Peak Oil (was "petroleum geologist explains US war policy")

[Shevek]

Read 80% of this thread from the beginning a few months ago. Was VERY interested. I even signed upto emails from my local Transition Towns movement. I haven't been to any of the meetings yet. This is partly due to the fact that their meetings have clashed with other stuff I am doing and that some of their activities (e.g sharing skills about how to knit tea cosy's don't seem that relevant or useful to me).

I have tried to tell a few people about this topic (my partner and one of my colleagues at work) but they don't really seem to take it in. When I first heard about it I was aghast. I did A level geography so a bit concerned as to why I didn't twig this reality from some of my text books (as kyser soze said when he was a kid learning stuff from books/the library).

My thought on peak oil verge from the idea that it will just be armageddon to some probably quite bleak but vaguely tolerable scenario. I don't really know why my partner/friends arent't alarmed. I haven't pushed the issue.

Its clearly not really an issue at this election but maybe in the 2015 election 'peak oil' will have replaced twitter and social media and the credit crunch as the zeitgeist of the election

From the comfort of my semi-middle class home, with ample food and electric I take a bit of a taoist view on these things. Everything comes to an end. I am sure some pockets of civilisation will endure somewhere. I just feel it is a shame we never got to explore the universe.

(Carl Sagan - physicist Symphony of Science)

"how luck we are to be living in this time. The first time in human history when we are in fact visiting other worlds"

 

[goebfwai]

I don't really know why my partner/friends arent't alarmed.

Don't worry, this is normal. Some people are of a more free thinking disposition, but most people wait to be guided by various forms of media sources about what are the issues, what they should be paying attention to or what they shoud be alarmed about.

People are swamped with communication and information. If something is barely mentioned or given top billing, people are less likely to notice or think it's of any consequence.

There is also an element of herd instinct in operation in most things, it's also an ancient survival mechanism, letting other people lead, staying in the middle ground, not trailing behind etc. The bulk of people - in fact it's the case with most species - are followers. If other people seem to see something as an issue, then they tend to conform and coalesce around it, and it enters their 'belief' system. If they don't see any other followers (or many of them) then they tend to ignore it. If it seems to catch on one day then they might 'join the bandwagon'.

In any event activity on peak oil is subtly incorporated in the background within both the environmental movement, and it's new bedfellow, the climate change movement, given both tend to be focussed on recycling, promoting public transport, bikes and other stuff, which may have the effect of slowly reducing oil demand and consumption.

 

[Shevek]

I was watching Caroline Lucas being virtually insulted by Jeremy Paxman on newsnight the other night. She was talking about a 'sustainable' economy, one that recognises we are a finite planet with finite resources (not just oil). So yes I suppose people like the Greens are subtley aware of PO issues and incorporating them into their policies.



No Green candidate is standing in my area. I am gonna vote Lib Dem anyway because I want to push electoral reform which could help renew our democracy, push things in new directions.

 

[elbows]

We only needed Green politics to raise awareness of this stuff if we actually wanted to do something about it well in advance of the peak. We are already going beyond that point now, peak oil is not far away from the mainstream now. Both Obama and Brown have gotten much closer to admitting it than any previous leader I recall in my lifetime (born 1975).

Its been on the radar before, the 1970s when America peaked is a good place to look for the origins of wider belief in this stuff, and it was compatible with the mood & other events of that decade. However it was always something we would avoid dealing with as long as possible, so we got several decades of managing to avoid the issue and delay the inevitable instead. Which isnt surprising really, as it only takes acceptance of oil peaking within a reasonable timeframe in order for some of its effects to be felt dramatically, eg oil price and consequences of the end of cheap & easy oil. The market cant handle the truth, but now the reality has been gradually dawning this century there is no alternative but to face up to it.

As for why people dont take it in, so many reasons. Love of cars, love of flying, being heavily shielded from the underlying realities of the infrastructure that supports out way of life. Not thinking that it has anything to do with them, beyond their control, what can they do about it? This will probably fade as the realities merge with the climate change agenda and the economic woetime.

if the story is told in purely economic terms then it could remain obscured for another generation but its far from clear at this stage.

The transition town stuff is interesting, has some pretty big flaws such as a failure to recognise that the state & existing structure will not simply melt away and have people return to a local 'good life', but there is no point in me being overly sneery about such things, people should explore and learn and reskill as much as they can. Im not really prepared at all, apart from psychologically. I just wish that when I tried to tell my boss about this stuff 7 or 8 years ago, and he said 'even if its true, what can I do about it', that I had an answer. Now its almost too late for him and I finally have an answer for him, which was to deleverage as much as possible instead of assuming that he could go on expanding based on cheap energy and debt. Oh well, time to dust off some Van Der Graaf Generator albums.

