Where has all the oil gone?

-- by Horatio Algeranon

(with apologies to Pete Seeger, Where have all the flowers gone?)

Where has all the oil gone?

Long time passing

Where has all the oil gone?

Long time ago

Where has all the oil gone?

Back into the wellhead every gallon

When will you ever learn?

When will you ever learn?

Where have all the pelicans gone?

Long time passing

Where have all the pelicans gone?

Long time ago

Where have all the pelicans gone?

Gone to a better place every one

When will you ever learn?

When will you ever learn?

Where have all the sport-fish gone?

Long time passing

Where have all the sport-fish gone?

Long time ago

Where have all the sport-fish gone?

The fishermen caught them every one

When will you ever learn?

When will you ever learn?

Where have all the fishermen gone?

Long time passing

Where have all the fishermen gone?

Long time ago

Where have all the fishermen gone?

Gone to the country clubs every one

When will you ever learn?

When will you ever learn?

Where have all the (20 billion) dollars gone?

Long time passing

Where have all the dollars gone?

Long time ago

Where have all the dollars gone?

Gone to beach polishers every one

When will you ever learn?

When will you ever learn?

Where have all the beach polishers gone?

Long time passing

Where have all the surf washers gone?

Long time ago

Where have all the beach polishers gone?

Gone to the next spill every one

When will we ever learn?

When will we ever learn?

Update Aug 5:

Thanks to NOAA we already (purportedly) have an answer to the mainstream media's burning "Where has all the oil gone?" question.

Just a few days after the US government's Flow Rate Technical Group released their "latest best estimate" for the total amount of oil that the BP well has "spilled" since the blowout -- 4.9 million barrels (205.8 million gallons)*, an average of 57,000 barrels(2.4 million gallons) a day  -- NOAA is already claiming to have "figured out" where all the pieces of that "oil pie" went.  Click to see (Just kidding , sort of)  Here's the actual NOAA Oil budget pie chart, precise to the nearest percentage point!! (or so it indicates, at any rate)

* "BP's Macondo well spewed 62,000 barrels of oil a day initially, and as the reservoir gradually depleted itself, the flow eased to 53,000 barrels a day until the well was finally capped and sealed July 15, according to scientists in the Flow Rate Technical Group, supervised by the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Department of Energy. The new numbers once again have nudged upward the statistical scale of the disaster. If correct -- the government allows for a margin of error of 10 percent -- the flow rate would make this spill significantly larger than the Ixtoc I blowout of 1979, which polluted the southern Gulf of Mexico with 138 million gallons over the course of 10 months." -- Joel Achenbach and David A. Fahrenthold (Washington Post, August 3, 2010 )

NOAA chief Jane Lubchenco indicated NOAA knows the "oil pie" numbers to within about 10%. (To the uninitiated,  acknowledging "the numbers could be off by as much as 10 percent" may seem to indicate fairly substantial uncertainty, but to the contrary, a claim of "within about 10%" is actually quite good. Too good, in Horatio's humble opinion, for a case like this where there is such limited data -- on underwater oil plumes and the rest.

Horatio is in good company in questioning the latest NOAA claims (see "Not everyone believes NOAA report on remaining oil and Scientists cast doubt on claims BP spill's no threat to Gulf  and Scientists question government team's report of shrinking gulf oil spill).

"There's a lot of . . . smoke and mirrors in this [NOAA} report," said Ian MacDonald, a professor of biological oceanography at Florida State University. "It seems very reassuring, but the data aren't there to actually bear out the assurances that were made." -- Washington Post

[Incidentally, Dr. McDonald and John Amos of Sky Truth made a very early estimate of the minimum oil flow rate (26,500 barrels per day) based on satellite photos of surface oil that turned out to be much more in line with the latest estimate from the government Flow Rate Technical Group  (62,000 barrels per day) than NOAA's early (widely quoted) estimate of 5000 barrels per day (which was off by a factor of more than 12!)

But then again, why listen to a bunch of negative alarmist scientists?

Nothing to worry about folks. Most of the oil is "gone" (poof) and what remains poses no threat (especially not with "Fluffy the oil-pie-eating microbe" on the job). The oil "disaster" (if we can even call it that) was clearly "greatly overstated".**

**With the one possible exception of the (totally inconsequential) oil flow rate, which went from an initial BP value of "1000 barrels a day" to an initial NOAA estimate of "5000 barrels a day" (quoted by Coast Guard) to a final (Flow Rate Technical Group) best estimate of "62,000 barrels a day" (for flow immediately after well blowout).  But hey, what's a factor of 12 -- or even 62 -- in the flow rate, right? Why in the world would that make any difference at all? (in how one handled the oil mitigation efforts, attempts to shut down the well (eg, with top kill), eventual BP fines, etc.

