reflective post

    I was initially not sure I wanted to work on this topic because it's very controversial; furthermore, I thought I wouldn't find enough public discourse and credible sources to sustain my internationally oriented blog.The next challenge was eliminating bias from my blog, which was hard, because it wasn't always easy to separate emotion from such a controversial topic. But as I posted more and did more research, it became easier to understand and relate to the different schools of thought expressed by the respective parties.
      I would start out researching one particular topic, but as I read more articles, I would find myself indulged in an unintended branch of my topic. This was because my blog was initially mainly focused on major oil spills occurring around the world, but as time elapsed, I became interested in the oil industry itself. I was looking for answers to why the spills were occurring at such a fast pace globally and why efforts being made to rectify the damage done to the environment weren't really working. Fortunately, I discovered interesting revelations to my unanswered questions which ultimately became a huge part of my blog. Analysing all these different pieces of the puzzle helped me to create a great picture of the world of oil. I definitely do not know everything about the industry because it is really just that complex, but I am glad that I was able to broaden my scope of thought and explore areas of my topic which were indirectly linked to it and consequently would have otherwise ignored had I not researched as intensively. Ultimately, I successfully expanded my knowledge base on a topic that I knew relatively nothing about.

Armageddon: final showdown between government and oil.

      Recently, The University of Houston hosted an oil spill symposium whereby specialists in the oil industry came together to give their opinions on preventing oil spills (especially) in the USA. What I found interesting after reading the article was that the number of offshore drilling rigs have more than doubled over the decades, while the number of regulators have reduced by a quarter. This is largely because of the increased distance and depths oil companies face when looking for oil. Also, the number of specialists in the regulatory field have reduced over the years because of increased retirements. Another interesting factor to which the regulation of drilling sites have decreased is that there is actually some confusion over an authoritarian figure, i.e. the oil companies believe that it is mostly the duty of the government to impose regulatory policies on companies in their countries, while the government, to some extent, believes and almost trusts in a sense, that the oil companies are be drilling as safely as possible and with the 'right' equipment.
      As a result of this confusion of authority between the government and the oil companies, a partial state of nihilism erupts which in turn increases the probability of oil spills. In my opinion, this disorderliness is the main reason for the occurrence of oil spills everywhere. At least there is some form of governance in USA, but in countries like Nigeria and Ecuador where the exportation of oil is the main source of GNP, the government is less likely to impose regulations that benefit the environment. As a result, major oil spills tend to occur annually in these countries compared to the occurrence of major spills in the U.S, which is 1 every 20 years.
      The likelihood of oil spills will drastically fall, if governments everywhere take control of regulating the actions of oil companies, because they (oil companies) won't do it (properly) as it's unprofitable for them. If governments everywhere enforce similar regulatory policies, then oil companies wouldn't make profits no matter where they relocated. Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, governments should make sure that these regulation continue to be updated and reinforced, because as the specialists in the symposium noted, once major oil spills occur, restrictions tend to be enforced, but for another decade or so, they aren't followed as strictly and thus a spill occurs again and the cycle just repeats itself.

blogging on blogs - read these 3. *update*

1. The Border: Where Immigration and Race meet: I was initially assigned to read this blog as an assignment. But after reading the first post, I thought it would be an interesting one to follow because it's been the topic of debate for so long and I wanted to get more info on the different positions and opinions on handling illegal immigration. This blog did exactly what I wanted; it clearly broke down the opposing sides of the topic and I felt like I fully comprehend the situation without being biased. I could tell that this blogger evolved as his postings went on because of the level of understanding displayed in the theory post.
2. A Public Pariah in Muslim America: This blog was interesting to follow because it focused on a very controversial topic and thus had a high probability of becoming biased. Even though,there was a hint of bias in some posts, the blog was informative and written in such a way to give the reader a deeper understanding of the topic and got its points across by appealing to the emotion of the reader. 
3. Affirmative Action or Inaction: I knew absolutely nothing about this topic; I didn't even know that affirmative action existed in the first place. But I think I understand the situation more now. This blogger clearly organized the arguments surrounding the topic, but sometimes, I felt the posts were overwhelmed with facts and not enough thought. But like I said, I understand the topic now and that's good.

