Do it for the fish!

[handy]

https://www.lewrockwell.com/fontova/fontova71.html

Drill Offshore – For a Seafood Bonanza

by Humberto Fontova


Louisiana takes many hits as "the northernmost banana republic." Yuppies and Greenies constitute a rare, exotic and even comical species down here – to the immense benefit of America's energy needs. "Progressive" and "enlightened" would not be terms Obama's Bay Area supporters would use to describe the Bayou state's decision-makers – especially those who made major decisions half a century ago.

Yet these rustics and yahoos spurred more revolutionary "change" in the production of (genuine) energy than any Obama supporter could imagine with all his or her hallucinations about solar panels and windmills.

In energy production, Louisiana has been well ahead of the learning curve for decades, and offers ready proof regarding its much-hyped "perils." The first offshore oil production platforms went up off the Louisiana coast in 1947.

By 1953 Hollywood (no less!) was already hailing the pioneering wildcatters who moved major mountains – technological, logistical, psychological, cultural – to tap and reap this source that today provides a quarter of America's domestic petroleum, without causing a single major oil spill in the process. This record stands despite dozens of hurricanes – including the two most destructive in North American history, Camille and Katrina – repeatedly battering the drilling and production structures, along with the 20,000 miles of pipeline that transport the oil shoreward. This is the most extensive offshore pipeline network in the world.

In the 1953 movie Thunder Bay, Jimmy Stewart plays the complicated protagonist, Steve Martin, the hard-bitten, ex-navy oil engineer who built the first offshore oil platform off Louisiana in 1947. "The brawling, mauling story of the biggest bonanza of them all!" says the Universal ad for the studio's first wide-screen movie.

Much of the brawling by Stewart and his henchmen was against the local Cajuns who fished and shrimped for a living. Their livelihood, it seemed obvious at the time, would soon vanish amidst a hellbroth of irreversible pollution. The movie covers a time period of barely one year yet ends on a happy note of conciliation as the fishermen reaped a bonanza almost as big as Jimmy's itself. The oil structures had kicked in as artificial reefs and made possible a bigger haul of seafood than anything in these fishermen's lifetimes.

Half a century later, with 3203 of the 3,729 offshore oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico studding her coastal waters, Louisiana provides almost a third of North America's commercial fisheries. A study by LSU's sea grant college shows that 85 percent of Louisiana's offshore fishing trips involve fishing around these structures. The same study found 50 times more marine life around an oil production platform than in the surrounding mud bottoms. That this proliferation of seafood might come because – rather than in spite – of the oil production rattled many environmental cages and provoked a legion of scoffers.

Amongst the scoffers were some The Travel Channel producers, fashionably greenish in their views. But they read these claims in a book titled The Helldiver's Rodeo. The book described an undersea panorama that (if true) could make an interesting show for the network, they concluded, while still scoffing.

They scoffed as we rode in from the airport. They scoffed over raw oysters, grilled redfish and seafood gumbo that night. More scoffing through the Hurricanes at Pat O'Brien's. They scoffed even while suiting up in dive gear and checking the cameras as we tied up to an oil platform 20 miles in the Gulf.

But they came out of the water bug-eyed and indeed produced and broadcast a program showcasing a panorama that turned on its head every environmental superstition against offshore oil drilling. Huge amberjack lunged powerfully when speared. They writhed violently as the diver wrestled them to the surface. Schools of fish filled the water column from top to bottom – from 6-inch blennies to 12-foot sharks. Fish by the thousands. Fish by the ton.

The cameras were going crazy. Do I focus on the shoals of barracuda? Or that cloud of jacks? On the immense schools of snapper below, or on the fleet of tarpon above? How 'bout this – WHOOOAA – hammerhead!

We had some close-ups, too, of coral and sponges, the very things disappearing off Florida's (that bans offshore oil drilling) pampered reefs. Off Louisiana, they sprout in colorful profusion from the huge steel beams – acres of them. You'd never guess this was part of that unsightly structure above.

The panorama of marine life around an offshore oil platform staggers anyone who puts on goggles and takes a peek, even (especially!) the most worldly scuba divers. Here's a video peek at this seafood bonanza.

June 17, 2008

Humberto Fontova [send him mail] is the author of Exposing the Real Che Guevara and the Useful Idiots Who Idolize Him. Visit his website.

[Dixon]

Thanks for posting this interesting article which illuminates a new (to me) aspect of the issue. It seems the rigs serve as a sort of artificial reef, supporting a relatively rich community of yummy fish, etc.

I don't know a lot about the pros and cons of this stuff, but it seems to me that we should not conclude from this that it would be good for fish populations in the long run to keep sucking up petroleum and burning it, as opposed to switching over to more sustainable energy sources.