 

[Shevek]

I still like to think we could manage this in some way. Maybe I am naive. I don't understand everything. Maybe this economic crisis is the beginnning of the end.

My ambition is still to get into social anthropology but dunno how that squares with peak oil. If I am still alive in 10 years maybe I will be working on an allotment somewhere growing cabbages and salvaging scraps of paper to write poetry on by candlelight.

VERY depressing indeed. Dunno what else to say.

Had a look at postcarbon.org which seems to push the idea that we can adapt and that the situation can be managed in some way. Having said that there doesn't seem to have been much activity on the website this year.

 

[elbows]

I didnt say we couldnt manage it, only that some of the views of how the transition will be managed are not taking account of the fact that those who dont want to emulate 'the good life' are going to be around to complicate the picture too.

Even if its the beginning of the end, its only the end of some things, not the end of everything and everyone.

There are lots of ways to adapt, Im not going to get hugely depressed about it unless Im sure that its going to be managed in a brutal and hideous way, and even then there is always hope.

 

[goebfwai]

It's sad what's happening in Lousiana with this oil spillage isn't it? It looks a real bad one. As if the health of the oceans wasn't bad enough. Unless oil exploration and drilling procedure standards are tightened substantially worldwide, I expect we'll see a lot more of this type of thing in a peak oil world. The oil extracted in the decades up to now has been the relatively easy stuff to get out. A lot of the stuff that's left is much harder - and riskier - to get out.

 

[Shevek]

some of the views of how the transition will be managed are not taking account of the fact that those who dont want to emulate 'the good life' are going to be around to complicate the picture too.

Yeah I kinda get this. I have been on the Manchester Transition Cities website and there was a guy saying he did all his shopping at local shops (not supermarkets), recycled, bicycled everywhere, didn't own a car, didn't buy plastic or electronic tat.

I kind of see the point of doing some of that stuff. I don't own a car but could make my own life more sustainable. Things I am not sure about is e.g. If I want to buy a flat screen TV or an e-reader or even something essential like a laptop do I avoid doing that. I kind of see its kinder to the environment but then you are also kind of blocking progress, never updating your technology etc..

I personally favour anarchist solutions but as there isn't much of an anarchist movement in Britain and commercialism and consumerism are deeply ingrained in our society I don't hold out much hope of an anarchist solution (except the little things I am helping to build in my own city - tenants group/alternative media).

I do sort of think when PO breaks that will give some power to the elbow of parliamentary parties like the Greens (and to an extent the Lib Dems) who are into sustainable development/living within our natural limits.

 

[Shevek]

Have just been talking to my gran about rationing and austerity in WW2 and aftermath. Perhaps there is something we could learn from this generation.

Still like to have my luxury and new stuff, electronic gadgets and gizmos, luxury foods, stuff for the house, new stuff in general..

 

[elbows]

Yeah I was moaning a few years ago that the last generation in the West to really have to live with the 'make do and mend' mentality and skills-set in a big way are sadly in the process of leaving us.

Oh well, necessity is the mother of invention and all that. Most of the coming to terms with reality and adjusting that people will have to do is only going to happen when it really has to. I do keep droning on about the time when the word sustainability really gets teeth.

As for not buying new laptops etc, do whatever you feel comfortable with. The world wont be saved by a minority of people taking it to the extreme now, or feeling guilty, but if it fits your mindset then why not. I havent stopped buying 'luxury items' but Ive learnt not to take them for granted, to really appreciate having them now and trying to prepare my mind for the possibility of not being able to have them in future. Even getting used to paying attention to how much you & your devices are consuming is a start, and is a different mindset to the unbridled consumption of recent decades. Certainly in the early stages of the transition many of the solutions are the same as the climate change ones, recycling, looking at how many watts your new telly will consume & picking a more sensible alternative, getting better home insulation etc etc etc.

 

[Shevek]

I havent stopped buying 'luxury items' but Ive learnt not to take them for granted, to really appreciate having them now and trying to prepare my mind for the possibility of not being able to have them in future.

