I. The Acidification of the Oceans Fr. Seán McDonagh, SSC December 6, 2010

I. The Acidification of the Oceans

Fr. Seán McDonagh, SSC

The wonder of the oceans

The oceans have a very special place in the story of the Universe. To many of us, they are just there and seem ordinary and common place. But we can truly appreciate their significance when we view them as a special aspect of the unfolding of the universe itself. As far as we know, liquid water is found nowhere else in the Universe. Water vapor and ice has been found on other planets, but only on planet Earth have the oceans been created and maintained in their liquid form for four billion years. Oceans were probably on the Red planet (Mars), but they have long since vanished. Oceans cover three-quarters of the entire surface of the planet.

Furthermore, the oceans are the womb of life. For almost 2 billion years, bacteria were the only forms of life on earth. During the first billion years, the blue-green algae learned how to take hydrogen from the oceans and to release oxygen into Earth’s carbon-dominated atmosphere. This was the beginning of photosynthesis. The oceans are home to the largest creature on the planet – the blue whale – and also the largest living entity on the planet – the Great Barrier Reef, which is located off the Eastern coast of Australia.

The oceans also pay a vital role in climate, somewhat like the Earth’s lungs and circulatory system – by generating oxygen, absorbing carbon dioxide and regulating climate and temperature.  The oceans have absorbed 80% of the heat which has been added to the climate system and nearly 50% of all the CO2 which has been added to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel during the past 250 years, since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

More serious disruption than sea-level rising

Many people are now aware that the increased levels of CO₂in the atmosphere are warming the planet and thus contributing to the rise in the ocean levels through thermal expansion and through melting glaciers in the Antarctic and Greenland. This will have a profound effect on how humans live in the future as more than 50% of the human population lives in 183 coastal countries, including 44 small island nations whose very future as countries is in the balance as ocean-levels rise.

But something else is also happening about which few people are aware. About one quarter to one third of the CO₂ ends up in the oceans, where it dissolves to form carbonic acid, and then dissociates into bicarbonate and hydrogen ions. The more hydrogen ions there are in the water, the lower its pH is. In other words, it is more acidic. Furthermore, the excess of hydrogen ions react with, and eliminate carbonate ions, which are necessary for the formation of calcium carbonate skeletons and shell production in many species of marine organisms. Scientists have found that there are less carbonate ions in the ocean now than at any other time in the past 800,000 years.

Normally the surface waters of the oceans are slightly alkaline with a pH greater than 7. However, because they are absorbing more CO₂, the oceans are about 30% less alkaline today than they were before the industrial revolution. The consequences of this are very significant and worrying on a number of fronts. Less alkaline water reduces the availability in seawater of carbonate minerals such as calcite and aragonite. These minerals are important in the formation of corals, shellfish, marine plankton and fish skeletons. The physiology, development and even survival of these creatures are thereby threatened.

During my years in the Philippines, I enjoyed regularly snorkeling in coral reefs. I also became aware of the importance of corals for marine life and the people who fished the reefs. Over the years, I began to learn something about the extraordinary biological diversity in coral reefs. Studies have shown that that at least one quarter of the biodiversity of the oceans are found in coral reefs. Because of their wealth in species, coral reefs they are often referred to as the rainforests of the ocean.

They are very important for humans also. It is estimated that world-wide, 500 million people depend on corals reefs for coastal protection, food, tourism and other forms of income. Economists estimate that reefs and their products are worth between US$30 and $172 billion per annum. In Hawaii alone, for example, the tourism generated by the coral reefs brings in US $364 million per annum.

This is all under threat from ocean acidification. Since 1990, skeletal growth on the Great Barrier Reef off the east coast of Australia was down by 14%. This is the largest stunted growth level in the past 400 years. In an increasingly acidic ocean, coral reefs will decline and may even become extinct.[1] It is estimated that 4,000 species of fish depend on coral reefs. Reefs are marine nurseries, providing food, shelter and a safe haven from predators. The dwindling corals are already impacting on a number of species of fish, leading to the extinction of some species.

Pteropods

Pteropods are tiny swimming sea snails which are abundant in the oceans. There are often thousands of individual snails per cubic metre.[2] They are an important element in the marine food chain as they form the diet of zooplankton, salmon, herring, and baleen whales. The question is will they thrive in increasingly acidic oceans because their calcium carbonate shells may not develop properly. Some predict that as early as 2050; pteropods may be unable to form shells which would threaten their own survival and the species which depend on them.[3]

Other species will benefit from higher levels of carbon dioxide in the oceans. The problem is that these species are currently seen as nuisance or weedy species. Top of the list are jellyfish. Scientists are not clear yet whether the increased prevalence of jellyfish is as a direct result of ocean acidification. Jellyfish blooms could have a disastrous impact on other species and on the oceans in general. They also will impact on tourism, as no one likes to be stung by a jellyfish while swimming in the ocean.

If the oceans become more acidic there will be a serious decline in biodiversity, thereby affecting a whole raft of species, including humankind as the oceans are less able to supply us with food. Reducing GHG gas emissions, especially CO₂ is not just important in tackling climate change, it is also necessary if we want to protect the fruitfulness of our oceans on which we all depend.

The oceans do not figure prominently in our Judeo-Christian tradition about the oceans, mainly because the Israelites were not a sea-faring nation. In many ways the oceans were perceived as dark danger, mysterious and dangerous places.  At the beginning of the Book of Genesis (1: 1-2) we find God’s spirit hovering over ‘the void’ and ‘the deep’.  The author of the  Book of Genesis reworks the Babylonian creation myth Enuma Elish which describes how the gods  brought order out of the original chaos. The author of Genesis did not need a pantheon of gods and goddesses to achieve his goal. For him God had the power to tame the elements, especially the unpredictable oceans. This taming the oceans is found in  many passages in the Hebrew scriptures.  In the book of Job God asks Job:

Who pent up the sea behind closed doors when it

leaped tumultuous out of the womb,

when I wrapped it in a  robe of mist –

and made black clouds its swaddling bands;

when I marked the bounds it was not to cross

and made it fast with a bolted gate.