Horatio can now go back to important matters like watching Sponge Bob.

Oil's Well That Ends Well

-- by Horatio Algeranon

The "Oh-well" casing failed the test

"Oil's well that ends well -- give it a rest"

The blowout-preventer is "unready and unwilling"

"Oil's well that ends well -- no chance of spilling"

The rig just blew, then disappeared

"Oil's well that ends well -- have no fear"

The pipe is leaking down below

"Oil's well that ends well -- very slow"

It's gushing from the open riser

"Oil's well that ends well -- consult with Pfizer"

Over 1 million gallons a day

"Oil's well that ends well -- just 40k"

Corexit use is a serious issue

"Oil's well that ends well -- here's a tissue"

The extent of oil-plumes is really quite great

"Oil's well that ends well -- open to debate"

You swore you wouldn't make things worse

"Oil's well that ends well -- 'risk averse' "

"Capping" could cause a catastrophic event

"Oil's well that ends well -- Heaven sent"

Since almost day one of the oil disaster, the American public has distrusted BP -- and not without good reason.

In an interview for CNN a month ago ("BP exec discusses public's lack of trust") after the failed top kill effort,  BP chief operations Officer Doug Suttles said quite categorically (at about 8:30 into the video) that BP would make no further attempt to stop the oil flow from the top, specifically to preclude the possibility of "making things worse" (in the words of Suttles)

In a nutshell, the basic concern was that if there was some "issue" with the well casing, the pressure buildup might cause the oil and gas to undermine the casing under the sea bed and find its way up to the sea-bed through the rock "formation".

To avoid any chance of that, Suttles said  "that's why we moved entirely to a containment option as opposed to an option to shut the well in until we get this relief well done" Suttles said this decision was based on information that they had obtained during the top kill attempt.

So, here we are a month later with BP and the government doing precisely what Suttles said back then that they would not do.

Needless to say, when people make 180 degree "flips" in their stance, one really has to ask "why?" and wonder whether the flip had a valid (in this case scientific/engineering) justification.

What (if anything) has changed since BP made the original assessment that led them to rule out capping the riser?

If the assessment back then was that there were potential problems with the well casing that might lead to failure if the pressure was increased due to capping, why would they nonetheless go ahead and put the cap on? (even for a "test")

Did they somehow get "better" information in the interim that "refuted" the earlier information obtained during the top kill? (Engineering problems don't normally just fix themselves, after all.)

Granted, BP's claims have not always been the same as reality ( ~@:> ), but BP has claimed that they now have the surface capability to collect and "dispose of" virtually all of the oil coming from the well (ie, so that it would not flow into the Gulf after the pipe was hooked up to the new cap, which they estimated might take a few days more of oil flowing into the Gulf), so why would they (or the government) take any chance of "making things worse"? (in the words of Suttles)

What is the detailed scientific/engineering justification for the change in assessment in this case?

The Lord of the Whinges

 -- by Horatio Algeranon 

There once was a fellow called "Mocktman" 

Who oft came across as a crocked-man*

He crowed, "I'm a Lord" 

But was largely ignored 

By the community of scientists (who mocked him).

Editor's note: "whinge" (British) as a noun means "a cry" or "a complaint" -- especially an annoying or persistent one. And a 'whinger" is basically a "whiner". It is actually pronounced "winj", but Horatio paid good money for his poetic license.

* "Viscount Monckton calls young climate activists 'Hitler Youth' "(Guardian, UK). At least one of those whom Christopher Monckton called a "Hitler Youth" is Jewish and had grandparents who had actually 'escaped the Nazis growing up in Germany'.

 
... but Horatio will let the dear reader choose which definition of "crocked" applies: 

   1. injured (UK)

   2. drunk (US and Canada)
   3. the focus of Peter Sinclair's "Climate Denial Crock of the Week"  -- twice!!, here and here (or would that be "de-crocked"? Or  perhaps just "crock-man"?) 

It's all very deep...

There once was a Lord sent a-leaping

From the armchair where he'd been sleeping

Said he "I know more"

"Than that movie by Gore"

But his "science" was scarcely in keeping. 

There once was a Lord who used graphs
Equations and more advanced maths --
He dazzled the Tonys
With all his baloneys
And sent them down dead-ended paths.

Most scientists have simply chosen to ignore or poke fun at Monckton's nonsense (and who can blame them?).

But University of St. Thomas (Minnesota) engineering professor John Abraham has produced a methodical refutation of Christopher Monckton's slide presentation, backed up with references, relevant text from the scientific papers cited by Monckton and in many cases emails from the paper authors clarifying the meaning of the papers in question.

Anyone who actually watches that Abraham presentation (which is quite devastating to Monckton's case) can see that Abraham has restricted his statements (about Monckton's claims) to the science -- ie, to that which can be supported with facts and logic.