Well given I have bought into the PO and sustainability schtick to some extent I do find it quite awe inspiring that I can walk into this giant metal box (supermarket) 10 minutes walk from my flat and for not very much money buy delicious gourmet pastries, meats, delicatessen cheeses, ground coffees from all over the world, exotic fruits and vegetables. It truly is a cornucopia and I suppose I do appreciate it all more because I know it might be transient.

 

[Superdupastupor]

A fuck I've just had one of those personal revaltions: in the Uk a massive part of the price of oil/petrol/energy is goverment tax . How are the government ever going to do anything about reducing oil consumtion whilst simultaneous raising revenue from that consumption?

I know it's obvious , but oh dear.

Government: part of the problem . Not part o the solution ATM

 

[Falcon]

A fuck I've just had one of those personal revaltions: in the Uk a massive part of the price of oil/petrol/energy is goverment tax . How are the government ever going to do anything about reducing oil consumtion whilst simultaneous raising revenue from that consumption?

I know it's obvious , but oh dear.

Government: part of the problem . Not part o the solution ATM

By doubling the tax on petrol and broadening it to a tax on the carbon component on all of your purchases. At the moment the carbon content and the energy content of your purchases are pretty highly correlated because of the dominance of hydrocarbon power generation in the manufacturing process. So it is a good proxy.

You would see an almost immediate realignment of spending as people eliminated marginal utility consumption and net reduction in consumption as energy externality was internalised in the price. The Government could use the revenue it raises to subsidise renewable energy R&D spend in those high potential/high risk areas that are too risky for private investment, to accelerate the development of transition technologies.

Efficiency initiatives, although essential, won't work at this stage because of the Jevons Paradox which describes the tendency for efficiency improvements to result in increased energy consumption amongst consumers who have surplus income relative to other types of purchases.

So Government have to be involved because only they have the authority to impose and collect tax, and only tax works at this stage.

A little economics goes a long way in this field.

 

[Dr Jon]

Speaking as a former employee, it's a bit simpler than that. The function of the enterprise is to maximise shareholder value i.e. the share price. It's not to keep your lights on - that's government's responsibility, which they abdicated some time ago.
...

Just spotted What BP's Oil Disaster and Goldman Sachs' Rip-off Schemes Have in Common

After 30 years of deregulation, it's no wonder everything from oil production to banking is messed up

 

[goebfwai]

According to a memo leaked to Gulf Coast newspapers, BP officials have privately admitted to the US government that the torrent of hot, high-pressure crude oil surging through the broken pipe could quite conceivably blow the remaining hardware off the top of the well. This would turn the current 5,000-barrel-a-day spill into a cataclysmic gusher of 40,000 to 60,000 barrels a day. Capping such a flow a mile under water is beyond current technology; if things go that way, there may be no other option than waiting until the flow drops to a more manageable level. If that means the death of every multicellular organism in the Gulf of Mexico, storm surges this hurricane season that leave everything for miles inland coated with black goo, and tar balls and dead birds floating ashore wherever the Gulf Stream goes – and yes, these are tolerably likely consequences if the wellhead blows – that’s what it means.
http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2010/05/principle-of-subsidiary-function.html

Reminds me a bit of the oil drilling several years back - Indonesia I think it was? - where instead of oil, they got an unstoppable avalanche of volcanic mud or something that blanketed the landscape for miles around for months or years afterwards. Anyone know what happened with that little disaster, and whether it is still gushing?

PS S***, as if fish stocks and the health of the seas around Britain aren't bad enough, I've just realised the Gulf Stream ends up flowing here. In this situation, it looks as if man's technology is useless and feeble against the forces of nature. I guess we can only hope and pray that the proverbial 'hand of God' can hold back the black pit of hell the drilling has opened up.

 

[Superdupastupor]

^^^^

Ever since the disaster in the Gulf its sounded like a plan to not panic stock price and conceal the extent of the problem.


Construct a masssive dome a mile under the sea to contain the oil you say ??

 

[elbows]

Its more of a funnel than a dome really, as far as I know the top of it gets connected to a tanker which pumps it up, otherwise it would just fill up quickly. It might work, we'll find out soon.

 

[goebfwai]

Dimitry Orlov has an interesting take on the oil spill. With trademark pragmatic rationale and evocative perception, he describes it as an "American Chernobyl"

http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/2010/05/american-chernobyl.html

 

[Falcon]

His observation that the people at the top don't understand their business is fairly acute. Hayward isn't regarded as the sharpest tool in the box within the company (probably unwise to relay the speculations about how his career managed to defy the gravity of some of his disastrous business decisions during his ascent of the greasy pole).

