BP and Basic Research

Of the countless number of lessons one might learn from the BP blowout in the Gulf, the lack of basic research is one lesson I have not heard anyone mention.

Industry, whether it is oil, food, forestry, or finance has been completely focused in the past few decades upon increasing production and revenue flow. I'm not sure if there is either an assumption that science has already done the basic research to support extending current technologies, or that there is just a belief that engineering and product design can circumvent any complication encountered. Well, it hasn't and it can't.

The BP blowout is a classic example of extending technology beyond what is known about the environment in which that technology is being applied. The fact that no one understood that gas hydrates would form within their first effort at containment was a certain indicator that this crisis was not going to be resolved quickly.

I'm guessing, that if the oil industry is like any other, they have been approached by scientists interested in establishing that basic understanding. I'm also guessing that industry wasn't interested in supporting that research because it did not directly translate into production and revenue flow. Government, heavily influenced by industry in directing their research funding, probably didn't see a need, or more specifically, an 'application,' either.

BP is just one example and I am left to wonder how many other examples we will see over the next few years. Funding for basic research is down everywhere.

In British Columbia, the provincial government has drastically reduced forestry research in the Ministry of Forests and Range. I'm thinking that they do not understand how basic research was aiding 'growth and yield.' As just one example, an entirely new bioenergy industry is emerging in British Columbia, but we know almost nothing about the ecology of the woody debris that they wish to remove for burning. The failures in these areas won't be as acutely dramatic as what is currently unfolding in the Gulf, but they could be just as damaging and even longer lasting.

YouTube Video Credit: UCBcomedy.com

I Told You So

Twenty years ago, in 1989, the Exxon Valdez ran aground off the coast of Alaska dumping 40 million litres of oil into Prince William Sound.  

Today, Prince William Sound looks clean, but it isn't. A study has shown that a great deal of oil still remains.

Back in 1982, I pulled together some data that had been lying around in the lab in which I did my Master's thesis research.  It was dealing with how oil and water mix and the toxicity of this mixture.  I presented that data to a conference in Edmonton, attended by a great many representative of the oil and gas industry.  I was unprepared for the hostility the data and my presentation would receive, unfamiliar with the politics of oil.

One person wearing a suit of some expense--mine would have made Michael Moore proud--, took exception to the data showing the degree of toxicity.  He said something to the effect of, "It's all gone in a few years so who gives a damn!"

I replied that the 'visible' fraction of the oil on beaches would be gone, but the heavy fraction, composed of toxic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons would remain beneath the surface for a very long time.  This would move through the food chain and while it might not result in oil soaked sea otters washing up on the shore, it would still be causing damage.  This was not greeted well and suggestions of wild speculation rose from the floor.  There were around two hundred people attending, and from my perspective on the podium, no one seemed happy. 

Now we find ourselves twenty years down the road from the Exxon Valdez.  What is the research showing?  According to a recent interview with Jeff Short in Science News, who studied the spill for NOAA (US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), about half of the original toxicity of the oil remains,..... mostly in the form of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.  

Photo Credit: Oiled bird: Courtesy of the Exxon Valdex Oil Spill Trustee Council

For The Record

The Alberta government needs to fact check their facts.

I was listening to CBC radio a few days ago when I heard that the Government of Alberta has added an on-line fact check feature relating to news articles about the province.  They call it "For the Record."

The CBC noted that the Alberta government was crying foul at a statement made recently in The Economist magazine regarding the tar sand operations.  The Economist (January 15, 2009) stated, "At some projects, leaks of toxic materials have polluted waterways."

In response, the Alberta government website stated, for the record,"Alberta has monitored and tested Athabasca watercourses for decades; all of our data indicates no evidence of contamination from the oil sands project."

Is the Alberta government telling the truth?  Not according to my memory.  

Sometime in the early 1980s (probably 1982) my Master's degree supervisor, Dr. Lyle Lockhart, at the Freshwater Institute in Winnipeg, was involved in providing expert testimony against Suncor (one of the big tar sand operators) relating to a spill into the Athabasca River.  The lab I was working in did some toxicity testing of the oil using duckweed as a bioindicator.  It was necessary to provide evidence of the toxicity of the material.

I recall the spill was caused by a fire that burned through the protective liner of a waste pond. The spill occurred in the winter as it was detected days after the event by a helicopter pilot who saw a huge plug of oil under the ice. 

Many charges were laid against Suncor but the province of Alberta handed the case over to a single lawyer who was overwhelmed with the legal paperwork created by a small army of lawyers for Suncor.   He had a nervous breakdown, at least that is what I was told, during the trial.  In the end, most charges were dismissed and Suncor was convicted only on a handful. If my memory is correct, total fines were in the few thousands of dollars.  Probably less than one week of lawyers fees.

I say that The Economist got it right.

Photo Credit: The Economist (tar sand operations near Fort McMurray).