Five weeks later and the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is getting worse. At the same time; clean up efforts have barely begun. This is a man made environmental disaster that thwarts all others in its likely implications. Serious questions are now being asked by many Americans. Not that any answers are likely to make any difference to the dreaded facts. All attempts by BP so far to cap the oil flow have met with few hard results. The latest attempt to blow debris into the well head directly is thus far not meeting expectations. There is a risk that it could be making things much worse.
Vast quantities of Oil and gas continue to flow with some pressure to the surface of the sea floor without undue hindrance. As you can imagine, 5 weeks without due hindrance means that one heck of a lot of oil and gas have escaped to the surface. This is estimated between (BP) 5000 and (Oil Volume Experts) 70000 plus barrels of oil each and every day.
Highly toxic dispersant s may have broken down some of the oil to prevent it from floating to the surface so easily, but it appears that the dispersant s in use are highly classified. They are relatively untested, and never tested in such large quantities as have been used thus far. One thing you can guarantee though. They are bound to be deadly toxic to many species. (much like the oil they are dispersing)
As for the notion of using boons to halt the advance of any oil that may make its way to the shore via the ocean surface; it is not working. It would appear that the effective staff training on competent boon use by BP was highly exaggerated. (much like BP's impressive safety record)
For anyone still holding shares in BP, now could be a good time to sell. The likely costs associated with this mess simply boggle the mind. All these mounting costs are directly the responsibility of BP.
The implications are vast and also boggle the mind. Where now is all this oil going to be found now that deep sea oil is proving so hazardous? (assuming we still need vast quantities of oil to help run our economies)
Friday, May 28, 2010
Thursday, May 27, 2010
risk management
I may be speaking out of turn here, but this is definitely something to ponder.
It would appear from recent events that responsible risk management seems to be a difficult subject for banks to master.
As for the giant oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. A disaster such as this could theoretically never happen.
Who exactly is in charge of this risk assessment process? I only ask this question because whoever is in charge. These people need to be fired...(or at least demoted)
The dreaded truth is that only a small minority are really that interested in politics. The rest think it is kind of cool to pass on this subject and talk about something else.
The bottom line is that these people who choose to be ignorant about politics are only slightly more evolved than sheep. The world is the way it is because of politicians and the sad fact is that we elected them there.
We only have ourselves to blame for the way things are turning out.
It would appear from recent events that responsible risk management seems to be a difficult subject for banks to master.
As for the giant oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. A disaster such as this could theoretically never happen.
Who exactly is in charge of this risk assessment process? I only ask this question because whoever is in charge. These people need to be fired...(or at least demoted)
The dreaded truth is that only a small minority are really that interested in politics. The rest think it is kind of cool to pass on this subject and talk about something else.
The bottom line is that these people who choose to be ignorant about politics are only slightly more evolved than sheep. The world is the way it is because of politicians and the sad fact is that we elected them there.
We only have ourselves to blame for the way things are turning out.
Friday, May 21, 2010
disillusionment
Disillusionment is a common phenomenon on the path towards enlightenment. At least it seems that way from many Eastern scriptures. The same story is repeated over and over again. One day a king or noble person is awakened by being exposed to higher teachings. They begin to question their existence and their own personal identification with their current worldly body and worldly experiences. They start to renounce the world and the current roles expected of them by society.
After a period of time they lose this disillusionment after having become awakened again.
Alas these Eastern scriptures were written a long time ago. We have few kings today and perhaps less noble men. Disillusionment may be a relatively common phenomenon in modern time, but enlightenment?
No doubt there is no shortage of volunteers to put their hands up as qualified for the position, but perhaps the real state of enlightenment can only be imagined today. Perhaps this is a sad fact for the 21st century. All enlightened people that have inhabited this planet are now no longer physically with us.
That leaves those seeking enlightenment or peace of mind in a rather difficult predicament. Who are you going to follow? I guess this all depends on who you can trust. Politicians seem as unlikely a candidate as priests at the moment. You certainly wouldn’t trust guarantee’s by some large oil companies. I guess that leaves green movements who at least have the planets long term interests at heart.
After a period of time they lose this disillusionment after having become awakened again.
Alas these Eastern scriptures were written a long time ago. We have few kings today and perhaps less noble men. Disillusionment may be a relatively common phenomenon in modern time, but enlightenment?
No doubt there is no shortage of volunteers to put their hands up as qualified for the position, but perhaps the real state of enlightenment can only be imagined today. Perhaps this is a sad fact for the 21st century. All enlightened people that have inhabited this planet are now no longer physically with us.