That is the normal way that scientific disputes are settled: simply with facts and counterarguments -- with science -- not with what essentially amount to legalistic demands (for apologies, retractions, payments, etc). 

But Monckton is demanding that

"St. Thomas University, Minnesota, and John Abraham of that University, retract, apologize to Lord Monckton for, and undertake never again to repeat all or any part of, the 83-minute talk with 115 slides entitled "But Chris Monckton Said ..."

And what will Monckton do if Abraham does not comply with his demand?  One can only guess, but legal action often follows such demands when they go unmet -- and that would seem to be the underlying implication in this case.

Update July 16
 As noted at Eli Rabett's, we can see the "noble" way that "Lord" Monckton has chosen to respond to John Abraham, his University (St. Thomas) and the President thereof (Father Dennis Dease ):

From the Alex Jones show, 24 June 2010

Christopher Monckton:

"...that, on its own, would be an offense for which he would be dismissed from a real university, but then he only belongs to this half-assed Catholic Bible college" (1:10)

"...but apparently in this Bible college, lying is part of what they regard as their Christian mission..." (2:41)

"...I want you to email this creep of a President, Father Dennis J. Dease..."(08:28)

...and when listening to the above, Horatio also came across this "gem" of a comment by Monckton:

          "...I've already written to the Bishop about it, but of course, the Bishop, likewise these days is probably so busy sorting out the problems with little boys that he hasn't got time to deal with it..."(2:45)

Horatio would sum up Monckton's "classy" response thus:

The Miscount of Brenchley was rude
His religion-based insults quite crude
Said he "It's their mission"
"These sins of commission"
"And their 'Father' is one creepy dude." 

Compare the way Monckton has behaved (above) to the way John Abraham and the University of St. Thomas have behaved, as highlighted by Eli Rabett.

There was a time in the not too distant past when people like Monckton were simply dismissed without a second thought or simply laughed at.

Sadly,  today's media have almost single-handedly bestowed legitimacy on folks like Monckton -- largely as a by-product of their attempt to provide what they perceive as "balance" on all issues -- including science. 

"Balance" assumes there are equally valid alternatives, but science is not "balanced" at all, since there are right and wrong answers.

****************************

For more mockery of crockery, Horatio gives you The House of Lords Diner.

"Save Money. Live better"

-- Horatio Algeranon

"Oil spill cleanup on Isle 4" 

Boomed the speaker in the Walmart store

"Dispersant needed in Fishing & Boating"

"...And bring the polisher without doting"

"Cordon off Isles 5 and 6"

(Video Cameras & Digital Pix)

"Put up signs 'Slick here -- Go slow' " 
"Safety is Number 1, you know"

"Very impressive, I must agree"

Observed Bob Dudley from BP,

"How much to bring this to the coast?"

"A couple thousand ...at the most."

Louisiana (Reuters) - "Officials from BP Plc and Wal-Mart Stores met on Friday to study using the retail giant's technology to help clean up the Gulf oil spill, retired Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen said."

Polishing Beaches

-- by Horatio Algeranon

"Restore The Gulf" is not about speeches
But "Ponies & Balloons" and "Polish-ing Beaches".

A picture is worth a thousand words
So we must keep the focus off oiled birds

And on the beaches where children play
And northern tourists come to pay

Polishing beaches to a brilliant sheen
Free from tar balls, squeaky clean.

Bringing the beaches to a better state
From Florida to Louisiana...if it's not too late.*

*or from Bermuda, if it is.

From Beach cleaners only skimming oil off surface sand (by Jay Reeves, AP):

Mark DeVries, BP's deputy incident commander in Mobile, envisions a time when no one can tell what hit the beaches during the summer of oil. "That's our commitment — to return the beaches to the state they were before," Devries said. "We're referring to it as polishing the beaches."

So, as Paul Harvey says, "Now you know...the rest of the story" --  what "BP" really stands for: "Beach Polisher" (...just when Horatio had actually become convinced that it stood for "Balloons & Ponies")

The "Fringe"

-- by Horatio Algeranon

When the scientists
Know a lot,
The "fringe" is an
Unlikely spot.
But when the science
Is unclear,
The "fringe" is neither
Far nor near.

Generally, on subjects about which scientists know a great deal (eg, climate change), the more "fringe" the view (the further outside the mainstream scientific view), the less likely it is to correspond with reality.

On climate change, the "fringe" (at least in the scientific sense) includes those who do not believe that humans are having a significant impact on climate. They essentially ignore/deny the vast body of knowledge on the subject.

But in cases like the ongoing oil disaster where there is actually a dearth of knowledge (eg, about underwater oil and dispersant and its probable long term impacts), it's not so clear which particular ideas are "fringe".

