Oil Spills

[eagle]

So this Oil dispersant that everyones shouting about... is it much worse than Washing up powders, bleaches, toilet cleaner, dish washing liquids? Or is it fundamentally the same sh*t?

Excellent point Beej !

The new documentary "Fuel" shows a brief history of the oil industry that is a step from the godfather. Oil men have forced the fuel on America and the world denying any competition by hook or crook as they say.

I love the segment on US president Jimmy Carter. Carter created a thinktank to come up with alternative fuels back in the 70s and they found a great one.

Growing algae in a desert region of the US they could and can mass produce oil in a process that is solar powered and extremely efficient. The oil works much as the toxic sh*t but you can taste it. The oil industry is actually working on the process now but it should have been done 30 years ago. They have been ripping everyone off and monopolizing the energy needs of the world. Plastics are choking the ocean and can be made to biodegrade from plant cellulose. I would love to see Oil people answer from their crimes against humanity but they will probably get a bail out instead. :twisted:

Carter was mocked but he was what we need and the world would be a better place except for the Oil pigs who turned us the other way via Raygun !

OK, oil from algae. Electric power from Wind (Pickens Plan). Natural Gas replacing diesel. All probably good ideas. Where are Obama and the US Congress on this?

Obama has moved on hybids in the auto industry and is talking about an energy plan but time will tell. Congress is in the pocket of the oil industry as far as I can see. The Oil industry runs the EPA while Monsantos runs the FDA. If the US doesn't get a dose of reality it is royaly f*cked.

[Stramash]

bastards!!!!

:evil:

[eagle]

bastards!!!!

:evil:

yes they are evil for sure :evil:

Of course I hate to see oil all over animals but its the obvious pollution. Oil is burned everyday and made into carpet and clothing and pesticides herbicides etc. Cosmetics fragrances. We live and breath in an artificial environment made of oil products. All made from the same toxic goo the animals are dying from. Plastic islands in the oceans are like a huge neon warning sign !

[Bruce551]

Senate oil savings’ greatest hits

Posted By Susan On June 29, 2010 @ 4:31 pm In Clean Energy Jobs Bill | 3 Comments

Daniel J. Weiss , a Senior Fellow and Susan Lyon , Special Assistant for Energy Policy at American Progress give a recap of the best policy proposals for oil savings of 2010 in this repost .

Oil, oil, everywhere, but not a drop for fuel. This is the stark view of Gulf Coast residents who see a 24,500 square mile oil slick [4] menacing their shores. The devastating BP oil disaster has clearly increased the urgency to dramatically reduce America’s oil consumption; and cutting our consumption would save consumers money, reduce foreign oil imports, help our economy, increase national security, and reduce global warming pollution.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid [5] (D-NV) has indicated that oil use reduction (or “oil savingsâ€) provisions would be a central element of the clean energy legislation he plans to bring to the Senate floor in mid July. And a number of other senators have introduced legislation that would either reduce oil use from many sources or focus on a specific sector. By selecting the best provisions from each bill it’s possible to craft a program that would reduce oil use by one-third or more by 2030.

There are three primary ways to reduce oil use: make cars much more fuel efficient, launch cleaner alternative fuels such as electricity for cars and natural gas for trucks, and invest in public transportation. CAP evaluated the major oil savings proposals in senators’ bills that address all three of these needs and chose the provisions with the most oil savings in each category. These provisions could form the basis for an oil savings section of a comprehensive clean energy and global warming bill.

Proposed oil savings provisions that will make a difference

Establish an oil savings goal: Sen. Jeff Merkley’s (D-OR) National Oil Independence Program [6] is in discussion draft form. It would establish a goal of reducing oil use by eight million barrels-per-day in 2030, which equals current imports from every major nation except Canada.

Improve fuel economy for cars and light trucks: Sen. Merkley’s plan would increase fuel economy requirements by 6 percent annually from 2017 to 2030. This would increase fuel economy standards to 44.8 miles-per-gallon for model year 2020, and to 60 MPG for model year 2025. These fuel economy standards are realistic. Sen. Merkley noted that “China will be requiring its vehicles to achieve 42.2 MPG by 2015.â€

President Barack Obama [7] also ordered the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Transportation to develop new fuel economy and greenhouse pollution standards for model years 2017 to 2021.

Begin fuel economy standards for medium and heavy-duty trucks: Fuel economy standards have never existed for these size trucks even though they’re gas guzzlers. Medium trucks get an average of 9.7 miles per gallon, while heavy trucks get 6.5 miles per gallon. Sen. Merkley’s plan would set the first standard for these vehicles of 15.8 MPG and 10.4 MPG, respectively, by 2030. This would save an estimated 400,000 barrels of oil per day. The Obama administration is also developing the first-ever fuel economy standards for these vehicles.

Establish a “fee bate†program to encourage the purchase of fuel-efficient cars: A “fee bate†program [8] encourages drivers to buy more efficient vehicles by providing cash back for buying cars that are more fuel efficient than the average vehicle in that class. This program is paid for by levying a surcharge on vehicles that are below average in fuel economy in a particular class.