 

[goebfwai]

His observation that the people at the top don't understand their business is fairly acute. Hayward isn't regarded as the sharpest tool in the box within the company (probably unwise to relay the speculations about how his career managed to defy the gravity of some of his disastrous business decisions during his ascent of the greasy pole).

Interesting. What'dya make of this geezer Simmons conclusions below - defeatist or realistic?

"With each day, as the leaking oil well a mile deep in the Gulf of Mexico remains uncapped, industry observers and scientists are crafting scenarios that range from bad to worse to worst, with some forecasting a calamity of historic proportions."

"No one is sure how much oil is leaking. The Coast Guard initially said there was no leak, then said there was a leak of 1,000 barrels a day, then upped the estimate to 5,000 barrels. On Tuesday, BP officials put the worst-case scenario at 60,000 barrels a day."

""It's really, really devastating," said Greg McCormack, director of the Petroleum Extension Service at the University of Texas. "On the political front, are we going to be allowed to drill in the deep water again? That's going to be more devastating to society than to the industry. We're going to have much higher oil prices because of that."

"Few people are more apocalyptic than Matt Simmons, retired chairman of the energy investment banking firm Simmons & Co. International, and a veteran of 41 years in the industry. Simmons...has been famous in recent years for warning that the industry is running out of oil. Now he sees a disaster on an epic scale as the pressurized subterranean reservoir known as the Macondo field, estimated to hold 50 million barrels of oil, continues to vent into the gulf. "It really is a catastrophe," Simmons said. "I don't think they're going to be able to put the leak out until the reservoir depletes. It's just too technically challenging."
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcon...worstcase_05tex.ART.State.Edition2.e274a.html

 

[spacemonkey]

Have they seriously considered nuking it? That's what the Russians use to do.

 

[goebfwai]

"some estimates comparing flow to an Exxon Valdez every four days...one analysis suggests gusher is 70,000 barrels daily...12 times more powerful than estimates by Coast Guard or BP." http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/may/13/bp-oil-spill-ocean-footage

I had to laugh (in a black humour kind of way) at the comments of BP Chief Executive Tony Hayward who said the oil spill was "tiny" compared to the ocean. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/may/13/bp-boss-admits-mistakes-gulf-oil-spill] As if the Gulf of Mexico was some self-contained lake, quite separate from global ocean circulation currents (principally the North Atlantic Current) that takes water - and the unparallelled pollution event within it like this - worldwide. As if the oceans were just some vast sewer in which you can flush stuff in and it then disappears out of sight and out of mind. This highly toxic oil will get into EVERYTHING on a molecular level in the food chain, from plankton and algae to sea flora. This leads to concentration of harmful and highly carcinogenic pollutants in species at the top of the food chain. In the fish. And those who eat the fish (no prizes for guessing who they are!)

Of course river and inland lake based fish wont be as badly affected. Even still, dust off that vegetarian cookbook my friends. Until such time as the seas and global fish stocks fully recover - if they ever do - this side of 2030-50, we'll all need to get used to eating more lentil burgers for a change.

Exxon Valdez (in the 80's?) was sufficient to pollute a massive stretch of coastline for generations. With no sign of the Gulf leak stopping (and one notable expert cited in an earlier post saying it's actually beyond current technology) an Exxon Valdez sized spill every 4 days, means we're at a pollution event that's already SEVERAL TIMES the severity of Valdez. And growing. Governments around the world, wherever they are, all have a vested interest in stopping the oil spill. In my opinion, if they had any sense and sense of priority they should be offering to mobilise their navies and military and all the Tefal men they can onto it, offering to help and showing some solidarity with America in it's hour of need. Assuming a technical fix to cap the well can be developed, if the clean-up is left entirely to cash conscious B.P. and a cash strapped US military all on their tod it will take longer to do, leading to greater environmental and economic damage.

Time perhaps to temporarily mothball space exploration and all that pallaver? Dealing with what's a mile down and protecting the environment is surely the biggest priority for now.

 

[laptop]

Reminds me a bit of the oil drilling several years back - Indonesia I think it was? - where instead of oil, they got an unstoppable avalanche of volcanic mud or something that blanketed the landscape for miles around for months or years afterwards. Anyone know what happened with that little disaster, and whether it is still gushing?

It may go on for 30 years and a recent report says yes, it was caused by drilling.