Come thus far and not farther;

Here your proud waves will break (Job 38: 8 – 11).

The fearsome nature of the ocean and the dangers facing seafarers riding in fragile boats is described in graphic terms in Ps. 107: 25 to 27).

He spoke and raised a gale, lashing up towering waves

Flung to the sky, then plunged to the depths, the lost

Their nerve in the ordeal, staggering like drunkards

With all their seamanship adrift.

There are also positive reference to the oceans in the Bible.  In Ps. 69:34, “the oceans and all that move in them are called to praise God.

 

As Christians living in a world where the oceans are under threat from human activity, we need to develop this positive strand in the biblical teaching in order to reshape a theology of the oceans which will help us to protect the seas in our modern world.

We have much to learn from other traditions. Writing in this paper (December 26^th 2010), John Battle describes some elements in the theology of Bishop Winston Halapua who was born in Tonga and now lives in Fiji.  Battle wrote, “his theology of the centrality of the oceans, called Theo-moana’ (moana is the ancient Polynesian word for ocean). He uses the concept God-ocean to insist on the dynamic interconnectedness and engagement of life as a whole.[4] In his book Waves of God’s Embrace: Sacred Perspectives from the Ocean the bishop shapes his theology by reflecting on five ocean values – hospitality, identity, unity in diversity, sharing stories and sharing gifts. Such a theology has a universal resonance in our contemporary world.

 

 

 

---

[1] Hoegh-Gudberg, O …et all (2007) Coral reefs under rapid climate change and ocean acidification. Science, 318 (5857); 1737-1742.

[2] Doney, S., Fabry, V. Feely, R., Kleypas, J. (2009) Ocean Acidification: The Other CO2 Problem, Annual Review of Marine Science, 1:169-92

 

[3] Orr, J.C., et al. (2005) Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the twenty-first century and the impact on calcifying organisms, Nature, 437-:681-686.

[4] John Battle, “We must place the oceans in the centre of our  plans,” The Universe, December 26^th 2010, page 29.

Smart politicians led astray by oil industries’ lobbying? Fr. Seán McDonagh, (June 25, 2010) (3rd articles on Deepwater Horizon)

Not even his most bitter enemy would call President Barack Obama a stupid person.  Nevertheless, three weeks before the Deepwater Horizon accident the President made a stupid mistake when he announced  plans to  open huge tracks of the ocean for oil exploration.  He was willing to consider exploration in very sensitive marine ecosystems which were considered off-limits for both Republican and Democratic presidents in the past.  Environmental groups were up in arms about the announcement and felt bitterly betrayed by the president who had made campaign promises not to allow drilling in either sensitive or dangerous marine environments.

The  administration’s claims that the president  had studied the  matter extensively and had weighed up the risk before allowing drilling in deep water areas, was blown out of the water by the April 20^th 2010 oil gusher under Deepwater Horizon.  To Obama’s embarrassment, the administration did not question  the assertions about the safety of deep water ocean drilling which were coming from the oil companies.  The well-known weaknesses of the blowout preventer technology, and especially the safety issues surrounding the blind shear ram, were not investigated by the Obama administration, before he gave the go ahead for more extensive drilling.  The excuse given by Mr. Hayes, the Deputy Interior Secretary, was that the record of the companies was impeccable and that the oil industry had “terrific technology.”[1] Mr. Hayes pointed the finger of blame at everyone including   environmentalists, when he said that,  “we were not being drawn by anybody to a potential issue with deepwater drilling or blowout preventers.”[2] He went on to attack the Minerals Management Service for not making their findings known to the administration.

Plans to deal with a large scale oil disaster were as chaotic and incompetent as the plans to prevent the spill in the first place.  BP’s spill plan for the Gulf which runs to 582 pages was full of errors and false assumptions.  The document argues that even if the oil spill was much worse than the one  which began on April 20^th 2010, the oil would not reach the shore because the drilling operations were much too far from the land. “Due to the distance to shore (48 miles) and the response capabilities that would be implemented, no significant adverse impacts are expected.”[3] By early June 2010 the oil had already reached the shore and was contaminating sensitive wetlands in Louisiana.  Images of pelicans, immobilized by the back goo of oil that coated their bodies were broadcast right around the world.  Tar balls from the spill have appeared on beaches as far away as Florida and Alabama.  As a result of this contamination, the livelihood of thousands of fishermen and people employed by the tourist industry has been destroyed.

BP’s plan to deal with the spill involved getting equipment from a company called “Marine Spill Response Corp.”  On examination, the website listed from the company had links instead to a defunct Japanese-language webpage. The document also claimed that in the event of a spill, BP could hire enough vessels to retrieve 20 million barrels from the sea each day. This widely optimistic prediction, unfortunately, proved to be totally untrue.  Most bizarre of all, among the people listed to be contacted in case of an emergency, was Bob Lutz.  His professional address was at the University of Miami. It turned out that Bob Lutz had left the University of Miami twenty years ago, to head up a department of marine biology in Boca Raton. He died five years ago.

In the wake of the Deepwater Horizon disaster the Obama administration has come up with a long list of changes, most of which had been called for in the various studies carried out in 2002 and 2004. A culture of light-touch regulation which seemed to characterise the government’s approach to banks, corporations, and oil companies is to be replaced by much more robust regulations and effective monitoring systems.   In future, all blowout preventers must be equipped with two blind shear rams. Instead of taking the oil industry’s word, government inspectors must now be present to verify that the tests on the blowout preventers are positive.

---

[1] www.nytimes.com, David Barstow, Laura Dodd, James Glanz, Stephanie Saul and Ian Urbina, “Failure of Rig’s Last Line of Defense Tied Myriad Factors,” New York Times, June 20^th 2010, downloaded on June 20^th 2010.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Andrew Clark and AP, “Contingency plan for dealing with oil spill was full of errors,” The Guardian, June 10^th 2010, page 7.

