Tag Archives: shell

Earth-Cooling Schemes Need Global Sign-Off, Researchers Say

green4us

World’s most vulnerable people need protection from huge and unintended impacts of radical geoengineering projects. NASA Goddard Photo and Video/Flickr Controversial geoengineering projects that may be used to cool the planet must be approved by world governments to reduce the danger of catastrophic accidents, British scientists said. Met Office researchers have called for global oversight of the radical schemes after studies showed they could have huge and unintended impacts on some of the world’s most vulnerable people. The dangers arose in projects that cooled the planet unevenly. In some cases these caused devastating droughts across Africa; in others they increased rainfall in the region but left huge areas of Brazil parched. “The massive complexities associated with geoengineering, and the potential for winners and losers, means that some form of global governance is essential,” said Jim Haywood at the Met Office’s Hadley Centre in Exeter. To keep reading, click here.

Visit link – 

Earth-Cooling Schemes Need Global Sign-Off, Researchers Say

Share this:

View the original here – 

Earth-Cooling Schemes Need Global Sign-Off, Researchers Say

Posted in ALPHA, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, Monterey, ONA, PUR, solar, solar power, Uncategorized, Vintage | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Earth-Cooling Schemes Need Global Sign-Off, Researchers Say

The Scariest Climate Change Graph Just Got Scarier

green4us

New research takes the deepest dive ever into historic climate records—and comes up still blaming humans for recent warming. Average global temperature over the last ~2,000 years. Note the massive uptick on the far right side. Courtesy Science/AAAS Back in 1999 Penn State climate scientist Michael Mann released the climate change movement’s most potent symbol: The “hockey stick,” a line graph of global temperature over the last 1,500 years that shows an unmistakable, massive uptick in the twentieth century when humans began to dump large amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. It’s among the most compelling bits of proof out there that human beings are behind global warming, and as such has become a target on Mann’s back for climate denialists looking to draw a bead on scientists. Today, it’s getting a makeover: A study published in Science reconstructs global temperatures further back than ever before—a full 11,300 years. The new analysis finds that the only problem with Mann’s hockey stick was that its handle was about 9,000 years too short. The rate of warming over the last hundred years hasn’t been seen for as far back as the advent of agriculture. Marcott’s team used ocean records to reconstruct global climate further back in time than ever before. Courtesy Science/AAAS To be clear, the study finds that temperatures in about a fifth of this historical period were higher than they are today. But the key, said lead author Shaun Marcott of Oregon State University, is that temperatures are shooting through the roof faster than we’ve ever seen. “What we found is that temperatures increased in the last hundred years as much as they had cooled in the last six or seven thousand,” he said. “In other words, the rate of change is much greater than anything we’ve seen in the whole Holocene,” referring to the current geologic time period, which began around 11,500 years ago. Previous historic climate reconstructions typically extended no further back than 2,000 years, roughly as far back as you can go by examining climate indicators from tree rings, as Mann did. To dig even deeper, Marcott’s team looked at objects collected from more than 70 sites worldwide, primarily fossilized ocean shells that have been unearthed by oceanographers. Existing research has shown that certain chemical tracers in the shells link directly to temperature at the time they were created; by studying oxygen isotopes in the fossilized plankton shown below, for example, scientists can deduce that it formed its shell at a time when Greenland was fully without ice. Marcott’s task was to compile enough such samples to represent the whole planet over his chosen timeframe. Fossilized ocean organisms like this plankton, the size of a grain of sand, keep a chemical snapshot of the climate at the time they first formed their calcium-carbonate shells. Courtesy Jennifer McKay, Oregon State “There’s been a lot of work that’s gone into the calibrations, so we can be dead certain [the shells] are recording the temperature we think they’re recording,” he said. Today’s study should help debunk the common climate change denial argument that recent warming is simply part of a long-term natural trend. Indeed, Marcott says, the earth should be nearing the bottom of a several-thousand year cool-off (the end-point of the rainbow arc in (B) above), if natural factors like solar variability were the sole driving factors. Instead, temperatures are rising rapidly. Mann himself, who literally wrote the book on attacks on climate scientists, said in an email to Climate Desk that he was “certain that professional climate change deniers will attack the study and the authors, in an effort to discredit this important work,” especially given the close ties between the two scientists’ research. “It will therefore be looked at as a threat to vested interests who continue to deny that human-changed climate change is a reality.” Marcott admitted he was apprehensive about charging into the fully-mobilized troll army, but said he was grateful scientists like Mann had “gone through hell” before him to build a support network for harassed climate scientists. “When Michael came along there was a lot more skepticism about global warming, but the public has come a long way,” he said. “I’m curious to see how the skeptics are going to take this paper.”