Indeed, what does "fringe" even mean when there is no real consensus among scientists about what is happening and what the long term impacts will be (other than that "we don't know") because there is very limited data and little precedent?

While previous oil spills (eg, Exxon Valdez and Ixtoc) can provide some clue about what the future may hold, there are many differences that contribute significantly to the overall uncertainty.

Many marine scientists, ecologists, etc honestly admit that they simply do not know what is going on in the Gulf and what the probable long term impacts will be -- not least of all because more oil flows into the Gulf by the hour.

To address some of the very basic uncertainties regarding the current oil disaster, a team of top marine scientists has proposed (begged!) to actually study what is going on in the Gulf. 

What a fringe idea!

The Declaration of Corporate Independence

--by Horatio Algeranon 

(with a little help from the Founding Fathers)

     When in the course of oil drilling, it becomes necessary for one Corporation (BP) to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with The Small People, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and fundamentally un-equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of The Small People requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Persons (and that includes corporations, according to the US Supreme Court) are not created equal (and certainly not equal with pelicans and dolphins), that some are endowed by their Creator (corporate charter) with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life (Yachting), Liberty (to censor photographers, reporters, scientists and others at will) and the pursuit of Happiness ($$$). That to secure these rights, Corporations are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the Board of Directors, That whenever any Form of Government (eg, that of Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana ) becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of The Big People (BP) to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government (headquartered offshore), laying its foundation on such principles (maximizing profits and minimizing losses) and organizing its powers in such form (new coastguard rules prohibiting photographers or others from coming within 65 feet of boom, beaches or response vessels under threat of fines of $40,000 and class D felony charges), as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety (minimize future court settlements) and Happiness ($$$). Prudence (The Small People and the Big Pentagon buy our gas), indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that Corporations are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses (from the likes of Plaquemines Parish President Billy Nungesser, Louisiana coast resident Kindra Arnesen, Anderson Cooper and even Jimmy Buffett) and usurpations (Georgianne Nienaber and other photographers trying to get photos of oiled pelicans), pursuing invariably the same Object (information that might be used as evidence in future court cases) evinces a design to reduce them (The Big People) under absolute Despotism (enforcement of legal regulations that have been on the books but heretofore ignored), it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future (financial) security.

     We, therefore, the Representatives of BP plc, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world (our investors) for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the Big People of these Conglomerates (BP, Transocean and Halliburton), solemnly publish and declare, That these United Conglomerates are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent of the United States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the American Clown, and that all political connection between them and the United States, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent Corporations, they have full Power to create oil volcanoes, apply Corexit in a manner and scale as they see fit, burn sea turtles alive, contract Alliances (eg, with the Coast Guard), establish press blackouts, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent Corporations may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence (and a few well placed American judges), we mutually pledge to each other our Lives (Yachting), our Fortunes ($$$) and our sacred Honor (His Royal Heinous Tony Hayward).

Eartip to Editilla at (New Orleans Ladder)

Conspiracies all the way down

Conspiracies...

Conspiracies...

Conspiracies...

Conspiracies...

Conspiracies...  

-- by Horatio Algeranon

To a challenge of Mann's exoneration
The scientist asked on the FOX News station:

"Assume Penn State is in collusion

"Then where is the end to this grand illusion?"

"What would ever be an acceptable test?"
"On what would the latest conspiracy rest?"

Replied the Cirque du Soily clown:

"It's simply conspiracies all the way down."

Update July 4

Eli Rabett has the poop on the (latest) exoneration of climate scientist Michael Mann on all counts by the Penn State University Investigatory Committee, which, among other things, found that 

Michael E. Mann did not engage in, nor did he participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research, or other scholarly activities.

But, of course, some will never be satisfied, no matter how many times Mann (and others in the climate science community) are cleared of trumped up charges.  Believe it or not (Ripley), they actually seem to believe that all climate scientists are perpetrating a grand (all encompassing) conspiracy on the public.  

But it's difficult (if not impossible) to separate the true conspiracy theorists from those who have simply latched onto a convenient means of derailing efforts to deal with climate change (creating public doubt about the honesty of climate scientists) because their "arguments" and focus (eg, on the hacked emails) are virtually identical.

To any who may not be aware, the last phrase of the poem is is an allusion to a famous (perhaps apocryphal) story related by one of the greatest physicists since Einstein, Stephen Hawking:

A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever", said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!" (see wikipedia)

Update: July 7
'Climategate' inquiry mostly vindicates scientists:  

LONDON (AP) -- "An independent report into the leak of hundreds of e-mails from one of the world's leading climate research centers on Wednesday largely vindicated the scientists involved, saying they acted honestly and that their research was reliable." -- from  'Climategate' inquiry mostly vindicates scientists (by Raphael Satter, AP)