Eyes as much on the November election as on the oil slick in the Gulf of Mexico. (7th article on the Deepwater Horizon tragedy) Fr. Seán McDonagh,

With their eyes as much on the outcome of the mid-term elections in November, the U.S. many members of Congress also began to be quite vocal about the ecological disaster and how to hold ‘big’ accountable. In early June, Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House of Representatives, met with the chairperson of seven committees in order to coordinate their to ‘big oil.’  She promised to bring legislation to the House by mid-August designed to address the causes and consequences of oil drilling disasters. [1]

On June 17^th 2010, Tony Hayward faced a grilling from members of the House of Representatives committee on energy and commerce.  In the days before the Hayward’s appearance, the media began to present the event in terms of an OK Corral shoot-out between the congress men and women and Tony Hayward, the chief executive of BP, who at that point was the most hated man in the U.S. The encounter did not live up to its bidding, principally because Hayward was coached by his legal and media team and gave very little away.  Hayward’s ploy to begin with a contrite statement about how he was personally “devastated” by the loss of life was brushed aside by the committee. [2]

But despite numerous robust attempts to get Hayward to answers to specific questions, he gave away very little information.  The chair of the energy and commerce committee, Henry Waxman  prefaced his question to Hayward by saying, “It appears to me (him) that BP knowingly risked well failure to save a few million  dollars. Don’t feel any responsibility for those decisions?”[3] Hayward’s response was evasive. While admitting that, “I feel a great deal of responsibility for the accident,” he went on to state that, “ I am not prepared to draw conclusions about this accident until such times as this investigation is complete.” On being pressed for a clearer answer,  he replied, “ I simply was not involved in the decision-making process,” and, “ I haven’t drawn conclusions.”

Some members concentrated on the problems with the design of the Macondo well. Committee  member Bart Stupak wanted to know whether at BP cut corners to save money and time, Hayward claimed that, since he because CEO in 2007, safety was his top priority. This claim was treated with derision. Waxman said that after reviewing 30,000 pages of documents from BP, “we could find no evidence that you paid any attention to the tremendous risks” (at the Macondo oil well).  Hayward claimed that he had no direct involvement with the well and gave the familiar reply, “ I was not involved in the decision so it’s impossible for me to answer the questions.”[4]

Other committee members focused on the fact that BP had overruled the subcontractors, including Halliburton in terms of the  design of the well. These companies wanted a much more cautious design with more equipment to keep the drill pipe in place. Hayward refused to accept that the “long string” technology which BP opted for was dictated by cost alone or that the technology was inherently unsafe. It went on and on with Hayward conceding little.

There was comic moment when the Republic congressman from Texas, Joe L. Barton, true to his libertarian values of small government, apologised to Tony Hayward for what he called the $20 billion “shakedown” which President inflicted on BP to cover the costs of the clean-up and job losses in the Gulf States. What followed had a farcical   Laurel and Hardy ring to it, except for the fact that the issues are so serious. Barton was summoned by the House Republican leader, John A. Boehner and the Republican whip Eric Cantor and was told “apologize immediately or he would lose his spot immediately.” [5] That evening Mr. Barton apologized for “using the term ‘shakedown’” to describe the $20 billion escrow account which  BP had pledged to the President the previous day. He also retracted his apology to BP saying that the company should “bear the full financial responsibility for the accident on their lease in the Gulf of Mexico on April 20^th and fully compensate those families and businesses that have been hurt.”[6]

---

[1] Andrew Clark, “Congress turns up pressure on BP as US anger grows,” The Guardian, June 10^th 2010, page 6.

[2] Suzanne Goldenberg, “ ‘I don’t recall’: stonewalling BP chief leaves Congress inflamed,” The Guardian, June 18^th 2010, pages 6 and 7.

[3] Ibid.

[4] ibid

[5] Jackie Calmes, “Republican, Under Pressure, Backpedals From Apology to BP,” New York Times, June 17^th 2010. www.nytimes.com June 17^th 2010. (downloaded on June 18^th 2010).

[6] Ibid.

How to Make a Political Football out of a Massive Environmental Disaster? (5th article on Deepwater Horizon). Fr. Seán McDonagh, SSC

In Act 2, scene 7 of Shakespeare’s play,  As You Like it, Jaques tells the audience that, “All the world’s a stage.”  Shakespearean scholars tell us that the theatrical metaphor was a cliché, even in Shakespeare’s time.  In the play Jacques tries to give the metaphor a bit more depth by linking it to the Seven Ages of Man. In contrast, the way the various actors have dealt with the Deepwater Horizon oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico has been nakedly political and even hypocritical.

The Deepwater Horizon disaster created a particular problem for President Barack Obama. As I wrote in a previous article, three weeks before the accident the President had cleared the way for deep sea exploration off the U.S. coast. At the very least, this decision was embarrassing, as it emerged that his advisors were completely unaware of the serious dangers involved in deep sea exploration.

Though the President did visit the Gulf Coast within days of the tragedy, it was obvious to everyone that, despite his exalted political office and the wonders of modern technology, there was very little he could do about capping the ruptured well.  In fact, he was completely dependent on BP and other companies in the  private sector  to achieve this goal.  As the oil continued to gush out from the ocean floor in quantities much larger than originally predicted and reach land in Louisiana, there was a distinct danger of a nasty back lash against the president.

Though the facts do not support the judgement, commentators were beginning to make the comparison between President Obama’s response to loss of life and widespread pollution in the Gulf of Mexico with President George W Bush’s lackadaisical response to Hurricane Katrina when it slammed into the Gulf Coast and New Orleans in 2005.

By mid-June tempers were fraying right across the Gulf of Mexico from Louisiana to Florida and much of the anger was being focused on BP. Anti-British sentiments  emerged in the local media and at rallies staged by those most affected by the worst ecological disaster in U.S. history. Public boycotts of BP’s stations were organised across many states and sales dropped by more than 25% in May 2010.  Bumper stickers proclaiming “BP sucks” appeared on many vehicles and many called on President Obama to stand up more resolutely to BP.[1] Some suggested that President Obama was soft on BP because it had contributed to his election campaign.