Excerpt from: 

The Scariest Climate Change Graph Just Got Scarier

Share this:

Continue reading:  

The Scariest Climate Change Graph Just Got Scarier

Posted in alo, eco-friendly, G & F, GE, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Scariest Climate Change Graph Just Got Scarier

Follow Our Environmental Coverage

green4us

Continue reading: 

Follow Our Environmental Coverage

Posted in eco-friendly, G & F, GE, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Follow Our Environmental Coverage

Sustainable Seafood – Seas Optional

green4us

Source:  

Sustainable Seafood – Seas Optional

Posted in eco-friendly, GE, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Sustainable Seafood – Seas Optional

Shell to ‘pause’ Arctic drilling in 2013

Shell to ‘pause’ Arctic drilling in 2013

After an epic string of screw-ups, Shell is pulling way back on its plan to conquer the far north frontier and drill the ever-loving hell out of it. Pause, baby, pause!

kullukresponse

Shell’s Kulluk drilling rig, which the company

ran aground in Alaska

in December.

Shell has spent more than $4.5 billion in its quest for oil in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas off the north coast of Alaska and so far has nothing to show for it but a series of embarrassing mishaps.

“Our decision to pause in 2013 will give us time to ensure the readiness of all our equipment and people following the drilling season in 2012,” Marvin Odum, director of Shell’s “Upstream Americas” operations, said in a statement.

The company pledges that it isn’t giving up on its quest for Arctic oil: “Alaska remains an area with high potential for Shell over the long term, and the company is committed to drill there again in the future. If exploration proves successful, resources there would take years to develop.”

But at least for now: Congratulations, Alaska!

Susie Cagle writes and draws news for Grist. She also writes and draws tweets for

Twitter

.

Read more:

Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

View original post here: 

Shell to ‘pause’ Arctic drilling in 2013

Posted in GE, LG, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Shell to ‘pause’ Arctic drilling in 2013

International plan for a spill in the Arctic: If anything happens, pick up the phone

International plan for a spill in the Arctic: If anything happens, pick up the phone

One of the primary concerns about expanded oil drilling in the Arctic is that the Arctic is far away from everything. Until very, very recently, no one lived anywhere near the Arctic; even today, it’s pretty sparsely populated. As we’ve noted before, an oil spill a few hundred miles from New Orleans in 2010 took months to stop. How long will it take to cap a broken well in icy water thousands of miles from any resources?

To that end, governments interested in exploring resource extraction in the Arctic came together to develop a plan for just such a contingency. And as Greenpeace notes, the plan sucks. From the BBC:

In 2011 The Arctic Council members [Ed. – Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden, U.S.] signed the Nuuk Declaration that committed them to develop an international agreement on how to respond to oil pollution in the northern seas. …

The plan says that “each party shall maintain a national system for responding promptly and effectively to oil pollution incidents” without requiring any clear details on the number of ships or personnel that would be needed to cope with a spillage.

Shutterstock

Seriously. Greenpeace has a copy of the full draft document [PDF]. It can be summed up in three bullet points:

  1. Here are the countries making this agreement and here is what “oil” means.
  2. If anything happens, we agree to deal with it.
  3. Here is everyone’s emergency contact information.

Think I’m oversimplifying? Go look. This took them two years.

Sweden’s ambassador to the Council thinks the agreement is great, saying, “The agreement is a great step forward for the protection of the Arctic from an oil spill because it sets up a system for the states to co-operate in practice.” Because if this weren’t in place — what? If Shell fucked up and caused a spill, Russia and Canada would just tell the U.S. “tough shit”? No, if there were a spill that threatened the shoreline of any country, it would get involved with or without this document. And I suspect everyone already has the right phone numbers.