Mental Health hotline

The Black side of Gold - implications post

    The implications of oil spills on the environment are already atrocious, but the implications arising from ignorance are worse; issues are more likely to be resolved if people are consciously aware of them and are trying to create ways to rectify them. Thus it's only logical that since everyone uses refined crude in one way or the other and is affected by its consequences, whether directly or indirectly, then more people should be proactive about its effects around the globe. I'm conjuring that the only reason the CEO's of the top 5 oil companies in the USA admitted that they were not, and for the foreseeable future won't be, adequately equipped to handle huge oil spills was because people realised the extent to which BP wasn't able to handle the spill in the Gulf. Only 10% of the oil has been able to be cleaned according to the Baltimore Sun, and this 10% is actually in par with the 10-20% of oil that's usually removed from the sea.
      If we do not bring to light the numerous ramifications of oil occurring everywhere, then the implications would still just be what the status quo is now: unresolved oil spills in less economically powered countries like Ecuador; ancient oil clean-up strategies which are of a deplorable quality and efficiency when compared to the sophistication of oil rigs; oil companies using savvy lawyers to reduce their liabilities in the event that something goes wrong- and as we have seen, the probability of things going wrong is high. Ultimately, the oil companies would continue to get away with inefficiency-related disasters that could be otherwise avoided if there's an increase in global attention, (which can be generated through equal media coverage of similar oil related disasters everywhere). Therefore, if the status quo persists, oil will continue to be more of a foe than a friend to many.

Time to sign divorce papers?

      Is it actually time to throw oil's bags out of our homes? All she ever does is make it extremely expensive to afford my dear shrimp because she intoxicates most fish with her poison! She starts some fire out there in the ocean whenever she gets angry at the new shoe she just bought  because it doesn't fit comfortably. Did I mention that she releases invisible toxic gases into the air each time she opens up her mouth to complain- and she knows how to nag! Oh, I almost forgot, in addition to her many problems, she also empties out my wallet; whenever she has mood swings, for some unknown reason, I end up spending more money on her - and it's not like she gets any better the more I pay!      
        But wait, if I kick her out of my house, I probably won't watch as much as cable as before; there goes my NBA finals, Glee, the Office and my Smallville(yes, my Smallville)! Will I even have sufficient electrical power to sleep with the AC on those fiery summer nights? The thought of her not being there, the other side of the bed empty, I'm sure to have sweaty sleepless nights.
        Nevertheless, I'll probably find another substitute for her eventually, I mean I was kind of already cheating on her with solar panels and wind turbines, but they didn't feel quite right. The solar panels, didn't satisfy my needs and desires as much as I thought she would have and the wind turbine - no offense but she's not necessarily attractive, and on some days, no matter what I did, there just wasn't enough wind to turn her on and that was frustrating; I felt inadequate. I've heard about algae - but even the name turns me off. I wouldn't date that - at least not yet, but one never knows what the future has in store.
    So back to my soon to be ex, oil. Do I really want to divorce her after all, or am I just really upset with her at the moment because she literally exploded in six months ago and wouldn't stop complaining just because she didn't find the right shoe size again? I guess, if I lay down stricter rules with her she will behave more...but she is too unpredictable.

Theory Post

     With the revelation that the oil companies are incapable of effectively handling oil spills everywhere, not just the Gulf, an increasing number of governments are coming to the conclusion that their countries should start using more alternative energy resources. For example, president Obama is increasingly trying to shift the US, the most energy consuming country in the world, away from the usage of oil by implementing restrictions on offshore drilling. However, there are still many who view oil spills as mere side effects of the benefits we get from using it to power our everyday lives because one simply can't eat their cake and still expect to have it. However, there are certain ways to minimize the chances of oil spills.We could start imposing stricter restrictions on oil companies, but that would force the price of petroleum to increase, and would only lead to more complaints about oil. Then again, these restrictions may or may not affect prices, depending on what they are. If the restrictions are safety precautions ensuring that the equipments used for drilling meet a certain standard and are of a certain quality which would minimize the risks of spills, then this would mean that these safety costs shouldn't affect the price of petroleum to consumers, because they should have been taken into account by the oil industry in the first place.
      In addition, to further reduce the chances of oil firms abusing their financial and economical benefits, which they bring to less economically powerful countries, equal media attention should be given to all oil producing countries whenever huge environmental tragedies resulting from oil, like that of the Gulf occur. All oil producing countries face very similar risks from drilling crude, and thus it is only fair that they shouldn't be discriminated against just because the media feels they won't gain sufficient ratings on t.v. I think the media is a very powerful tool in severely limiting the malpractices of oil companies everywhere because it shows the impacts of the disaster on a diverse group of people whose reactions are necessary to draw responses from the oil company responsible.