Two bills would establish a fee bate system to boost the purchase of high-efficiency cars. The Efficient Vehicle Leadership Act [9], S. 1620, sponsored by Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), and the Practical Energy and Climate Plan [10], S. 3464, sponsored by Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN), both have fee bate programs. Bingaman’s bill would provide $2,500 and $3,500 rebates for cars that are 50 percent and 75 percent more fuel efficient than the average car in their class. Sen. Lugar’s provision is very similar to S. 1620, which he has cosponsored.

Charge up the electric car industry: One way to dramatically reduce oil use is by developing, producing, and using cars completely or primarily powered by electric batteries rather than gasoline. These cars also produce less global warming and other pollution [11] compared to conventional gasoline vehicles, and are cheaper to operate too. The Chevrolet Volt [12], which is the first plug-in hybrid electric vehicle, or PHEV, should be available later this year, and it could get 230 MPG [13].

President Obama set a goal of 1 million PHEVs by 2015 [14]. Incentives for purchasing electric vehicles and creation of the infrastructure to recharge them are essential to meeting this goal. The Electric Vehicle Deployment Act [15], S. 3442, sponsored by Sens. Byron Dorgan (D-ND), Lamar Alexander (R-TN), and Merkley, would establish a comprehensive program to boost electric vehicle use. In addition to providing incentives for the purchase of electric vehicles, it would also provide $800 million to five as yet unselected communities to deploy 700,000 electric vehicles by 2016.

Fill up more trucks and buses with natural gas: Electricity is an excellent alternative fuel for passenger vehicles, but unfortunately it won’t work for heavier trucks and buses. The large amounts of energy needed to power these weightier vehicles [16] would require too many batteries that would add too much weight and take up too much space. Instead, natural gas—in the form of liquefied natural gas, or LNG, or compressed natural gas, or CNG—is an ideal alternative fuel for these vehicles. Because many of these vehicles are short haul, centrally fueled vehicles, only a limited number of natural gas refueling stations are necessary.

LNG or CNG produces one-quarter of the global warming pollution [17] compared to oil-based fuels. And CAP analysis shows that by 2035 natural gas heavy trucks could reduce oil use by 1.2 million barrels per day [16], or 45 percent of the projected oil consumption of heavy trucks by 2035. These fuels are cheaper per mile compared to diesel fuel as well (if oil is more than $31 per barrel). [18]

The NAT GAS Act [19], S. 1408, sponsored by Sens. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Harry Reid (D-NV), and Orrin Hatch (R-UT), would create incentives for trucking companies and bus fleets to purchase trucks and buses powered by natural gas. It would also provide incentives for investments in natural gas fueling infrastructure. Versions of this proposal are also included in the American Power Act discussion draft sponsored by Sens. John Kerry (D-MA) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT), as well as in the Merkley proposal.

Implement fuel-efficiency measures for off-road vehicles and other transportation: Off-road and construction vehicles, planes, trains, and boats all use oil-based fuels. Airplanes, for instance, consume about 15 percent of all finished petroleum products. The American Power Act [21] and American Clean Energy and Security Act , H.R. 2454, include very similar provisions to identify nonroad vehicles and engines that contribute to global warming pollution and provide cost effective solutions. Sen. Merkley’s plan, however, seems to have the most specific requirements.

Invest in more efficient transportation infrastructure: Investments in public transit, high-speed rail, and other low-oil infrastructure are essential to reducing oil use after tackling vehicles and fuels. Transportation for America [23] estimates that the efficiency measures in its “‘Route to Reform [23]’ could reduce oil consumption by more than a million barrels a day by 2030.â€

The American Power Act [24], or APA, would invest $6 billion annually in “transportation infrastructure to increase efficiency and decrease oil consumption….[including] almost $2 billion for state and local projects that reduce oil consumption and greenhouse gases.†APA would fund other transit projects, too, and it would pay for these investments with revenue from the auction or sale of greenhouse gas pollution allowances.

Boost renewable fuel use: The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 [25] includes a renewable fuel standard that requires the production of 22 billion gallons of advanced biofuels by 2022, which would save over half a million barrels of oil daily. Nonetheless, the production of these cleaner fuels could easily fall short of this requirement. The Practical Energy and Climate bill would include advanced biofuels as part of a reverse auction established by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 [26] that will create significant incentives to encourage low-cost innovation and commercial scale deployment of advanced biofuels to push these U.S.-based fuels from the laboratory to the road.

Paying for reduction programs

Admittedly, funding for these and other programs may be difficult to come by during this era of trillion-dollar deficits. Only the American Power Act’s provisions come with their own revenue-generating mechanism: the funds from auctioning pollution allowances to the largest carbon emitters under a carbon limitation program. CAP estimates that the funds from APA’s limit on carbon pollution from coal-fired power plants alone could generate $80 billion annually for investment in these and other clean energy technologies.

Eliminating $45 billion worth of tax loopholes for big oil companies could also provide revenue to fund oil savings programs.

These taxpayer handouts are unnecessary in an industry where the five largest companies made nearly a trillion dollars in profits in the past decade.

Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) noted that, “In all of the climate bills, there are significant revenues generated, so that is a possibility.