There will be a spill in the Arctic. That’s not me saying it. That’s Shell Alaska Vice President Pete Slaiby saying it. When that happens, it would be nice to know that there’s some sort of well-funded, well-staffed, resource-heavy international entity standing by to spring into action. That there’s something there in the empty Arctic that can be on-scene in short order to deal with the problem.

But, you know. Lip service is good too.

Hat-tip: Brian Merchant.

Philip Bump writes about the news for Gristmill. He also uses Twitter a whole lot.

Read more:

Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Taken from:  

International plan for a spill in the Arctic: If anything happens, pick up the phone

Posted in GE, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on International plan for a spill in the Arctic: If anything happens, pick up the phone

Shell wins prestigious award for ineptitude

Shell wins prestigious award for ineptitude

Quick word of congratulations to our friends at Shell. Yesterday, the company was awarded the Public Eye People’s Award for 2013 — making it (as far as I can tell) the first two-time winner of this estimable honor, having also won in 2005.

What’s the Public Eye Award? From the website for this esteemed prize:

The Public Eye Awards mark a critical counterpoint to the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos. Organized since 2000 by Berne Declaration and Friends of the Earth (in 2009 replaced by Greenpeace), Public Eye reminds the corporate world that social and environmental misdeeds have consequences – for the affected people and territory, but also for the reputation of the offender.

Emphasis added.

infomatique

Guilty … of winning awards!

And why did Shell earn top honors? (Well, alongside Goldman Sachs.) (I accidentally typed “Goldamn Sachs” and thought briefly about keeping that.)

Shell is always involved in particularly controversial, risky and dirty oil production projects. Thus, this Dutch-British corporation, chosen by online users for the public naming and shaming award, is also out in front in the highly risky search for fossil fuels in the fragile Arctic. This has been made possible by climate change and the disappearance of the Arctic ice cap, to which Shell has contributed. Every Arctic offshore oil project means new CO2 emissions. The Arctic’s oil reserves are enough for just three years. For this, Shell is jeopardising one of the Earth’s last natural paradises and endangering the living space of four million people, as well as unique fauna.

The celebratory announcement then walks through the company’s litany of 2012 screw-ups, with which you may already be familiar.

It’s not only Greenpeace that’s celebrating the company. Shell is also a finalist for a very, very, very prestigious (and presumably non-ironic) “Oil and Gas Award” from the oil and gas industry — one of only 130 oil and gas companies to be so named. So that’s pretty impressive, too.

While we don’t sit on the jury for either award, we think Shell deserves both. We are often hard on Shell, sometimes letting our dislike of rampant fossil-fuel extraction, our frustration with runaway oil consumption, our skepticism of rapacious profit-seeking while accepting federal subsidization color our perspective. But no company more deserves accolades from the industry that celebrates those traits and mockery from those who oppose them.

Here’s hoping they don’t repeat in 2014.

Philip Bump writes about the news for Gristmill. He also uses Twitter a whole lot.

Read more:

Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Read this article:  

Shell wins prestigious award for ineptitude

Posted in GE, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Shell wins prestigious award for ineptitude

Surprise: Shell’s rig ran aground in Alaska because the company was trying to avoid taxes

Surprise: Shell’s rig ran aground in Alaska because the company was trying to avoid taxes

kullukresponse

On New Year’s Eve, in the middle of a storm, Shell was trying to tow its Kulluk drilling rig from Alaska to Seattle. Why then? Why risk the bad weather, which, as it turned out, caused the rig to break free from its tugboats and run aground on Kodiak Island?

To avoid paying state taxes, of course. From Alaska Dispatch:

A Shell spokesman last week confirmed an Unalaska elected official’s claim that the Dec. 21 departure of the Kulluk from Unalaska/Dutch Harbor involved taxation.

City councilor David Gregory said Shell would pay between $6 million and $7 million in state taxes if the Kulluk was still in Alaska on Jan. 1.

Ah, but the weather had other plans, sorry to say. Shell will end up having to pay that money after all, and then some.

Gregory said the departure of the Kulluk took money away from local small businesses servicing the rig. He predicted the maritime mishap will prove very costly to the oil company.

“It will cost them more than that $6 million in taxes. Maybe they should have just stayed here,” Gregory said.

The Kulluk grounding is costing taxpayers too. The 630 people working on the unified relief effort include employees of the state of Alaska and the U.S. Coast Guard. Twenty-one vessels are on the scene or nearby, and that doesn’t include aircraft.