In an effort to deflect this unfair criticism President Obama subtly lent his voice to the anti-British campaign by referring to the company as British Petroleum even though the company had dropped that name some years ago.  On NBC’s Today Show President Obama insisted that he was not being differential to BP. His phrase “….so I know whose ass to kick” made banner headlines right across the world. Putting tar and feathers on a ‘foreign’ country may play to a particular constituency in the U.S and portray President Obama as a strong and fearless leader who is in control of the situation, but Obama knows that BP is a giant multi-national company which employs hundreds of people in the U.S. Some of the people who  vented their anger at BP, including state and federal employees, would be surprised to learn that a significant percentage of their pension fund is invested in BP. In fact, 40% of BP’s dividend is paid to U.S, investors.[2] A fall in BP’s share price will have a major impact on their pensions.

Making a scapegoat out of BP also deflects the spotlight away from other U.S. companies which were also involved in the Deepwater Horizon disaster.  Only 8 out of the 126 people who were on the rig when the blow-out took place were directly employed by BP. The rig was owned and operated by a U.S. company called Transocean. The blowout preventer technology was manufactured by a U.S. company, Cameron and the cement which was supposed to cap the well came from Halliburton. Dick Cheney, the former vice-president worked for that company.

The anti-British rhetoric played out quite differently on the other side of the Atlantic.  Lord Tebbit, accused President Obama of “displaying a ‘despicable’ attitude.”  Next week I will reflect on the pressure which the disaster has put on the ‘special’ relationship which is supposed to exist between the U.S. and Britain.

---

[1] Suzanne Goldenberg, Paul Harris, Julia Kollewe, Anushka Asthana, Jamie Doward, “Tide of anger may turn an ecological tragedy into a political nightmare,” The Observer, June 13, 2010, pages 28 and 29.

[2] ibid

A disaster which could have been prevented. Fr. Seán McDonagh, (June 24, 2010) (2nd Article on Deepwater Horizon)

Last week I wrote about the cavalier approach to technology which led to the loss of human life and destruction of the environment in the wake of the blowout on the Deepwater Horizon rig in the Gulf of Mexico.  Those in the oil exploration industry were well aware that blowout prevention technologies did not work on a number of previous occasions.  These include an extensive oil spill at Ixtoc off the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico 31 years ago. In 1990, a blind shear ram failed to prevent a blowout on a rig off the coast of Texas.

A company called West Engineering Services of Brookshire, with its head office in Texas, is recognized as a world-authority on blowout preventers.  It conducted two studies, one in 2002 and a second in 2004.  These studies revealed more basic problems with blowout preventers.  Firstly, modern drill pipes are twice as thick as older pipes.  Secondly, drilling at deeper locations in the oceans where the water is extremely cold makes it more difficult cut pipes and shut off the well.  They calculated that these added pressures “demanded hundreds of thousands of additional pounds of cutting force.”[1] Whether through negligence, or simply cutting corners, the studies found that seven out of the fourteen blind shear rams had never been checked to see if they can function properly in deep water.  Only three of those operated successfully in the deep ocean.  Despite this dismal record, the oil companies were lobbying that routine checks on the blowout prevention technology which were supposed to be carried out every fourteen days should now only be preformed every thirty five day.   Their rationale was money.  The oil companies estimated that they would save $193 million each year if the routine checks were only performed every thirty five days.

The blame for the blowout at the Deepwater Horizon rig should not fall exclusively on the shoulders of BP or Transocean, even though they knew about the limitations  of the blowout preventers. The U.S. government agencies, especially the Minerals Management Service were aware of the vulnerability of the blowout preventers.  In fact, they helped pay for the two studies quoted above which raised doubts about the ability of the blind shear ram to work effectively in the deep ocean. [2] When BP applied for a licence to drill the Macondo well, the Minerals Management Service approved the licence without getting any guarantee from the company that the blowout preventer could shear the pipe and seal the well at a depth of 5,000 feet.  The agency’s deference to the demands of the oil industry was mind boggling according to Captain Hung M.Nyugen, who co-chaired the Coast Guard enquiry into the disaster.  On hearing testimony from officials of the Minerals Management Service he stated that, the  blowout preventer technology is “designed to industry standards, manufactured by industry, installed by industry, with no government witnessing oversight of the construction.”[3] The Minerals Management Service was warned in 2001, just as Deepwater Horizon was been fitted out, not to allow deepwater rigs to operate with only a single blind sear ram.  In 2005, when Deepwater Horizon was thoroughly checked, several problems were found with the blowout preventer.

The Macondo well is one of the largest oil wells in the Gulf of Mexico. Technicians working on the rig complained that they had to deal with faulty drilling pipes and broken tools.[4] Specific jobs fell weeks behind schedule and this cost BP dearly.  In April 2010, when BP set about capping the well for later production, the company did not bother to run a test on the quality of cement to be used in capping the well because it cost $128,000. At the House Energy and Commerce Committee hearings in mid-June, the  chairman ,Representative Henry A Waxman said that decisions taken to spare BP time and money raised the risk of catastrophe, “BP has cut corner after corner to save $1 million here, a few hours or days there, and now the whole Gulf Coast is paying the price.” [5] If the regulator saw no problem with the decisions being taken some of the personnel on the rig were concerned about the risky nature of the decisions been taken. The chief mechanic on the rig, Douglas Brown recalled an acrimonious exchange between a BP official and a senior Transocean manager two hours before the explosion. More next week.

---

[1] www.nytimes.com, David Barstow, Laura Dodd, James Glanz, Stephanie Saul and Ian Urbina, “Failure of Rig’s Last Line of Defense Tied Myriad Factors,” New York Times, June 20^th 2010, downloaded on June 20^th 2010.