 

[Barking_Mad]

It has estimated ultimate reserves of about 600 million barrels (95 million m³)

according to Wikipedia. And i saw this....

Speaking on National Public Radio on May 6, lawyers for some survivors of the blast claim that their clients were kept in boats and on another rig for 15 hours or more before being brought to shore, and when they did get to shore, "they were zipped into private buses, there was security there, there was no press, no lawyers allowed, nothing, no family members. They drove them to this hotel and they escorted them into the back of this hotel, once again under escort". Secluded at the hotel for several hours, they were questioned by company consultants and investigators and given a form to sign.

 

[goebfwai]

It has estimated ultimate reserves of about 600 million barrels (95 million m³) according to Wikipedia. And i saw this....
Quote:
Speaking on National Public Radio on May 6, lawyers for some survivors of the blast claim that their clients were kept in boats and on another rig for 15 hours or more before being brought to shore, and when they did get to shore, "they were zipped into private buses, there was security there, there was no press, no lawyers allowed, nothing, no family members. They drove them to this hotel and they escorted them into the back of this hotel, once again under escort". Secluded at the hotel for several hours, they were questioned by company consultants and investigators and given a form to sign.

Very interesting Barking. That partly explains the virtual news blackout in the west then. But of course, the oil spill can't be ignored by the media completely. Even still, remarkable to juxtapose the treatment of it (side show slot in the news bulletins, always slanted towards a fantastic new solution being just around the corner) compared to the blanket 'surround sound' coverage of Chernobyl or 9/11. Of course when an environmental disaster is caused by and in the west (something of an 'own goal' to use a football term) it will - like it or not - always be treated rather more delicately and circumspectly, compared to one carried out by (or blameable upon) a foreign country or it's kindred corporations.

Anyway, I wonder if this new 'one mile long' pipe thing will work? Whether people have faith or not, it can't do any harm to pray that it does. I truly hope this disaster is one that the oceans can recover from, but if it doesn't - God help us.

 

[goebfwai]

Some useful reading from across the pond on the 'black death of the oceans' that's begun in the Gulf of Mexico. Consider mathematician Benoit Mandelbroit's 'chaos theory' analogy about a butterfly flapping it's wings causing a hurricane miles away, and ponder on the myriad, often highly magnified effects downstream this calamitous oil spill will have.

Napolitano: Oil spill fix could take weeks "Chemicals are being sprayed underwater to disperse the oil and keep it from washing ashore in great quantities. But millions of gallons are already in the Gulf, and researchers say they have found miles-long underwater oil plumes that could poison and suffocate sea life with possible decade-long effects across the food chain." http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/18/gulf-oil-spill-could-take-weeks-to-plug-napolitano/

Giant Plumes of Oil Forming Under the Gulf "Scientists are finding enormous oil plumes in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico, including one as large as 10 miles long, 3 miles wide and 300 feet thick in spots." The discovery is fresh evidence that the leak from the broken undersea well could be substantially worse than estimates that the government and BP have given." [i.e. 60-100,000 barrels a day leaking, instead of 5000 - that's as much as 10-20 times worse] http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/16/us/16oil.html

[Dispersing and removing oil on the surface is hard enough. But suspended way, way down in the depths of the ocean, a mile deep? With one sub sea plume (all on it's own - there are more) measuring nearly 30 square miles and up to 300 feet high (that's an underwater, city sized plume, the height of a 40 storey building). This is an environmental clean-up challenge of unparalleled proportions.]

Napolitano: Feds lack expertise to deal with deepwater spill "Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano acknowledged Monday that the federal government doesn't have the resources or expertise to deal with an oil spill 5,000 feet below the sea, and must largely depend on oil companies to deal with an incident of such magnitude." http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/05/17/1634252/napolitano-feds-lack-expertise.html#ixzz0oHVPBYql

Lacks expertise? Really? So what are they going to do about it? They say that "pride comes before a fall". (And nobody wants to see the American economy and the health of the oceatic ecology and all the life it sustains fall further than it's done already!) What's the problem with asking some trusted countries to send navy, army, engineering and scientific help? Scotland and Norway in particular have excellent oil experience. Nobody will think any the less of Obama or America. This is an issue that the world should be working together to try and solve. In the global village, in the global oceans, the Gulf of Mexico is not an island. An oil spill recognises no borders.

 

[Barking_Mad]

The BBC's reporting of this story is woeful, in fact id go as far to say that it is choosing to leave out information from its reports.

