With news that fisherman and others trying to protect their own waterfront areas are being arrested if they are acting without authority from BP, on charges of stealing oil, it is worth asking the question "Who really owns the oil floating in the Gulf of Mexico?
Currently BP is asserting ownership of the oil. Yet I believe that a storng case could be made in a court, or a congressional action could be taken, that rules this oil to be abandoned property. Under the law of the sea, I believe that would ean that anyone who picked up the oil was entitled to it.
Such a clarification could open up new opportunities to those who seek to protect the shoreline areas and those opportunities might at least pay for themselves through revenues derived from sale of the oil. At the very least it would prevent the abuse of power currently being visited on folks who are just trying to protect their own property. There is no good reason to be arresting people who seek only to protect what they already have a legal right to protect in almost every other conceivable way.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Peregrine Webcams
Peregrine Falcons have made a bigtime comeback from the brink of extinction. That comeback has been accompanied by research into the species that could very well make them one of the most closely studied species ever.
When I went online to check out the nesting pair on the New Hampshire insurance building in Manchester a quick google search yielded many peregrine cams positioned to let the public take a once-rare look into the nest of a Peregrine Falcon.
Just for fun I've put links to a few of those cams below. You can set up two or three abreast and watch the action across America. Just think, you are witness to the miracle of what humans can do when they consider our brothers and sisters of other species an integral part of our own life circle.
My Iroquois ancestors would be pleased. One small victory in the life of mother earth.
Rachel Carson State Building Harrisburg, PA
State Capitol Building, Lincoln, Nebraska
New Hampshire Insurance Company, Manchester, NH
When I went online to check out the nesting pair on the New Hampshire insurance building in Manchester a quick google search yielded many peregrine cams positioned to let the public take a once-rare look into the nest of a Peregrine Falcon.
Just for fun I've put links to a few of those cams below. You can set up two or three abreast and watch the action across America. Just think, you are witness to the miracle of what humans can do when they consider our brothers and sisters of other species an integral part of our own life circle.
My Iroquois ancestors would be pleased. One small victory in the life of mother earth.
Rachel Carson State Building Harrisburg, PA
State Capitol Building, Lincoln, Nebraska
New Hampshire Insurance Company, Manchester, NH
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Loose Sorbent and the Deepwater Horizon BP Spill
For those who have watched the oil spill in the Gulf grow by leaps and bounds while thousands of workers, volunteers and officials have scurried around like a vast colony of ants there is surely one big question looming in their minds: "Why can't all these people get control of this spill?"
The answer, unfortunately, seems to be directly attributable to a decision made early in the process to ban the use of all loose absorbant products on the spill.
The rationale, that they are protecting the fragile ecosystems, animals and aquatic life by preventing them from being exposed to the loosely floating material seems reasonable enough at first blush. However, the fact that they are permitting the use of loose dispersant that actually exacerbates the environmental problems created by the spill shows an inconsistency that makes one suspect another agenda. Furthermore, if we don't halt the spread of the spill, the danger to a far broader range of territory will make the damage to ecosystems and flora and fauna far worse.
Fighting an Environmental Inferno with a Squirtgun
Here's the problem: Loose absorbents are far more efficient at capturing loose oil than booms. I've spoken about one loose absorbant MOP Maximum Oil Pickup in previous postings*. MOP's patented sorbents, with a 30-1 pickup ratio are the most efficient on the market but there are others that also do a fairly good job. For the purposes of this article I'll use the statistical information associated with MOP as they make both loose sorbent and booms with the loose sorbent packed into them.
One container of MOP, delivered onto a spill using their rapid deployment cannon can lock up 75,000 gallons of oil. By comparison, it would take more than 23,000 booms to accomplish the same amount of cleanup.
Carry this further: if it takes one person 10 minutes to deploy a boom - which is very fast if the booms are to be locked together - the average person would be able to deploy 48 booms in an 8 hour shift. To deploy 23,000 booms would then require 479 people. Then of course another crew of 479 would be required to pick up the oil laden booms. The crew needed to deploy AND skim up the MOP sorbent would be five people: Two people to carry bags to the Cannon, One person to fire the MOP Cannon and one or two people driving skimmers to pick up the oil-laden MOP.
Cost
A container of MOP sorbent costs $32,000. 23,000 booms cost more than $865,000. Finally, with MOP’s patented green sorbent, there is the added benefit of being able to recover the oil. The value of the recycled oil would be somewhere in the neighborhood of $65,000 making using the sorbent actually a profit center rather than a cost center. After subtracting the cost of the container of sorbent, there would be funds left to purchase the next container or to pay for the skimmer rental. In either case it effectively makes the cost of using a loose sorbent like MOP a net zero cost.
Not All Loose Sorbents are Created Equal
First its important to state that not all loose sorbents are alike. EPA creates a set of guidelines that essentially segregate sorbents into two categories
Those that are permissible for use on open water
Those not permissible for use on open water
MOP, for example, falls into the first category. Those allowed for deployment in open water. As such they are allowed to Certify themselves to the on-site administrator as meeting the EPA guidelines for use on open water. Normally this is all that would be required to use the loose sorbent on a spill, however the directive, over rules this process.
* In the interest of transparency, I'm now associated with this company because I believe so strongly in the product
See the numbers detailed in this article here.
The answer, unfortunately, seems to be directly attributable to a decision made early in the process to ban the use of all loose absorbant products on the spill.