[2] Ibid.

[3] ibid

[4] Ibid

[5] Ibid

Salvation through Technology First article on Deepwater Horizon disaster June 24, 2010 Fr. Seán McDonagh, SSC

Salvation through Technology

First article on Deepwater Horizon disaster

June 24, 2010

Fr. Seán McDonagh, SSC

In Psalm 124: 8, Christians and Jews proclaim, “Our Help is in the name of the Lord, who made Heaven and Earth.”  On the night of April 20, 2010, it would appear that an overly robust belief in the power of technology coupled with cost-cutting measures led to what President Barak Obama has described as the worst environmental catastrophe in the history of the United States.

That night, when an oil gusher suddenly burst out of the Macondo oil well and ripped through the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico, the crew knew they were in deep trouble. They knew they had few options open to them since they were drilling at a depth of 5,000 feet.  The last line of defence was an instrument called “the blind shear ram.”  This piece of technology was developed to be used when a dreaded blowout took place.  The idea was that the two blades of the shear ram would slice through the drill pipe and seal the well. Unfortunately, though he blades came tantalising close to each other, the shear ram did not work.  Engineers sent robotic submersibles to the floor of the ocean in an effort to prod the blades to inch closer to each other and seal the well. These attempts also failed. Engineers surmise that the reason the shear ram did not work was that hydraulic fluid had leaked from the machine and deprived it of its cutting power.  The failure of this piece of technology led to the death of 11 people, injuries to many more and the pollution of vast areas of the Gulf of Mexico. This has devastated sensitive  ecosystems, killed or injured vast numbers of birds and marine creatures and terminated the livelihood of tens of thousands of people, who whether they were fishermen or working in the tourist industry, depended on the ocean for their financial well-being.

The finger of blame for this disaster is being pointed at the three companies involved in the drilling: BP, Transocean and Cameron (the company that designed the blowout preventer), and the Mineral Management Service (the agency that is supposed to manager and monitor offshore drilling[1]).  Transocean accused BP, as rig operator, of having determined the blowout preventer’s configuration. BP responded by saying that it was a collaborative decision which was driven by “the contractor preference and operators requirements.”[2]

A report written in the year 2000 and seen by the New York Times investigative team concluded that “the greatest vulnerability by far on the entire blowout preventer was one of the small shuttle valves leading to the blind shear ram. If this valve jammed or leaked,” the report warned, “the ram’s blades would not budge.”[3] In order to not be completely dependent on a single blind shear ram, as was the case with the disastrous consequences on the Deepwater Horizon platform, many other exploration rigs were equipped with two blind shear rams.  Transocean, the largest offshore drilling company in the world, bought Deepwater Horizon in 2001.  Although 11out of their 14rigs operating in the Gulf of Mexico are equipped with two blind shear rams, the company decided not to install a second blind shear ram on Deepwater Horizon.  As of the time of publication of this article, BP and Transocean are blaming each other for not installing the second blind shear ram.

Many people in the oil exploration industry were aware that the current exploration technology, particularly when operating in very deep parts of the ocean, is often unsafe.  In 2009, Transocean commissioned a study of the reliability of blowout preventers used by deepwater rigs.  This study, red-marked as “strictly confidential,” found that blowout preventer technology had failed in a staggering 45 percent of the cases studied.  A draft of another industry-financed study obtained  by  The New York Times concluded that exploration companies had cut corners on a variety of tests that federal agencies require  before issuing a license granting exploration.  According to the New York Times’ article, the culture of the industry is to downplay dangers, and often the industry did the minimum necessary to obtain a passing result.[4] I will return to this topic next week.

A Disaster That Could Have Been Prevented

Second article on Deepwater Horizon disaster

June 24, 2010

Fr. Seán McDonagh, SSC

Last week I wrote about the cavalier approach to technology that led to the loss of human life and destruction of the environment in the wake of the blowout on the Deepwater Horizon rig in the Gulf of Mexico.  Those in the oil exploration industry were well aware that blowout prevention technologies did not work on a number of previous occasions.  Some examples include an extensive oil spill at Ixtoc off the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico 31 years ago and a blowout due to failure of a blind shear ram on a rig off the coast of Texas in 1990.

A company called West Engineering Services of Brookshire, with its head office in Texas, is recognized as a world-authority on blowout preventers.  It conducted two studies, one in 2002 and a second in 2004.  These studies revealed more basic problems with blowout preventers.   Firstly, modern drill pipes are twice as thick as older pipes.  Secondly, drilling at deeper locations in the oceans where the water is extremely cold makes it more difficult to cut pipes and shut off the wells.  They calculated that these added pressures “demanded hundreds of thousands of additional pounds of cutting force.”[5] Whether through negligence or simply cutting corners, the studies found that seven out of the 14 blind shear rams had never been checked for proper functionality in deep water.  Only three of those seven unchecked rams operated successfully in the deep ocean.  Despite this dismal record, the oil companies were lobbying that routine checks on the blowout prevention technology—which were supposed to be carried out every 14 days—should now be performed only once every 35 days.   Their rationale was money.  The oil companies estimated that they would save $193 million each year if the routine checks were performed only every 35 days.

The blame for the blowout at the Deepwater Horizon rig should not fall exclusively on the shoulders of BP or Transocean, even though they knew about the limitations of the blowout preventers.  U.S. government agencies, particularly the Minerals Management Service, were aware of the vulnerability of the blowout preventers.  In fact, they helped pay for the two studies referenced above which raised doubts about the ability of the blind shear ram to work effectively in the deep ocean.[6] When BP applied for a licence to drill the Macondo well, the Minerals Management Service approved the licence without getting any guarantee from BP that the blowout preventer could shear the pipe and seal the well at a depth of 5,000 feet.  According to Captain Hung M. Nyugen, the Coast Guard’s co-chair of the disaster inquiries, the agency’s deference to the demands of the oil industry was mind boggling.  On hearing testimony from officials of the Minerals Management Service, he stated that the blowout preventer technology is “designed to industry standards, manufactured by industry, installed by industry, with no government witnessing oversight of the construction.”[7] In 2001, the Minerals Management Service, like Deepwater Horizon, was warned not to allow deepwater rigs to operate with only a single blind shear ram.  In 2005, when Deepwater Horizon was thoroughly checked, several problems were found with the blowout preventer.