For instance:

Scientists said on Sunday they had found vast underwater plumes of oil, one 10 miles (16km) long and a mile wide, lending weight to the fears of those who believe the actual spill could be many times greater than the estimate of 5,000 barrels daily.

BP said on Monday it was managing to funnel the equivalent of 1,000 barrels a day of oil from the well to a tanker ship with the use of a mile-long tube. That would amount to a fifth of the estimated daily spill of 5,000 barrels - an estimate made by the coast guard and BP.

No mention that it is 300ft deep, and no mention (as in other web reports) what scientists had said might be the actual number of barrels leaking into the sea. Instead it is just "those who believe the actual spill could be many times greater than the estimate of 5,000 barrels daily".

No worries though because in other 'bigger' news England might not get the World Cup....

 

[Barking_Mad]

Map of oil spill

Air tests show health risks on land

Today the Louisiana Environmental Action Network released its analysis of air monitoring test results by the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA's air testing data comes from Venice, a coastal community 75 miles south of New Orleans in Louisiana's Plaquemines Parish.

The findings show that levels of airborne chemicals have far exceeded state standards and what's considered safe for human exposure.

For instance, hydrogen sulfide has been detected at concentrations more than 100 times greater than the level known to cause physical reactions in people. Among the health effects of hydrogen sulfide exposure are eye and respiratory irritation as well as nausea, dizziness, confusion and headache.

The concentration threshold for people to experience physical symptoms from hydrogen sulfide is about 5 to 10 parts per billion. But as recently as last Thursday, the EPA measured levels at 1,000 ppb. The highest levels of airborne hydrogen sulfide measured so far were on May 3, at 1,192 ppb.

Testing data also shows levels of volatile organic chemicals that far exceed Louisiana's own ambient air standards. VOCs cause acute physical health symptoms including eye, skin and respiratory irritation as well as headaches, dizziness, weakness, nausea and confusion.

Louisiana's ambient air standard for the VOC benzene, for example, is 3.76 ppb, while its standard for methylene chloride is 61.25 ppb. Long-term exposure to airborne benzene has been linked to cancer, while the EPA considers methylene chloride a probable carcinogen.

Air testing results show VOC concentrations far above these state standards. On May 6, for example, the EPA measured VOCs at levels of 483 ppb. The highest levels detected to date were on April 30, at 3,084 ppb, following by May 2, at 3,416 ppb.

 

[goebfwai]

The BBC's reporting of this story is woeful, in fact id go as far to say that it is choosing to leave out information from its reports.

For instance:






No mention that it is 300ft deep, and no mention (as in other web reports) what scientists had said might be the actual number of barrels leaking into the sea. Instead it is just "those who believe the actual spill could be many times greater than the estimate of 5,000 barrels daily".

No worries though because in other 'bigger' news England might not get the World Cup....

Yeah, no mention too that a number of scientists using particle flow analysis software on the videos have calculated that the spill is way, way higher than 5000 barrels a day. It's incredible how you've got to visit the American news to find out what's really going on concerning a spill involving a British oil company. Thank God for the internet - if it wasn't for that none of us here in 'Britville' would know much about it!

 

[goebfwai]

Map of oil spill

Air tests show health risks on land "...hydrogen sulfide has been detected at concentrations more than 100 times greater than the level known to cause physical reactions in people. Among the health effects of hydrogen sulfide exposure are eye and respiratory irritation as well as nausea, dizziness, confusion and headache.

The concentration threshold for people to experience physical symptoms from hydrogen sulfide is about 5 to 10 parts per billion. But as recently as last Thursday, the EPA measured levels at 1,000 ppb. The highest levels of airborne hydrogen sulfide measured so far were on May 3, at 1,192 ppb.

Testing data also shows levels of volatile organic chemicals that far exceed Louisiana's own ambient air standards. VOCs cause acute physical health symptoms including eye, skin and respiratory irritation as well as headaches, dizziness, weakness, nausea and confusion.

Louisiana's ambient air standard for the VOC benzene, for example, is 3.76 ppb, while its standard for methylene chloride is 61.25 ppb. Long-term exposure to airborne benzene has been linked to cancer, while the EPA considers methylene chloride a probable carcinogen.

Air testing results show VOC concentrations far above these state standards. On May 6, for example, the EPA measured VOCs at levels of 483 ppb. The highest levels detected to date were on April 30, at 3,084 ppb, following by May 2, at 3,416 ppb.

Gosh those poor people!