The rationale, that they are protecting the fragile ecosystems, animals and aquatic life by preventing them from being exposed to the loosely floating material seems reasonable enough at first blush. However, the fact that they are permitting the use of loose dispersant that actually exacerbates the environmental problems created by the spill shows an inconsistency that makes one suspect another agenda. Furthermore, if we don't halt the spread of the spill, the danger to a far broader range of territory will make the damage to ecosystems and flora and fauna far worse.
Fighting an Environmental Inferno with a Squirtgun
Here's the problem: Loose absorbents are far more efficient at capturing loose oil than booms. I've spoken about one loose absorbant MOP Maximum Oil Pickup in previous postings*. MOP's patented sorbents, with a 30-1 pickup ratio are the most efficient on the market but there are others that also do a fairly good job. For the purposes of this article I'll use the statistical information associated with MOP as they make both loose sorbent and booms with the loose sorbent packed into them.
One container of MOP, delivered onto a spill using their rapid deployment cannon can lock up 75,000 gallons of oil. By comparison, it would take more than 23,000 booms to accomplish the same amount of cleanup.
Carry this further: if it takes one person 10 minutes to deploy a boom - which is very fast if the booms are to be locked together - the average person would be able to deploy 48 booms in an 8 hour shift. To deploy 23,000 booms would then require 479 people. Then of course another crew of 479 would be required to pick up the oil laden booms. The crew needed to deploy AND skim up the MOP sorbent would be five people: Two people to carry bags to the Cannon, One person to fire the MOP Cannon and one or two people driving skimmers to pick up the oil-laden MOP.
Cost
A container of MOP sorbent costs $32,000. 23,000 booms cost more than $865,000. Finally, with MOP’s patented green sorbent, there is the added benefit of being able to recover the oil. The value of the recycled oil would be somewhere in the neighborhood of $65,000 making using the sorbent actually a profit center rather than a cost center. After subtracting the cost of the container of sorbent, there would be funds left to purchase the next container or to pay for the skimmer rental. In either case it effectively makes the cost of using a loose sorbent like MOP a net zero cost.
Not All Loose Sorbents are Created Equal
First its important to state that not all loose sorbents are alike. EPA creates a set of guidelines that essentially segregate sorbents into two categories
Those that are permissible for use on open water
Those not permissible for use on open water
MOP, for example, falls into the first category. Those allowed for deployment in open water. As such they are allowed to Certify themselves to the on-site administrator as meeting the EPA guidelines for use on open water. Normally this is all that would be required to use the loose sorbent on a spill, however the directive, over rules this process.
* In the interest of transparency, I'm now associated with this company because I believe so strongly in the product
See the numbers detailed in this article here.
Timeline of the Gulf Spill
Timeline of Gulf of Mexico oil spill
Click here
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Numbers Sure to Get Your Attention
For over a year I have been writing about the effectiveness of the MOP Maximum Oil Pickup product. About 6 months ago I become associated with the company, coming aboard first as a consultant to assist them in recovering the company from a failed merger and helping craft a new business model and strategies for growth including a revised business plan and short and long-term strategic plans; and now as Vice President for Business Development and Innovation as well as the company spokesman. For that reason I am no longer a disinterested party - though I certainly was when I first began writing enthusiastically about the company.
If MOP Loose Sorbent were allowed for the Gulf Oil Spill Cleanup
Figures are per 75,000 gallons of cleanup
Polypropylene Booms 8" x 10' vs. MOP Sorbent
Required to Absorb 75,000 Gallons Oil
MOP loose sorbent: 1 Container (1,000 20lb bags)
Polypropylene Booms: 23,047, 8" x 10' booms
People Needed to do the Work (placing booms and picking up booms)
MOP loose sorbent: 5 People working 4 hours
Polypropylene Booms: 994 working 8 hours
Cost of Labor per Day
MOP loose sorbent: 5 People working 4 hours= $540.00
Polypropylene Booms: 994 working 8 hours=$214,704
Cost of material
1 Container MOP loose sorbent: $32,000
3,076 Polypropylene Booms: $865,350
Oil Recovery @40/barrel
MOP loose sorbent: $64,772
Polypropylene Booms: 0*
Labor + Materials
MOP loose sorbent: $33,050
Polypropylene Booms: $972,702
Labor + Materials
MOP loose sorbent: $33,050
Polypropylene Booms: $972,702
Net Cost Labor, Materials & Recovery
MOP loose sorbent: 0 (oil recovery more than offsets costs)
Polypropylene Booms: $972,702
If MOP Loose Sorbent were allowed for the Gulf Oil Spill Cleanup
Figures are per 75,000 gallons of cleanup
Polypropylene Booms 8" x 10' vs. MOP Sorbent
Required to Absorb 75,000 Gallons Oil
MOP loose sorbent: 1 Container (1,000 20lb bags)
Polypropylene Booms: 23,047, 8" x 10' booms
People Needed to do the Work (placing booms and picking up booms)
MOP loose sorbent: 5 People working 4 hours
Polypropylene Booms: 994 working 8 hours
Cost of Labor per Day
MOP loose sorbent: 5 People working 4 hours= $540.00
Polypropylene Booms: 994 working 8 hours=$214,704
Cost of material
1 Container MOP loose sorbent: $32,000
3,076 Polypropylene Booms: $865,350
Oil Recovery @40/barrel
MOP loose sorbent: $64,772
Polypropylene Booms: 0*
Labor + Materials
MOP loose sorbent: $33,050
Polypropylene Booms: $972,702
Labor + Materials
MOP loose sorbent: $33,050
Polypropylene Booms: $972,702
Net Cost Labor, Materials & Recovery
MOP loose sorbent: 0 (oil recovery more than offsets costs)
Polypropylene Booms: $972,702
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)