Last night, the unified command held a press conference to update reporters on the status of the recovery. In short: Not much has changed. The Kulluk remains where it ran aground. Efforts to determine damage are still incomplete. The tens of thousands of gallons of fuel onboard don’t appear to be leaking.

One reporter asked a pointed question about how forthcoming Shell will be in sharing its assessment of the accident. You can guess the response.

Margie Bauman [reporter from Fishermans News Seattle]: [G]iven the seriousness of this incident, why would Shell’s own investigation of this not be made public along with the Coast Guard investigation? Thank you.

Sean Churchfield [Incident Commander and the Operations Manager for Shell Alaska]: OK. So I think the main point I’d like to make on the investigation is Shell will collaborate, completely cooperate—collaborate—collaborate completely with the Coast Guard and other investigations that are required.

Margie Bauman: Yes. But I’d like to know (cross talking)…

Captain Paul Mehler [Coast Guard Federal On Scene Coordinator]: (Inaudible). But the Coast Guard investigation, as I say, we’re bringing up investigators from the Center of Excellence, and we have our investigators working that. And of course the results of those findings will be made public.

Margie Bauman: And would that include Shell’s …

Amy Midget [unified command representative]: And we will have those said (ph) remarks posted online for anybody who—on the phone system who is not able to hear them.

In other words, don’t hold your breath for Shell to be forthcoming.

There is some good news in all of this, for Shell anyway: The U.S. government shows no indication that it will reconsider the company’s permit to drill in the Arctic.

“The administration understands that the Arctic environment presents unique challenges and that’s why the [interior] secretary has repeatedly made clear that any approved drilling activities will be held to the highest safety and environmental standards,” Salazar spokesman Blake Androff said Thursday. “The department will continue to carefully review permits for any activity and all proposals must meet our rigorous standards.”

Salazar has not given Shell permission to drill deep enough to actually hit oil. The company hopes to get that approval this summer.

Shell didn’t get that permission last year because it was unable to demonstrate to the government that its spill-containment system would work, even after repeated testing.

All this mess so Shell could avoid $6 million in state taxes — an amount equal to 0.1 percent of its profits in the third quarter of 2012. Good to know that Shell puts money over safety. Bodes well.

Philip Bump writes about the news for Gristmill. He also uses Twitter a whole lot.

Read more:

Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Continue at source:

Surprise: Shell’s rig ran aground in Alaska because the company was trying to avoid taxes

Posted in GE, LG, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Surprise: Shell’s rig ran aground in Alaska because the company was trying to avoid taxes

Shell’s Alaska mishap has a big PR cost — and a big cost to taxpayers

Shell’s Alaska mishap has a big PR cost — and a big cost to taxpayers

Even at 6:30 a.m. Alaska time today, three hours before sunrise, there was a hum of activity at the unified command center coordinating the response to Shell’s breakaway drilling rig off Kodiak Island on the state’s southern coast. The command — coordinating the efforts of Shell, the Coast Guard, the state, Noble Corporation (the drilling contractor), and local officials — is responsible for figuring out how badly the 28,000-ton Kulluk is damaged, if it’s leaking any of its 143,000 gallons of diesel fuel, and how it can be towed back out to sea. Three days after the rig broke free of two tugboats in bad weather and ran aground, only one of those questions can be answered: It isn’t leaking fuel. Yet.

Hoping to figure out the extent of the Coast Guard’s role in recovery — how many of the 600 people working on the response are employees of the agency, or of the state of Alaska — I called the Coast Guard station in Anchorage this morning, and was quickly referred to the unified command. When I called there, I spoke with Destin Singleton over clamorous background noise. Singleton is the spokesperson for the recovery effort — and a Shell public relations staffer.

For what little progress has been made in assessing damage to the rig, the command has put together a pretty thorough communications system. The effort has a website, KullukResponse.com, a Twitter feed, and a page of photos on Flickr. Singleton, a PR professional, didn’t offer much information beyond what’s available on the website. So here’s the latest update:

A team of five salvage experts boarded the grounded drilling unit Kulluk [yesterday] to conduct a structural assessment to be used to finalize salvage plans, currently being developed by the Kulluk Tow Incident Unified Command.