That leaves those seeking enlightenment or peace of mind in a rather difficult predicament. Who are you going to follow? I guess this all depends on who you can trust. Politicians seem as unlikely a candidate as priests at the moment. You certainly wouldn’t trust guarantee’s by some large oil companies. I guess that leaves green movements who at least have the planets long term interests at heart.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Eyjafjallajökull Volcanic Eruption
Check out this SlideShare Presentation:
Eyjafjallajökull Volcanic Eruption
View more presentations from Ian McDowell.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Obama transcript on climate: Act boldly
Good morning. It's an honor for me to join this distinguished group of leaders from nations around the world. We come together here in Copenhagen because climate change poses a grave and growing danger to our people. You would not be here unless you -- like me -- were convinced that this danger is real. This is not fiction, this is science. Unchecked, climate change will pose unacceptable risks to our security, our economies and our planet. That much we know.
So the question before us is no longer the nature of the challenge -- the question is our capacity to meet it. For while the reality of climate change is not in doubt, our ability to take collective action hangs in the balance.
I believe that we can act boldly, and decisively, in the face of this common threat. And that is why I have come here today....
. . .
To conclude, we all agree on this:
2. We agree that deep cuts in global emISSIOns are required according to science, and as
documented by the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report with a view to reduce global emissions by 50
per cent in 2050 below 1990 levels, taking into account the right to equitable access to atmospheric
space. We should cooperate in achieving the peaking of global and national emissions as soon as
possible, recognizing that the time frame for peaking will be longer in developing countries and
bearing in mind that social and economic development and poverty eradication are the first and
overriding priorities of developing countries and that a low-emission development strategy is
indispensable to sustainable development.
For the full agreement in detail, you are welcome to go to:
So the question before us is no longer the nature of the challenge -- the question is our capacity to meet it. For while the reality of climate change is not in doubt, our ability to take collective action hangs in the balance.
I believe that we can act boldly, and decisively, in the face of this common threat. And that is why I have come here today....
. . .
To conclude, we all agree on this:
2. We agree that deep cuts in global emISSIOns are required according to science, and as
documented by the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report with a view to reduce global emissions by 50
per cent in 2050 below 1990 levels, taking into account the right to equitable access to atmospheric
space. We should cooperate in achieving the peaking of global and national emissions as soon as
possible, recognizing that the time frame for peaking will be longer in developing countries and
bearing in mind that social and economic development and poverty eradication are the first and
overriding priorities of developing countries and that a low-emission development strategy is
indispensable to sustainable development.
For the full agreement in detail, you are welcome to go to:
Friday, December 11, 2009
This is what is required to play safe:
It now seems clear that whatever transposes in Copenhagen; major problems are looming. The skeptics have had a field day with the recently released hacked emails from an important research agency into climate change. The mere hint that some of the data was ‘corrected’ has proven more than sufficient justification for most deniers to stick to their guns. Indeed some have gone further and are now actively claiming success. Glenn Beck from Fox news is one such denier who has taken this path. His oversized ego just can’t help himself.
This dreaded truth of denial is alarming in its likely consequences. It is entirely possible to move towards a more energy efficient future through sufficient commitment by all world governments. With sufficient research and development it is possible to mitigate runaway climate change. Unfortunately and only because of the deniers, this future is unlikely.
What is more likely is this. This is what is required to play safe:
Keep global increases within 1.5c or 350ppm.
Anything less than this is quite frankly unacceptable for most credible scientists. It is certainly unacceptable for anyone else thinking about the welfare of the planets many species.
Whatever commitments are made at Copenhagen, these commitments are dependent on a handful of greenhouse gas contributors. These same contributors are currently the world’s biggest emitters or soon will be. (not necessarily by capita)
Number 1 is the US.
Number 2 is China.
Number 3 is the EU including Russia.
Number 4 is India.
Number 5 is the rest of Asia.
Number 6 is South America.
Number 7 is Africa
Number 8 is everyone else.
Let’s not spin words here. The US has some ground to make up ever since it unwisely decided to exit out of any Kyoto Protocol negotiations. Thankfully the previous US voice of ignorance is increasingly being superseded by voices of reason.
"Climate change negotiations started over 20 years ago," he said. "This is an incremental, progressive process so if you take the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change)as a first milestone in the negotiating process, the Kyoto Protocol as the second milestone, I think that Copenhagen ought to be the third. Efforts for human kind to respond to climate change will not end in Copenhagen. They will continue. They need to continue."
This dreaded truth of denial is alarming in its likely consequences. It is entirely possible to move towards a more energy efficient future through sufficient commitment by all world governments. With sufficient research and development it is possible to mitigate runaway climate change. Unfortunately and only because of the deniers, this future is unlikely.
What is more likely is this. This is what is required to play safe:
Keep global increases within 1.5c or 350ppm.
Anything less than this is quite frankly unacceptable for most credible scientists. It is certainly unacceptable for anyone else thinking about the welfare of the planets many species.
Whatever commitments are made at Copenhagen, these commitments are dependent on a handful of greenhouse gas contributors. These same contributors are currently the world’s biggest emitters or soon will be. (not necessarily by capita)
Number 1 is the US.
Number 2 is China.
Number 3 is the EU including Russia.
Number 4 is India.
Number 5 is the rest of Asia.
Number 6 is South America.
