Wednesday, July 20, 2016

Blind Stupidity

 
Andrew Nikiforuk writes that we falsely assume we can clean up oil spills -- because we believe we have the technology to do it:

In many respects, society's theatrical response to catastrophic oil spills resembles the way medical professionals respond to aggressive cancer in an elderly patient. Because surgery is available, it is often used. Surgery also creates the impression that the health-care system is doing something even though it can't change or reverse the patient's ultimate condition. In an oil-based society, the cleanup delusion is also irresistible. Just as it is difficult for us to acknowledge the limits of medical intervention, society struggles to acknowledge the limits of technologies or the consequences of energy habits. And that's where the state of marine oil spill response sits today: it creates little more than an illusion of a cleanup. Scientists -- outside the oil industry -- call it "prime-time theatre" or "response theatre."

Technology has its limits:

Part of the illusion has been created by ineffective technologies adopted and billed by industry as "world class." Ever since the 1970s, the oil and gas industry has trotted out four basic ways to deal with ocean spills: booms to contain the oil; skimmers to remove the oil; fire to burn the oil; sand chemical dispersants, such as Corexit, to break the oil into smaller pieces. For small spills these technologies can sometimes make a difference, but only in sheltered waters. None has ever been effective in containing large spills.

Conventional containment booms, for example, don't work in icy water, or where waves run amok. Burning oil merely transforms one grave problem -- water pollution -- into sooty greenhouse gases and creates air pollution. Dispersants only hide the oil by scattering small droplets into the water column, yet they often don't even do that since conditions have to be just right for dispersants to work. Darryl McMahon, a director of RESTCo, a firm pursuing more effective cleanup technologies, has written extensively about the problem, and his opinion remains: "Sadly, even after over 40 years experience, the outcomes are not acceptable. In many cases, the strategy is still to ignore spills on open water, only addressing them when the slicks reach shore."

The only way to avoid oil spills is to avoid oil. Yet the word from Cleveland this week is that the Republicans plan to revive the Keystone XL pipeline. It's called blind stupidity.

Image: thetyee.ca

16 comments:

Steve said...

The only science Republicans seem to believe in is make believe.

Owen Gray said...

That's because science gets in the way of hate, Steve.

The Mound of Sound said...


There are a lot of Liberals who are just fine with getting dilbit to "tidewater." They're every bit as bad as Harper himself when it comes to the threat they would glibly pose to British Columbia's coast. There is no means of cleaning up a dilbit spill. What happened in the Gulf of Mexico was a crude oil spill, not bitumen.

Everyone who imagines this is okay needs to watch this excellent report from Vice News.

http://www.vice.com/en_ca/video/watch-our-hbo-report-on-the-lasting-effects-of-the-bp-oil-spill-915

The second part is pretty good also. It is an early look at the Saudi's war in Yemen, the one Trudeau has elected to support.

Owen Gray said...

Thanks for the link, Mound. Having watched "The Big Short" on Netflix the other night, I've come to the conclusion that there can only be fraud when people are prepared to believe lies -- or to simply refuse to look at the evidence before their eyes.

When it comes to oil, fraud is everywhere.

Steve said...

The biggest lie ever told? The truth is out there? What if they told you who was really behind 911 and it was just spun as proof of the opposite? Maybe there is proof that the truth is only another tool in the toolkit.

Owen Gray said...

That's part of the myth -- spun by operatives in George W. Bush's administration -- that "we make our own truth," Steve.

Lorne said...

I think far too many people are willing to accept the balms offered for environmental despoliation, Owen. It absolves them of the responsibility of having to confront some unpleasant and harsh truths.

Similarly, in my days as a teacher, I used to think it was a huge mistake for education to take on all of the social ails besetting students today. By perpetrating the myth that schools could solve all problems (student underachievement, student dropout rates, etc.), the system allowed for the abdication of parental responsibility, ignoring the role poverty plays, etc. Such a stance thereby allowed the public to blame teachers for their collective failure to solve these problems.

Owen Gray said...

Schools used to be seen as the great erasers, Lorne. The conventional wisdom was that they could erase social problems with skill, fortitude and patience. I have to admit that, when I entered the profession, I bought into that myth. Experience taught me better.

I came to believe that education could give the less fortunate a shot at success. I still believe that. But teachers -- and the places in which they work -- can't erase all of society's ills.

Toby said...

Dilbit. Media refuses to use the word. My friends refuse to accept that Trudeau's pipes are for dilbit because what they hear everywhere is oil or, sometimes, crude. What is more frightening is that people believe all the nice ads by industry shills that tell us how safe and responsible oil producers have become.

Owen Gray said...

Easy marks, Toby. Easy marks.

the salamander said...

.. a recent Duke University peer reviewed study looked at frack site related spills .. what I found noteworthy was that the the study did not examine or critique 'non spilll' related disposal.. If the number of spills is a small percentile relative to the 'successful' fracking wastewater disposals.. the net result blows 'shocking' out the window.. its nightmare level reality .. Certainly there is a stuggle to pin down 'spill' realities.. but if the 'successful' realities are the real horror.. should we not be looking at that first ?

Anonymous said...

...in other LNG news...

"The oil giants are targeting Papua New Guinea for growth as the quality of its gas, low costs and proximity to Asia's big liquefied natural gas (LNG) consumers make it one of the few places where expansions are affordable at a time when oil and LNG prices have collapsed."

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-interoil-m-a-oil-search-idUSKCN10101R

Steve said...

I would like to see an educational criculam with some case studies on critical thinking. NAFTA vs the Auto Pact, NEP vs Exxon giveaway. Invasion of Iraq vs UN solution. etc etc etc. I came of age with Iggy, in my fifties I finaly realized that my team sucked.

Owen Gray said...

As Lorne over at Politics And Its Discontents notes, Steve, critical thinking these days is in short supply.

Owen Gray said...

They keep pushing, Anon. Danger -- and long lasting consequences -- mean nothing to them.

Owen Gray said...

One would think that only makes common sense, salamander. But it would require genuine critical thinking.