The five-member team was lowered to the Kulluk by a U.S. Coast Guard helicopter at about 10:30 [yesterday] morning. The assessment lasted about three hours. A helicopter safely hoisted the team from the drilling unit at about 1:30 p.m. The Coast Guard helicopter and crew also delivered a state-owned emergency towing system to the Kulluk, which will be used during salvage operations.

It’s clear that the Coast Guard is playing a significant role in efforts at recovery. The video at the top of the page is from one agency flyover of the rig. But Singleton wasn’t able to (or wouldn’t) say how many Coast Guard employees were involved, nor was she able to say how many of the people working on the effort were employed by Shell. (Save one, that is: herself.)

There’s no doubt that the effort is a complex one, requiring interagency coordination and careful consideration of safety risks. One of the main reasons that activists have been concerned about the prospect of drilling in the region is unstable, unmanageable weather like that currently impeding the recovery. But it’s also clear that Shell recognizes the public relations risk of its inability to control its drilling vessel. According to Politico, several environmental organizations plan to unveil a push to freeze drilling in the region in light of Shell’s ongoing problems.

Shell’s mistakes are costing it an enormous amount of money even before a single drop of oil has been extracted in the region. And it’s costing us money, too, though exactly how much isn’t clear — and the company isn’t saying.

U.S. Coast GuardRear Adm. Thomas Ostebo, commander, 17th Coast Guard District and D17 Incident Management Team commander, observes the conical drilling unit Kulluk from an MH-60 Jayhawk helicopter during a second overflight Tuesday, Jan. 1, 2013.

Philip Bump writes about the news for Gristmill. He also uses Twitter a whole lot.

Read more:

Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Follow this link:

Shell’s Alaska mishap has a big PR cost — and a big cost to taxpayers

Posted in GE, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Shell’s Alaska mishap has a big PR cost — and a big cost to taxpayers

America wants to unleash its gas on other countries

America wants to unleash its gas on other countries

Gregory Perry

Guys, thanks to fracking, we have so much natural gas. So much. Like, if you filled up party balloons with the natural gas America produces in a year, you’d have enough to fill your whole house, I assume.* Also: Do not smoke near that.

The glut of natural gas on the market has been a boon, of sorts, if only because it’s driving down carbon dioxide emissions. But those low, low prices, the result of domestic oversupply, are bad news for producers. So they’d like to ship the stuff overseas.

Last week, the government released a report compiled by NERA Economic Consulting on the feasibility of natural gas exports. As the Council on Foreign Relations summarizes:

The study reaffirms that allowing exports would be good for U.S. economic growth. No matter how NERA sets up its model — different assumptions about U.S. gas resources, domestic demand, or international markets — the U.S. economy as a whole benefits from allowing exports. This shouldn’t be a surprise: the fact that economies gain from allowing trade is pretty robust.

The negative headline from the report is that allowing exports would lower average real wage income. This happens despite little or no impact on nominal wages; it is due to higher natural gas prices, which imply slightly lower average real wage income.

(That second point, clarified: More exports means higher natural gas prices in the U.S. due to less domestic supply, which means we pay more for natural gas, which means less real wage income.)

But!

Despite these often-massive export volumes, NERA projects consistently limited natural gas price impacts. In only one scenario — higher than expected U.S. shale resources and massive international demand leading to very large exports — do prices rise by more than a dollar for a thousand cubic feet in the next decade. (They rise by $1.11 in that case.) Most results see an increase closer to fifty cents.

The Washington Post is excited about the prospect of exports, because free trade and so on. (Post Company employee Matt Yglesias is more skeptical.) The head of Shell’s U.S. arm thinks the president will OK an export plan that would ship 21 billion cubic feed of liquefied natural gas overseas every day — though this would require a big expansion of export facilities.

If you use ships. There is, however, an easier way.

* If you’re curious, in September, the country produced 2.4 million million cubic feet of natural gas. A party balloon holds about .5 cubic feet. So that’s 4.8 trillion party balloons. Per month. Probably too big for your house.

Philip Bump writes about the news for Gristmill. He also uses Twitter a whole lot.

Read more:

Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

From: 

America wants to unleash its gas on other countries

Posted in GE, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on America wants to unleash its gas on other countries