Number 7 is Africa
Number 8 is everyone else.
Let’s not spin words here. The US has some ground to make up ever since it unwisely decided to exit out of any Kyoto Protocol negotiations. Thankfully the previous US voice of ignorance is increasingly being superseded by voices of reason.
"Climate change negotiations started over 20 years ago," he said. "This is an incremental, progressive process so if you take the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change)as a first milestone in the negotiating process, the Kyoto Protocol as the second milestone, I think that Copenhagen ought to be the third. Efforts for human kind to respond to climate change will not end in Copenhagen. They will continue. They need to continue."
Saturday, December 5, 2009
This kind of thinking is a fatal flaw.
Of late there have been several documentaries about saving energy. One such programme puts well off families in situations where they have to face the reality of having to do without.
What is quickly apparent is the general apathy and reluctance of the youth to participate with any degree of enthusiasm towards a new way of living. They have no real desire to reduce waste and move to a more sustainable lifestyle. This may be largely a result of previous apathy by their wealthy parents towards energy conservation.
The youth seem to have a strong desire to return to their old wasteful and lazy habits as soon as possible after the film crew have disappeared. There seems to be no attempt to take any issues around conservation seriously and a barely disguised wish that their parents’ recent attempts at changing their wasteful ways will become little more than a fleeting thought.
Perhaps I am being overly harsh on the youth generalisation, but I doubt it. The dreaded facts are the youth of today are at a serious disadvantage to the youth of the past. They have become accustomed to an easy life where many things about the facts of living are taken for granted. Life to them is all sugar coated and largely revolves around causal sex, friends and getting intoxicated. For everything else; you turn on the tap and water flows. After all, anything and everything that a person wants and desires is only a shop away. Of course as a youth you need money to shop successfully without undue hassles. This is where parents come in. indeed some youth would suggest that this is parent’s main purpose in life. Thankfully this rather selfish phase in youth does not normally last more than a few years unless reinforced. The rather unsettling issues surrounding working for a living or serious study soon brings the majority of youth to their senses. For the rest they soon learn that it is not always possible to get your own way and money is definitely something to be taken more seriously.
The problem is that by and large, things have been good in most developed countries for several generations. Sure there are exceptions, but on the whole this is all the youth know. This is what they have come to expect. When faced with looming problems associated with the waste of ‘good times’ there is a tendency to turn a blind eye or only make a token effort. Sacrifices may be involved and needed, but any serious sort of sacrifice will have to be made by someone else. Lifestyle is king, and any lifestyle choices that involve giving up gains such as long hot showers, plastic bags, and the convenience of supermarket shopping. (I dare not mention fast and large motor vehicles) This scenario is unlikely unless it is proven without reasonable doubt that such changes are necessary.
This kind of thinking is a fatal flaw. By the time any such doubt is removed, any hope of actually solving looming problems will be too little and far too late.
What is quickly apparent is the general apathy and reluctance of the youth to participate with any degree of enthusiasm towards a new way of living. They have no real desire to reduce waste and move to a more sustainable lifestyle. This may be largely a result of previous apathy by their wealthy parents towards energy conservation.
The youth seem to have a strong desire to return to their old wasteful and lazy habits as soon as possible after the film crew have disappeared. There seems to be no attempt to take any issues around conservation seriously and a barely disguised wish that their parents’ recent attempts at changing their wasteful ways will become little more than a fleeting thought.
Perhaps I am being overly harsh on the youth generalisation, but I doubt it. The dreaded facts are the youth of today are at a serious disadvantage to the youth of the past. They have become accustomed to an easy life where many things about the facts of living are taken for granted. Life to them is all sugar coated and largely revolves around causal sex, friends and getting intoxicated. For everything else; you turn on the tap and water flows. After all, anything and everything that a person wants and desires is only a shop away. Of course as a youth you need money to shop successfully without undue hassles. This is where parents come in. indeed some youth would suggest that this is parent’s main purpose in life. Thankfully this rather selfish phase in youth does not normally last more than a few years unless reinforced. The rather unsettling issues surrounding working for a living or serious study soon brings the majority of youth to their senses. For the rest they soon learn that it is not always possible to get your own way and money is definitely something to be taken more seriously.
The problem is that by and large, things have been good in most developed countries for several generations. Sure there are exceptions, but on the whole this is all the youth know. This is what they have come to expect. When faced with looming problems associated with the waste of ‘good times’ there is a tendency to turn a blind eye or only make a token effort. Sacrifices may be involved and needed, but any serious sort of sacrifice will have to be made by someone else. Lifestyle is king, and any lifestyle choices that involve giving up gains such as long hot showers, plastic bags, and the convenience of supermarket shopping. (I dare not mention fast and large motor vehicles) This scenario is unlikely unless it is proven without reasonable doubt that such changes are necessary.
This kind of thinking is a fatal flaw. By the time any such doubt is removed, any hope of actually solving looming problems will be too little and far too late.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)