The Macondo well is one of the largest oil wells in the Gulf of Mexico. Technicians working on the rig complained that they had to deal with faulty drilling pipes and broken tools.[8] Specific jobs fell weeks behind schedule, and this cost BP dearly.  In April 2010, when BP set about capping the well for later production, the company chose to not run a test on the quality of cement to be used in capping the well due to its cost of $128,000.  At the House Energy and Commerce Committee hearings in mid June, the chairman, Representative Henry A. Waxman, said that decisions taken to spare BP time and money raised the risk of catastrophe.  He said, “BP has cut corner after corner to save a million here, a few hours or days there, and now the whole Gulf Coast is paying the price.”[9] Even if the regulator had had no problems with the decisions being made, some of the personnel on the rig were concerned about the risky nature of some of the decisions.  The chief mechanic on the rig, Douglas Brown, recalled an acrimonious exchange between a BP official and a senior Transocean manager two hours before the explosion.  More next week.

Smart Politicians Led Astray by Oil Industries’ Lobbying?

Third article on Deepwater Horizon disaster

June 25, 2010

Fr. Seán McDonagh, SSC

Not even his most bitter enemy would call President Barack Obama a stupid person.  Nevertheless, three weeks before the Deepwater Horizon accident the President made a stupid mistake when he announced plans to open huge tracks of the ocean for oil exploration.  He was willing to consider exploration in very sensitive marine ecosystems that were considered off-limits for both Republican and Democratic presidents in the past.  Environmental groups were up in arms about the announcement and felt bitterly betrayed by the president who had made campaign promises not to allow drilling in either sensitive or dangerous marine environments.

The  administration’s claims that the president  had studied the  matter extensively and had weighed the risks before allowing drilling in deep water areas was blown out of the water by the April 20, 2010 oil gusher under Deepwater Horizon.  To Obama’s embarrassment, the administration did not question the assertions about the safety of deep water ocean drilling that were coming from the oil companies.  The well known weaknesses of the blowout preventer technology, and especially the safety issues surrounding the blind shear ram, were not investigated by the Obama administration before he gave the go-ahead for more extensive drilling.  The excuse given by Mr. Hayes, the Deputy Interior Secretary, was that the record of the companies was impeccable and the oil industry had “terrific technology.”[10] Mr. Hayes pointed the finger of blame at everyone—including environmentalists—when he said, “we were not being drawn by anybody to a potential issue with deepwater drilling or blowout preventers.”[11] He went on to attack the Minerals Management Service for not making their findings known to the administration.

Plans to deal with a large scale oil disaster were as chaotic and incompetent as the plans to prevent the spill in the first place.  BP’s spill plan for the Gulf, totalling 582 pages, was full of errors and false assumptions.  The document argues that even if the oil spill was much worse than the one that began on April 20, 2010, the oil would not reach the shore because the drilling operations were much too far from the land.  “Due to the distance to shore (48 miles) and the response capabilities that would be implemented, no significant adverse impacts are expected.”[12] By early June 2010, the oil had already reached the shore and was contaminating sensitive wetlands in Louisiana.  Images of pelicans immobilized by the back goo of oil that coated their bodies were broadcast around the world.  Tar balls from the spill have appeared on beaches as far away as Florida and Alabama.  As a result of this contamination, the livelihoods of thousands of fishermen and people employed by the tourist industry have been destroyed.

BP’s plan to deal with the spill involved getting equipment from a company called “Marine Spill Response Corp.”  On examination, the link to the company’s website linked instead to a defunct Japanese-language webpage.  The document also claimed that in the event of a spill, BP could hire enough vessels to retrieve 20 million barrels from the sea each day. This widely optimistic prediction, unfortunately, proved to be completely untrue.  Most bizarre of all, among the people listed to be contacted in case of an emergency was Bob Lutz.  His professional address was at the University of Miami.  It turns out that Bob Lutz had left the University of Miami twenty years ago to head up a department of marine biology in Boca Raton. He died five years ago.

In the wake of the Deepwater Horizon disaster, the Obama administration has ordered a long list of changes, most of which had been called for previously in the various studies carried out in 2002 and 2004.  A culture of light-touch regulation that seemed to characterise the government’s approach to banks, corporations and oil companies is to be replaced by much more robust regulations and effective monitoring systems.   In the future, all blowout preventers must be equipped with two blind shear rams.  Instead of taking the oil industry’s word, government inspectors must now be present to verify that the tests on the blowout preventers are positive.

The Human and Ecological Costs of Oil Pollution

Fourth article on Deepwater Horizon disaster

June 26, 2010

Fr. Seán McDonagh, SSC

In terms of human health, human livelihood and environmental devastation, the destructive impact of the oil gushing out at the Macondo well in the Gulf of Mexico is becoming clearer as each day passes.  Doctors and environmentalists have warned that prolonged exposure to crude oil and the chemical dispersants that are being used to break up the oil are a public health hazard.[13] In late May 2010, it was estimated that more than 3,640,000 litres (800,000 gallons) had already been sprayed on the oil slick.  Wilma Subra, a chemist who has been a consultant for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), said that there was growing anecdotal evidence that many of the people exposed to tiny air particles of crude oil were becoming ill, particularly when the wind blew from the ocean.  Among the illnesses reported were headaches, nausea, respiratory problems, dizziness and burning sensations in both eyes and throat.  Long term effects of exposure could include neurological damage and cancer.[14] The health hazards were much greater for those attempting to contain the spill by deploying booms, as they were in much closer proximity to the oil and the toxic chemical dispersants. Much of the dispersant chemicals are sprayed from the air.  As a result, those working to contain the oil are being sprayed over and over again.  Tests by the EPA indicate that “the combined effect of dispersants and crude oil are even more toxic than individually.”[15]

The U.S. government has declared a “fishery disaster” in the seafood producing states of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama.  This will have a huge impact on these states’ economies. The seafood industry in Louisiana alone is worth $2.4 billion and employs 27,000 people.[16] Dean Blanchard, a very significant player in the shrimp business,  claims that before the disaster he bought shrimp from nearly 6,000 fishermen and that his company had about 11 percent of the shrimp market in the United States.  Blanchard reckons that a big shrimp boat could make one million dollars per day.  He laments that between April 20, when the gusher began, and mid June, he has lost 15 million dollars worth of sales.  He also points out that the tuna and oyster fishing businesses have ground to a halt.[17] The only use for the fishermen’s boats at present, according to Blanchard, is to service the oil industry and those involved in cleaning up the oil.  The fishermen’s income is a paltry $3,000 per day and less for the smaller boats. “Not a lot once divided among captain and crew.”[18] Many fear that Florida’s $60 billion tourist industry will be severely affected if oil reaches the Florida coast.[19]

The ecological damage from the leaking oil well is enormous.  By early June 2010, the oil had reached Louisiana’s Queen Bess Island pelican rookery.  This disaster could sound the death knell for the brown pelicans of Louisiana.  These creatures once reached 50,000 in number, but they were almost wiped out by the massive use of pesticides in the 1950s and 1960s.  Scientists reintroduced a breeding pair of brown pelicans in 1968.  They thrived so well that in 2009 they were taken off the red list of endangered species.  Now, because of this catastrophe, their survival is once again under serious threat.[20] The governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal, confirmed that 100 miles of the state’s 400 mile coast had been impacted by the oil spill.[21]

Jacqueline Savitz, a marine scientist, points out that “oil spills are extremely harmful to marine life when they occur and often for years or even decades later.”[22] According to Savitz, the Gulf of Mexico is host to four species of endangered sea turtles and blue fin tuna, snapper and grouper.  Each of these species will be affected in different ways. For example, “turtles have to come to the surface to breathe and can be coated with oil or may swallow it.”[23] The Gulf of Mexico is the breeding ground for the valuable species called blue fin tuna. Ninety percent of these fish return to the Gulf to spawn.

---

[1] www.nytimes.com, David Barstow, Laura Dodd, James Glanz, Stephanie Saul and Ian Urbina, “Failure of Rig’s Last Line of Defense Tied Myriad Factors,” New York Times, June 20th 2010, downloaded on June 20th 2010.

[2] Ibid

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid

[5] www.nytimes.com, David Barstow, Laura Dodd, James Glanz, Stephanie Saul and Ian Urbina, “Failure of Rig’s Last Line of Defense Tied Myriad Factors,” New York Times, June 20, 2010, downloaded on June 20, 2010.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid

[8] Ibid

[9] Ibid

[10] www.nytimes.com, David Barstow, Laura Dodd, James Glanz, Stephanie Saul and Ian Urbina, “Failure of Rig’s Last Line of Defence Tied Myriad Factors,” New York Times, June 20, 2010, downloaded on June 20, 2010.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Andrew Clark and AP, “Contingency plan for dealing with oil spill was full of errors,” The Guardian, June 10^, 2010, page 7.

[13] Suzanne Goldenberg, “Oil is public health risk, scientists warn as BP admits ‘catastrophe’” The Guardian, May 29^th 2010, page 6 and 7.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Ibid

[16] “Factbox: Gulf oil spill impact fisheries, wildlife, tourism,” www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6423R20100530> downloaded on June 25, 2010.

[17] Suzanne Goldenberg, The Guardian, June 12, 2010, page 9.

[18] Ibid.

[19] “Factbox: Gulf oil spill impact fisheries, wildlife, tourism,” www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6423R20100530> downloaded on June 25, 2010.

[20] Tony Allen-Mills, “Rare pelicans are Obama’s Katrina-gate.” The Sunday Times, June 6th 2010.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Steven Mufson, Washington Post, April 27, 2010. www.washingtonpost.com

[23] Ibid

Spare a though for Tony Hayward Fr. Seán McDonagh, SSC (9th article on Deepwater Horizon July 1, 2010)

Anyone familiar with my writings on ecology and social justice over the past 30 years will know that I have criticised the actions of transnational corporations, especially  those in the energy, agricultural and banking sectors. In my book,  Patenting Life? Stop! Is Corporate Greed Forcing Us to Eat Genetically Engineered food? the first chapter deals with the economic and political growth of transnational corporations since World War II. So, while I have not gone soft on multinationals, I have sympathy with Tony Hayward as he has been vilified in the U.S. media during the past few weeks.

Hayward has been under forensic scrutiny since April 20^th because many people believe that his company, BP, has caused the greatest ecological disaster in U.S. history.  His major speaking gaffes have also been used to ridicule him.  On May 4^th 2010, he tried, unsuccessfully, to lay the blame for the disaster elsewhere, “This is not our accident…. This was Transocean’s rig. Their people.  Their equipment.”  On May 14^th 2010, he tried to trivialize the oil leak. “The Gulf of Mexico is a big ocean. The amount of oil and dispersant we are putting into it is tiny in relation to the total waster volume.”  This boomeranged very quickly when oil reached the shore and television camera showed birds immobilized by the black goo.   On May 30^th 2010,  he posted the following on Facebook, “No one wants this over more than I do. I would like my life back.” This raised howls of protest from those who were most affected by the disaster. [1]

In last week’s article, I wrote about how little real information Hayward gave to the House committee which is investigating the Deepwater Horizon accident.  Not alone were people weighing up his every word, they were also looking at his body language. Robert Phipps, who is an expert on body language, commented on his  posture.  “He had his hands folded, which was defensive, showing that he was cut off from people. His blinking rate increased at certain points….. twenty blinks per minute is the normal rate, he hit 60 a minute.”[2]

Who is Tony Hayward? Is he the “bumbler from BP” as suggested by one U.S. Magazine? Tony Hayward was born in Berkshire in 1957 and is the eldest of seven children. He studied geology at Birmingham.  He joined BP in 1983 and spent the next two decades searching for oil in remote parts of the world.  His postings included the North Sea and South America.  He had a close working relationship with Lord Browne who attempted to rebrand BP with a ‘green energy’ image. Browne resigned under something of a cloud and Hayward became chief executive of BP in 2007. Very quickly he dropped the ‘green energy’ image and returned BP to its core business – producing petrol. Soon after becoming chief executive he set about prioritising safety. [3]

While he was working with BP  in Venezuela a young employee was killed.  At the end of the funeral the boy’s mother literally attacked Hayward and demanded an answer to the questions, “Why did you allow this to happen?  Because of this incident, safety became a priority when he assumed the role of CEO.   The company must set “a new benchmark in industrial safety. We have to have a working environment where people don’t get injured or killed, period.”[4] In ways it is ironic, that the worst ecological disaster in U.S. history, which will cost BP billions to clean up and billions more in settling legal liabilities, should happen on Hayward’s watch, given his commitment of safety.

I suppose one would have to commend Tony Hayward’s courage for placing himself at the forefront of this crisis. He could, I presume, have delegated the task to other senior managers. He has appeared on television shows, at press conferences and at the notorious House of Representatives committee meeting.  In the process he has become public enemy No I in the U.S and seen BP shares fall precipitously.[5] Though I am not a betting man, I would put a bet that by the summer of 2012, BP will have another CEO, particularly if any one of the  five enquires currently under way, apportion serious blame to BP for the accident at the Deepwater Horizon rig.

---

[1]“ Hayward’s gaffes,” The Guardian, June 5, 2010, page 24.

[2] “Hayward watch,” The Guardian, June 18^th 2010, page 6.

[3] “Tony Hayward: His gaffes just keep gushing like the oil,” The Sunday Times, June 6^th 2010, page 15.

[4] ibid

[5] Danny Fortson, “Wipe-out, the wave that could destroy BP,” The Sunday Times, June 6^th 2010, page 5.

North Sea Cod are saved from Extinction

Fr. Seán McDonagh SSC. (May 18^th 2010.

Environmental good news stories are few and far between especially in the area of protecting biodiversity.  We are told by competent scientists that extinction is rampant among plant, animal, birds and fish.  It is estimated that one third of the bird species of the world are now on the endangered list facing extinction.  This is why the report in May 2010 from the World Wild Fund for Nature (WWF) that North sea cod which were on the brink of extinction due to overfishing a few short decades ago, are is no longer endangered. The WWF document claims that stocks of cod have risen by 52 per cent from their historic low, in 2006 and can now be once again eaten.  Fish (usually cod) and chips historically have had a very special place in the diet of the peoples of Britain and Ireland.

The marine scientists who wrote the report are delighted that a combination of cuts quotas and other conservation measure have led to this recovery.  However, they point out that the current cod stocks are only a fraction of the number which existed before highly mechanised methods of fishing were introduced after World War II.    In 1889, the British fishing fleets, with much less sophisticated gear and navigation tools, were landing twice as much fish as the fleet does today.  In the cod fishing along, there has been an 83 per cent drop in catches during the past one hundred years.

Much of the damage to the cods stocks happened in the 1970s and 1980s. In the 1960s cods was cheap and plentiful. In 1970, for example, 250,000 tonnes of cod was taken from the sea. This stripping of the sea of cod continued relentlessly throughout the 1980s and 1990s, until in 2006 the catch was reduced to 35,700 tonnes.  Bertie Armstrong, the chief executive of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation accepts that “fishermen were all mesmerised by the quantities (of fish) available and regrettably what happened is that nations and individual businesses increase the size of their fleet.” [1] As a result of this  plunder the stocks collapsed.  This year in 2010 it is expected that the biomass of the cods stock will be in the order of 54,250 tonnes.  According to the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, the body which advises the European Union’s fishery policy, a full recovery of the stocks would mean a catch of between 70,000 and 150,000 tonnes each year. As a result of the improvement in the stocks the British quota for North Sea cod has increased this year from 11,210 to 13,000 tonnes. If the recovery continues, North Sea cod may soon be available in U.K. supermarkets. The cod that one buys today has come from either Iceland or the Barents Sea.

The recovery of cod stocks in the North Sea is also a victory for the European Union’s Fisheries policies.  In recent years the EU successfully cut cod quotas.  Other initiatives by fishermen themselves have also contributed.  Twenty two out of the one hundred white fish boats in Scotland have agreed to install monitoring cameras on their ships.  Such measures prevent fishermen from throwing smaller valuable fish from other species over board. These fish are often called bycatch and have been routinely dumped overboard. Otherwise if they were included in the catch, the fishermen would have to reduce their cod catch to stay within the quota.  Fishermen have also begun using a larger mesh in their nets, and fitted panels which are designed to allow juvenile fish to escape.  Furthermore, the are a lot fewer boats chasing the cod than obtained twently, thirty or forty years ago.  Callum Roberts, a marine biologist from the University of York said that, “Signs of improvement of North Sea cod stocks are encouraging. The sort of measures that are being undertaken in Scotland are good developments.”[2]

While there is general rejoicing among the conservation community and among fishermen about the replenishing of cod stocks Callum Roberts adds a word of caution. “Although the trend is in the right direction, it’s definitely too early to celebrate.” He argues that the 150,000 target “does not reflect the historic abundance of the (cod) stocks.” One final word of caution is that even though even though fishing has been curtained the cod stocks off Newfoundland have not recovered and there is no guarantee that they will recover.

---

[1] Martin Hickman, “Sustainable again – the North Sea cod saved by careful conservation.” The Independent, May 15^th 2010, page 2

[2]