Little Green Video clip - watch carefully, very subtle remarks

This video completely illustrates the main point which my posts surround: it makes light of a situation whereby other countries that have had more significant oil spills than that of the Gulf, are ignored and unheard of. If you caught the little bits about how a country like Nigeria 'way over there' has more oil spills than the one in the Gulf in one year and how the population of fish are declining everywhere and not just in Louisiana - but maybe if Anderson Cooper from CNN was able to go in a submarine into the seas of other places then the very similar problems of those places might get recognized too. (Might want to watch it again if you didn't understand its point)
This is a very sarcastic video, almost every statement made by the earthling is sarcastic in a bid to draw the attention of the audience to the fact that the BP oil spill isn't more or less significant than other environmental issues in the world but because of it's location, it has the capability to captivate the minds of people and boost ratings on t.v. Consequently it appears more significant and glorified, for lack of a better word, than it really is (compared to other environmental issues - I'm not saying nobody should care about the spill)

Oil's book of Revelation - analysis *post update*

     What I have discovered from my research is that the world of oil isn't just constituted of the oil companies and their rigs; the oil industry is made up of many minor and major constituent parts. For example, when oil spills occur, there are a number of factors which make certain oil spills to be cleaned up more effectively and with minimal damage than other oil spills. These factors include: the oil company's influence in the country's economy and the extent of government regualtion; the influence of the media, the extent of liability of the oil company and most importantly, the location of the oil spill. Although I knew some of these factors before I started reserching my topic, I didn't realise the depths of their complexity.Initially, my topic was mainly focused on the infamous oil spills that occur in other parts of the world, but as I peeled away superficial layers, I was forced to broaden my thought process and analyse oil spills from many different angles. I didn't focus on environmental damage, but what I did was use a country I know about, Nigeria, to enable me explore the previously unidentified truths surrounding the oil industry.
      A superb jumping off point for arguments surrounding oil spills in a political sphere was Obama's speech in the oval office concerning the BP oil spill and energy .The speech summarized the progress made by BP in trying to stop the oil from spilling and it emphasized the active involvement of the federal government in tackling the ongoing environmental crisis amid other national issues facing it. Lastly Obama talked about how the country needs to switch to 'clean energy' as soon as possible. If one takes the time to listen to his speech, that person could either fall into the same group as sen. John Kerry who thought the speech was effective because it advised the American people to get off oil;or that person could categorize the speech as unspecific because it didn't directly answer certain  vital questions, such as when the leak will be stopped, or when exactly America will switch to clean energy resources (this is all in the opinion of this group of critics). The latter group included MSNBC's Keith Olberman, who felt Obama had made no point whatsoever in his speech, and other TV anchors such as Rachel Maddow from MSNBC. She dedicated one of her shows to Obama's speech and even impersonated him by using the same Oval Office background in her studio to create a speech that she thinks Obama should have said instead.  (Video of this episode). Some of the key points she wishes he would have said were:

1. "Never again, will any company, be allowed to drill in a location where they are incapable of dealing with the potential consequences of that drilling."
2. "I'm announcing a new federal command specifically for containment and clean-up of oil that has already entered the Gulf of Mexico, with a priority on protecting shoreline that can still be saved; shoreline that is vulnerable to oil that has not yet been hit."
3. "I no longer say that we must get off oil like every president before me has said too. I no longer say that we must get off oil. We will get off oil and here's how: The United States Senate will pass an energy bill. This year."


Persian Gulf.