But if we did an energy-only bill, we’re going to be struggling about how to provide revenues.â€

This means that setting a shrinking limit on global warming pollution, closing tax loopholes, or creating some other reliable revenue stream is essential for funding the programs to significantly reduce our oil use.

There’s a bipartisan theme to the oil savings measures listed here—the six different bills are sponsored by progressive and moderate Democrats and conservative Republicans. Taken together, they would jumpstart our nation’s effort to reduce our oil use while creating jobs and enhancing our national security. And the less oil we need, the less likely we are to search for it a mile deep below the surface where a BP-type blowout could devastate our health, economy, and environment.

The American people overwhelmingly support efforts to cut our oil addiction and slash global warming pollution. Now they’re looking to the Senate for action this summer as part of comprehensive clean energy and global warming pollution reduction legislation.

Article printed from Climate Progress: http://climateprogress.org

http://climateprogress.org/2010/06/29/senate-oil-savings-greatest-hits/

[Teddy]

BP says it has temporarily stopped oil flowing into the Gulf of Mexico from its leaking well.

It is the first time the flow has stopped since an explosion on the Deepwater Horizon rig on 20 April.

The well has been sealed with a cap as part of a test of its integrity that could last up to 48 hours.

US President Barack Obama said the development was a "positive sign" but noted that BP was still in the testing phase.

BP executive Kent Wells said the oil had been stopped at 1425 local time (1925 GMT) and he was "excited" by the progress.

"It is very good to see no oil go into the Gulf of Mexico," said Mr Wells.

BP shares rose in New York trading on Thursday after the flow was stopped, having already performed well over the day.

But BP is stressing that even if no oil escapes for 48 hours, that will not mean the flow of oil and gas has been stopped permanently.

BP chief operating officer Doug Suttles emphasised that there was no reason for "celebration" yet, particularly for those in areas already damaged by oil.

What happens now?

Continue reading the main story

Progress discussed by experts every six hours

Test will last as long as 48 hours

If pressure drops significantly well will be reopened immediately

After test finishes, well could be reopened while seismic test is done

If test is successful well could be kept shut until relief well is finished

Or oil could be piped to vessels on surface as before

Three vessels on site can capture 50,000 barrels a day

And BP say use of fourth vessel by end of July would take capture up to 60-80,000 barrels

Relief well on course permanently to kill well by mid-August

"The job is not finished," he said.

The pressure testing is necessary to check the strength of the well. If the pressure within the cap on top is low, that could indicate oil is leaking out further down the well.

If the pressure remains high, BP and the government will have to decide whether to try to keep the well shut or to leave it open and pipe oil to four vessels on the surface.

The US government's incident commander, Adm Thad Allen, said even if it was successful, the well would be reopened and oil capture by ships on the surface would restart while a seismic test was done.

"We can go back then and put the system under pressure again. Once we are convinced we can certainly consider shutting in the well, that is always possible and we would certainly look to do that."

But he emphasised that the option of shutting in the well - closing all the valves and stopping the flow - was a "side benefit" of the new capping stack.

The priority had always been to increase the amount of oil being captured and piped to the surface, he said.

Whatever happens will be a temporary solution, ahead of a relief well being used permanently to kill the original well with mud and cement. The pressure test will provide useful information for that operation.

Work on both of the relief wells is currently suspended because of the integrity test. One of the relief wells is within 4-5ft horizontally and 100ft vertically of intersecting.

The pressure test was twice delayed before starting on Thursday, once while additional checks were put in place to allay fears it could make the leak worse, and on Wednesday by a leaking piece of equipment.

Meanwhile, BP continues to face political pressure in the US.

A Congressional committee has agreed measures that would ban the firm from new offshore drilling for seven years.

Lockerbie allegations

And in a separate move, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said she will look into a request by four senators to investigate allegations that BP lobbied for the release of Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi while attempting to finalise an oil deal with Libya.

The 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103 killed 270 people - most of them were American.

Megrahi, who has terminal prostate cancer, was freed by Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill on compassionate grounds in August 2009 after serving eight years.

In a statement on Thursday, BP admitted it had expressed concern to the UK government about the slow progress of a prisoner transfer agreement between the two countries.

But the firm said it had taken no part in discussions on the decision to free Megrahi.

And the UK ambassador to Washington, Sir Nigel Sheinwald, said: "Claims in the press that Megrahi was released because of an oil deal involving BP, and that the medical evidence used by the Scottish Executive supporting his release was paid for by the Libyan government, are not true."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10654584

BTW, the new bbc news site looks ****....just a little addition.

[DANNO]

bastards!!!!

:evil:

In a different direction---> ( this is a story that is gaining traction in the US)

this story about the Lockerbie Bomber release and BP's possible influence in "getting the deal" done

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/ns/msnbc_tv-morning_joe#38258672

...I think there was a brief forum discussion on this back when the release occurred...

so come on weigh in here ...especially our UK brethren...

( a wind - up ..no I actually could envision Exxon or Shell doing the same if they had the cards to play)

we see / hear of the Thai corruption

and the diabolical oppressive weight of the US........

help me understand this one...

trading a convicted mass murderer for black gold???

:evil: :evil: