  Especially, since the environmental destruction takes time to assess and set in.  After reading these articles and revisiting the oil spill, I wondering why I happened to get oil on my feet last weekend?

Oil Seeps Naturally From The Ocean Floor?

After I had the experience (which was foreign to me) of obtaining "tar" on my foot at the beach, I started to ask around.  I found a correlation with the information obtained about the presence of "tar" on the beach and the amount of years a person had been a resident of California.  Which is to say, people who had lived here less than 10 years tended to blame the "tar" on "natural oil seeps."  This fascinated me since I had lived here and frequented the beaches up and down the coast and not once (until this time) experienced "tar" on the beach.




Yes, I knew that there had been oil rigs up and down the coastal land (slightly inland) that had come and gone.  Still, I was surprised to hear from people how they just blew off the presence of "tar" as a derivative of the following statement: "Oh, the tar?  That is caused by natural oil seeps..."  What?  I guess that the following line of reasoning might be due to the amount of oil rigs that are in the area coupled with natural places like the La Brea Tar pits.  I highlighted the astounding amount of oil rigs in LA county in a previous blog post -- 5000 -- WOW.  With this number in mind, I guess that awareness should not make my discovery a surprise.




What about "natural oil seeps?"




I started to look into these "natural oil seeps."  What I found was an institute dedicated to studying the marine ecological environment called the "Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute."  The vision of the institute is stated below:

The ocean is a defining feature of our planet and crucial to life on Earth, yet it remains one of the planet’s last unexplored frontiers. For this reason, WHOI scientists and engineers are committed to understanding all facets of the ocean as well as its complex connections with Earth’s atmosphere, land, ice, seafloor, and life—including humanity. This is essential not only to advance knowledge about our planet, but also to ensure society’s long-term welfare and to help guide human stewardship of the environment. WHOI researchers are also dedicated to training future generations of ocean science leaders, to providing unbiased information that informs public policy and decision-making, and to expanding public awareness about the importance of the global ocean and its resources.

The WHOI in abbreviated form was instrumental in the analysis of the BP Gulf Deepwater Horizon Oil spill 6 years ago.  That spill was the largest oil spill in history.  The institute played a major role in analyzing the plankton and other marine organisms trapped in water columns near the blowout of oil along with the overall oil dispersion over time within the ocean.  The main take home message of me bringing this up is to say that the WHOI has experience with "natural oil seeps" -- studying the origination and contribution to the environment.  Check out their "Research Projects" page.




After I delved into their website a little more, I found statements like the one below discussing the origination of oil in the ocean which surprised me:

Oil can come from a variety of sources, each of which influences the amount, type, and duration of a spill. The 2003 report published by the National Research Council titled Oil in the Sea III organized these sources into four categories: natural seeps, petroleum extraction, petroleum transportation, and petroleum consumption. Of these, seeps are by far the single largest source, accounting for nearly half of all the petroleum compounds released to the ocean worldwide each year. Seeps are also the only natural source of oil input to the environment. The other sources, in order of magnitude, are extraction, transportation, and consumption and stem from human activity.

An important difference between seeps and human-generated inputs is that seeps are widely distributed around the world and occur at a fairly slow and relatively constant rate.  So constant, in fact, that some animals and microbes have evolved to thrive in the presence of the chemicals that flow from the seafloor near seeps. Studies of these unique organisms and ecosystems are an important part of the picture that scientists are assembling of how oil affects marine biology.

Oil that enters the ocean as a result of extraction, transportation, or consumption often receives more attention than seeps for the simple fact that it is more visible. These events are of interest to scientists because they generally constitute large inputs from a single source and can occur anywhere in the world, often in places that have little, if any, natural ability to cope with the contamination. The impacts of oiling on individual plants and animals or on entire ecosystems range from the visible and immediate (e.g., smothering) to long-term and largely hidden (e.g., genetic disruption) and can have implications on the physical structure or health of a region for decades. Human systems, such as water supplies, fisheries, and tourism industries, are also vulnerable to oil spills, and this adds even more complexity when trying to understand the full effects of a particular event.

I was surprised to find out that nearly half of the oil in the ocean comes from natural inputs.  I am still skeptical of the situation.  Upon further research into their website, the sources of oil become more apparent and justified from a scientific standpoint.  I want to show an excerpt that will bring to light a more logical connection to my experience at Venice Beach a couple of weekends ago.  Here is the excerpt from the "natural oil seeps" webpage on the WHOI website:

In locations where seeps are found, oil flows slowly up through networks of cracks, forming springs of hydrocarbons similar to the La Brae tar pits on land. Lighter compounds rise buoyantly to the water’s surface and evaporate or become entrained in ocean currents; others fall to the seafloor and collect over hundreds or thousands of years. 

Seeps are often found in places where oil and gas extraction activities are also located. As a result, many surface slicks and tar balls caused by seeps are often attributed to releases from oil and gas platforms. The question arises, then: If oil occurs naturally in the ocean and if seeps are the biggest single source, why is there concern about the occasional accidental spill? The answer lies in the nature and rates of oil inputs by these different sources.

Seeps are generally very old and flow at a very low rate. The material that flows out is still very often toxic, but organisms some that live nearby are adapted to conditions in and around seeps. A few very unique species of animals are even able to use the hydrocarbons and other chemicals released at seeps as a source of metabolic energy. In addition, rather than being made up entirely crude oil, the material flowing from seeps is often heavily biodegraded by microbial action deep beneath the seafloor.

In contrast, the production, transportation, and consumption of oil by humans generally results in relatively short, high-volume inputs of oil and refined hydrocarbon products in places that have never experienced significant exposure to these chemicals and so do not have many natural defenses to them. As a result, seeps are often looked upon as a living laboratory for scientists to study how natural processes affect the fate of released oil or how individual species or communities of plants and animals are capable of dealing with the burden of otherwise toxic chemicals. From this may one day come a better understanding of how to help places affected by oil spills recover and regain much of their pre-spill health and function.

These last four paragraphs justify my experience at the beach a couple of weeks ago.  Within the excerpt above, the contribution from the extraction and transport processes play a large role in the "tar" encountered on the beaches.  Additionally, this coincides with the statements I have heard since my experience from older "locals" of the Los Angeles area.  Some will not even go into the water anymore to surf because of the oil "tar" -- which has increased over the years.  This brings me to my last question:




Why has no one mentioned the increase in "tar" on the beaches or reported on the increase?




Have we all lost our minds? And as a result are just accepting of this unusual occurrence?




Something is unusual here.  I am very surprised that not one of these communities along the coast (Malibu, Santa Barbara, Manhattan, Santa Monica, etc.) have not been outraged at the increased occurrence of "tar" on the beaches.  Simply amazing.

Conclusion...

I remain skeptical of the contribution of the "natural oil seeps" due to the science of the flow rate and leakage along with the evolution of natural organisms to capitalize on their location and use the various hydrocarbons for nutrients.  This seems to me to be natural. Yet, these organisms would not leave behind giant "tar balls" to be washed up onto shore.  And if so, why would generations not be complaining about the presence of such organic matter on the shore.




The beaches in California are nearly worshipped along with the weather.  Over the generations, I am surprised to not hear anything of these natural occurrences.  Therefore, I tend to favor the other opinion that I hold -- the big oil companies are to blame for the increase in "tar" on our beaches.  With the presence of the "fall out" from last year's 140,000 gallons, I am more inclined to attribute the increase in "tar" to events such as those (as terrible as they may be).




Last Thursday, KPCC (a radio station) had a story titled "Pipeline Operator Could Face Additional Penalties For Santa Barbara Oil Spill" which talked about the disaster briefly and the "final investigative report" released by authorities regarding the Plains All American Pipeline's failure in last year's oil spill.  Here was the introduction to the story below which justifies my skepticism regarding a greater contribution from "Big Oil" rather than "natural oil seeps":

An oil pipeline company responsible for a massive spill on the California coast a year ago didn't do enough to prevent corrosion and its operators didn't detect and react to the spill quickly enough, federal regulators said Thursday.

Plains All American Pipeline also didn't have adequate systems in place to signal there was a major leak in the pipeline running near the Santa Barbara County coast, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration said in its final investigation report.

"The operators failed on multiple levels to prevent, detect and respond to this incident," agency Administrator Marie Therese Dominguez said. "A number of preventable errors led to this incident and the company's failures in judgment, including inadequate assessment of this line, and faulty planning made matters worse. What happened is completely unacceptable and we will hold the company accountable."

I think that enough has been said on the matter.  What is next is the litigation followed by action.  What does "action" look like?  Well, each of us need to follow horrible stories like this and take "action" by writing (e-mail or written letter, or call) our local representatives and explain that these events do not justify the drilling that is going on currently.  All oil drilling should be shut down in the region until an agreement between large oil companies and agencies along with the public can be reached.




How much more of the environment do we need to damage before the message is heard?  As of this moment, the public and legislatures appear to be wearing "ear muffs" to buffer out the noise (outcry) of this damaging action by the oil companies.   Until next time, your assignment is to read more about the oil seeps and the part that "Big Oil" is playing into them.  Have a great day.

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.