       Some concepts from these points will evolve into my main argument as well as other arguments and schools of thought which address issues arising from crude oil drilling. How feasible are these three points, not just in America, but in other countries too? Demanding that oil companies shouldn't drill in places where they won't be able to handle the risks of drilling is perceivably irrational. Oil companies do not choose where the oil is placed in the seabed, so how will they have any choice on choosing where to drill, they'll drill for oil wherever they find it because of the high demand for it. If people didn't need the oil from electricity to power their microwaves to make easy mac, or need refined oil to power their cars so they could go to the movies, these oil companies wouldn't be going tens of thousands of feet into the sea just to strike the oil's surface - talk more of the additional distance needed to actually start drilling.  And the truth is - accidents will happen and must happen so we can learn from them.  For example, the oil spill in the Persian Gulf in 1983 caused by a collision of an oil tanker into the Norwuz Oilfield which in turn caused the well beneath it to erupt, taught today's oil companies how to clean massive oil spills. Since this oil spill occurred in the middle of the Iran- Iraqi war, it took 7 months before the oil was actually cleaned up and by that time 80million gallons of oil had been spilled into the Persian Gulf,  compared to the estimated 2- 4.5 million gallons in the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. (Because the spill is still ongoing, there are only rough estimates for the spill in the Gulf, so I'm including an additional link for). However, even though we should be learning from previous oil accidents - there was a huge controversial secret that had been revealed by the major 5 oil companies in the USA which include Exxon-Mobil, BP, Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron and Conoco Phillips. Just recently, the heads of the 'Big 5' were put on the spot and drilled by the members of the U.S congress concerning their readiness to handle massive oil spills such as the celebrity BP oil spill. (watch response of the oil companies.)It turned out that all five oil companies had the same oil spill rectification plan and indeed, this plan was written by the same Texas based company: the Response Group. It was Rex Tillerson, Exxon-Mobil's CEO, who openly admitted that spills and other oil accidents will occur because oil companies, including his, are not entirely capable of handling such spills. Because with drilling, there will be ramifications for which the oil companies will not be well equipped. This revelation brings me back to the first amendment on Obama's Oval office speech made by Rachel Maddow; it stated that Oil companies shouldn't be allowed to drill in places where they know they cannot handle the consequences. The inconveniencing truth is no matter where they drill - like Rex Tillerson implied- if an oil spill occurs, there will be damages that cannot be rectified. When glass shatters, there are always those tiny pieces that remain, so talk more of oil, liquefied black gold.
In addition to the previous 'exposé', there is another little secret that has been revealed by the oil companies, aside from the revelation that they do not really know what they're are doing in the Gulf of Mexico and in the Timor Sea, Australia; the Niger Delta, Nigeria, the Arabian Sea, India (the list of oil spills is endless) and  other places too . It's been discovered that the same technology that was used about 40 years ago in the Santa Barbara oil spill of 1969 is the same technology being used in the BP Oil spill today.There's a video of US Congress confronting Oil companies on old boom technology because it has become apparent that there is something not working with the technology used in the Gulf. The main device used is called an oil boom and comes in different types; in summary, it's a pipe like structure that has inbuilt mechanisms which absorbs the oil best when the spill initially occurs. It's a bit peculiar that the Oil companies have advanced their methods of drilling, (in countries where there is sufficient economic power and government regulation), but they haven't considered investing in research that would provide more advanced ways of cleaning oil spills, given the fact that they confessed to knowing the risks of offshore drilling to the U.S Congress.
          So if the oil companies can play a game of hide and seek, in the world's superpower, America, imagine what they are doing, rather, what they are not doing in developing countries. In fact, it doesn't necessarily have to be developing countries that receive an arguably prejudiced attention to the oil spills occurring in their homeland, developed countries such as Australia, face the same prejudice. For example, if we take a diverse group of youths from around the globe, only about 1%  would know about the oil spill that occurred in Australia last year (~9million gallons of oil), which was believed to be able to compete with the effects of the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska (~11 million gallons). The Aussie oil spill was similar to the Gulf's oil spill in the sense that it occurred offshore, but differs in what actually caused the explosion: Aussie explosion was due to a fractured pipe, while BP explosion, according to the National Geographic channel, was due to damage caused by an accumulation of "Sea Snot."  Because the BP oil spill has gobbled up so much media attention for such a lengthy period of time, some people, including John A. Farrell,an award winning American libertarian and contributing editor of U.S. News, have started to view America as "the Whiner Nation." See Gulf Oil Spill Shows America has Become a Whiner Nation. This statement is rather interesting, because as I uncovered more layers of complexity in my topic, I noticed that there was an increase in the number of blogs and articles which talked about how other oil spills in some other countries made the BP oil spill look insignificant. Farrell and others, felt that the BP oil spill has become more or less a political playground where politicians manipulate the media to the extent that the spill seems more significant than it really is (relative to other major oil spills in different countries). For example, articles such as "Nigeria's Agony Dwarfs Oil Spill. The US and Europe Ignore It," which was written by John Vidal, the environmental editor of the Observer in a British newspaper called the Guardian, talk about how crises of equal significance or arguably more, are happening without receiving a quarter of the attention the BP spill is generating.  Already, following the occurrence BP oil spill, many oil companies are considering relocating to Ghana and Nigeria and the Middle East, where they believe the costs of dealing with environmental damage will be less. The article which provided this information called this transfer of employment West Africa's Gain and America's Loss. Obviously, David Freddoso,the author of this article and the online opinion editor of the Washington Examiner, was focusing solely on the economic aspects of this transfer - having considered the many negatived consequencesof oil drilling on a worldwide scale. So what do those countries who are unable to shine enough light on similar crises do? A suggestion was made in the above article that Nigeria should nationalize all the oil companies in the industry and this way they'd have more control on environmental policies. It was countered by others who said that the country already owns 40 - 60% of each foreign oil company drilling there, so giving it full custody might just make things worse. Is the final solution to just get off oil as many angry bloggers, fishermen, holiday-makers, and many others who have been impacted negatively by black gold echoed? Is the world adequately prepared to end it's love/hate relationship with oil for good? We know of alternative bio-fuels and other clean energy forms and their general feasibility compared to oil - but many of these alternatives don't work on the huge scale that oil does and some alternatives are still being tested. So even if we want to terminate or severely minimize our use of oil - the switch isn't entirely feasible and certainly cannot happen when next the wind whistles. However, it is becoming more evident that oil companies have been playing a strategic game of chess with the public's mind as they present one thing and secretly do another. A look at Exxon's blog page would make it impossible for anyone to believe that despite all their efforts and safety measures they claim to be taking while oil drilling, that they have a 30 year old platform which leaks an estimate of 5000barrels a day in Nigeria. Contributing to the public awareness of the game oil companies have been playing is the burst of finger pointing going on within the oil industry. Shell and Exxon just recently accused BP of using cheap materials for their drill in the Gulf and thus putting profits before safety. I guess even mighty oil companies are like children in the sense that whenever they(kids) get caught for doing something they shouldn't be, they shift blames, eventually exposing what they had been doing in the first place. In any case,blames have been 'pinged-ponged' back and forth to the extent that people become so frustrated that they simply accuse anyone who tries to get the oil cleaned up but doesn't really succeed: is it the spill the fault of the oil company, the government, the consumers who need the oil, or in fact maybe the sea should be blamed for existing in the first place? For many various groups of people, the answer to this question differs.

BP Coffee Spill - this Clip is cynically hilarious

BP Spills Coffee	UCBcomedy.com
Watch more comedy videos from the twisted minds of the UCB Theatre at UCBcomedy.com

Explanation:
As you saw in the video, BP had used everything but a paper napkin, which they had, to clean up the coffee spill. While the oil spill in the Gulf may require more complex material than a paper napkin, it is true however, that BP has been neglecting the help from foreign countries who have used technologies that have cleaned up oils spills elswhere. In addition, it was revealed in the U.S Congress that BP was using outdated technology which had been used about 40 years ago in the Persian Gulf. (that's the bit in the video where the CEO tries to invent something to pick up the cup).
The bit about putting hair onto the coffee to try to stop the leak from spreading, sprouted from an idea that BP should use donated hair to stop the leak - since hair can soak up vasts amounts of liquid without posing any enviromental danger.
The part about Kevin Costner, the American star of the film Dances With Wolves, refers to the oil -spill-absorber- machine that he had purchased from Exxon. for fine tuning in 1995.  Apparently, he put $24 million of his money into the developing of that machine and unfortunately for him, BP, trying to control the problem by themselves as much as they can, refused to purchase the machine.

All in favour, say I.

I just learnt that there are some movements that are trying to reduce the liabilities of oil companies when oil spills occur. For example, the article "Oil Spill Response at Issue in La.'s Senate Race," states that a US republican senator is currently being put under scrutiny by an opposing democratic candidate because the republican is "trying to protect companies like BP from financial liability in a massive oil spill." http://www.necn.com/10/07/10/Oil-spill-response-at-issue-in-Las-Senat/landing.html?&blockID=3&apID=d2a9ff8dcdc047f2a20ac912dfdb346a"

While this may very well be mere speculation caused by political rivalry, I do want to address the issue brought up by the accusations. Should oil companies have limited liability for their oil spills?  (limited liability is the economic jargon for : shouldn't be held legally responsible and thus subject to fines for their actions.)
Before you make any hasty decisions and comments, think about it. Our first instinct is to say HECK YA! But sometimes the circumstances for oil spills are different; sometimes the spill may occur as a result of worn out capital (e.g old pipelines and archaic oil pumps - as in the case of less economic powered countries). When an oil spill does occur in these cases, it is the fault of the oil companies for not replacing worn out capital. Because they could have prevented environmental damage and reduced costs to society of cleaning it up, or experiencing the loss of agricultural produce.
Now let's analyse the opposing side: Whenever oil tankers are covering thousands of miles by going from one country to another, or within a country e.g. from Alaska to Michigan, and the driver, for about 4 seconds, briefly nods off (it's an tediously long journey) and on the 5th second wearily opens his eyes to find a skunk in the middle of the road, his immediate reaction is to hit the brakes and swerves, which he then does. In swerving, the truck's tank detaches from the truck and into lake Superior.
Who to blame: The company- for employing that driver, or simply look at the event as a mistake? (the driver can't be blamed, because the company ultimately employed the driver). So in this case, should the company have limited liability and let the government handle all the costs of the oil spill or are they in anyway responsible? In the case of BP's oil spill in the Gulf, should BP really be held entirely accountable for the Cap breaking off under pressure or is it just a risk in oil drilling? When the oil tanker ABT Summer exploded about 900 miles off the coast of Angola, spilling its entire cargo of 1,905,800 barrels at sea, whose fault is that? 
facts - http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE6511HJ20100604?pageNumber=1

A crude Awakenig

IF YOU THINK THE OIL SPILL IN THE GULF OF MEXICO IS BAD, check this out.

foei.org

                   

The DAILY effects of black gold in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria -

Any water you see in this photo is isn't water, it's oil.

If you are a bit stunned by the pictures, then I think I should let you know that I posted the lesser of the graphic pictures - and remember photos can only tell half of a story. The spills are real and are ongoing, as I type, the oil pump in the 1st photo on the left is oozing out a bit of oil per minute because it's over 50 years old and hasn't been replaced. .

Just to clear any misconceptions, I am neither an activists for oil spills in Nigeria nor am I undermining the significance of the Gulf oil spill. Through these images and my posts, I am simply trying to create awareness of the similar problems other countries face; an oil spill is an oil spill, no matter where it happens, and thus should get equal media attention. I am getting my point across by using Nigeria, because I have conducted some studies of the Niger Delta, a small oil producing region in Nigeria, and thus I have substantial background information on it. So by making the Niger Delta my focal point, I hope to educate others of tragedies caused by oil elsewhere, because in such a rapidly globalising world, where everyone is indirectly affected by everything, it's imperative that one should be aware of current affairs in other countries. Furthermore, I could have chosen any other factor that could affect people everywhere such as the stock market, but I didn't because black gold runs the earth even the electric motherboards of stock markets.

Feel free to ask questions that you may have and I'll try to answer them to the best of my ability

Oilway to hell *update(that's the name of the video)*