Why do I say this? Simple-- While increasing fish around the oil rigs is dandy in the short term, stop and think about what our use of that oil does to fish populations--indeed, to the whole ecosystem--in the longer term. Most of the oil from those rigs gets burned, creating (among other nasty things) greenhouse gases, leading to more global warming, leading to accelerating death of real coral reefs all over the world, leading to global decline of all those yummy fish. Since the natural reefs we're driving to extinction vastly outnumber any amount of oil rigs or other artificial "reefs" we could conceivably build, the net effect will soon be less, not more fish (and other species) globally, regardless of isolated spots of plentiful fish around rigs. And please note that the presence of coral growing on these rigs does not mean that it will survive as the ocean gets warmer any more than its "self-supporting" coral cousins will.

Again, I'm not knowledgeable about this stuff, but if I'm right, we need to be building less oil rigs and putting that effort and $$ into more sustainable energy sources.
Dixon

https://www.lewrockwell.com/fontova/fontova71.html

Drill Offshore – For a Seafood Bonanza

by Humberto Fontova


Louisiana takes many hits as "the northernmost banana republic." Yuppies and Greenies constitute a rare, exotic and even comical species down here – to the immense benefit of America's energy needs. "Progressive" and "enlightened" would not be terms Obama's Bay Area supporters would use to describe the Bayou state's decision-makers – especially those who made major decisions half a century ago.

Yet these rustics and yahoos spurred more revolutionary "change" in the production of (genuine) energy than any Obama supporter could imagine with all his or her hallucinations about solar panels and windmills.

In energy production, Louisiana has been well ahead of the learning curve for decades, and offers ready proof regarding its much-hyped "perils." The first offshore oil production platforms went up off the Louisiana coast in 1947.

By 1953 Hollywood (no less!) was already hailing the pioneering wildcatters who moved major mountains – technological, logistical, psychological, cultural – to tap and reap this source that today provides a quarter of America's domestic petroleum, without causing a single major oil spill in the process. This record stands despite dozens of hurricanes – including the two most destructive in North American history, Camille and Katrina – repeatedly battering the drilling and production structures, along with the 20,000 miles of pipeline that transport the oil shoreward. This is the most extensive offshore pipeline network in the world.

In the 1953 movie Thunder Bay, Jimmy Stewart plays the complicated protagonist, Steve Martin, the hard-bitten, ex-navy oil engineer who built the first offshore oil platform off Louisiana in 1947. "The brawling, mauling story of the biggest bonanza of them all!" says the Universal ad for the studio's first wide-screen movie.

Much of the brawling by Stewart and his henchmen was against the local Cajuns who fished and shrimped for a living. Their livelihood, it seemed obvious at the time, would soon vanish amidst a hellbroth of irreversible pollution. The movie covers a time period of barely one year yet ends on a happy note of conciliation as the fishermen reaped a bonanza almost as big as Jimmy's itself. The oil structures had kicked in as artificial reefs and made possible a bigger haul of seafood than anything in these fishermen's lifetimes.

Half a century later, with 3203 of the 3,729 offshore oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico studding her coastal waters, Louisiana provides almost a third of North America's commercial fisheries. A study by LSU's sea grant college shows that 85 percent of Louisiana's offshore fishing trips involve fishing around these structures. The same study found 50 times more marine life around an oil production platform than in the surrounding mud bottoms. That this proliferation of seafood might come because – rather than in spite – of the oil production rattled many environmental cages and provoked a legion of scoffers.

Amongst the scoffers were some The Travel Channel producers, fashionably greenish in their views. But they read these claims in a book titled The Helldiver's Rodeo. The book described an undersea panorama that (if true) could make an interesting show for the network, they concluded, while still scoffing.

They scoffed as we rode in from the airport. They scoffed over raw oysters, grilled redfish and seafood gumbo that night. More scoffing through the Hurricanes at Pat O'Brien's. They scoffed even while suiting up in dive gear and checking the cameras as we tied up to an oil platform 20 miles in the Gulf.

But they came out of the water bug-eyed and indeed produced and broadcast a program showcasing a panorama that turned on its head every environmental superstition against offshore oil drilling. Huge amberjack lunged powerfully when speared. They writhed violently as the diver wrestled them to the surface. Schools of fish filled the water column from top to bottom – from 6-inch blennies to 12-foot sharks. Fish by the thousands. Fish by the ton.

The cameras were going crazy. Do I focus on the shoals of barracuda? Or that cloud of jacks? On the immense schools of snapper below, or on the fleet of tarpon above? How 'bout this – WHOOOAA – hammerhead!

We had some close-ups, too, of coral and sponges, the very things disappearing off Florida's (that bans offshore oil drilling) pampered reefs. Off Louisiana, they sprout in colorful profusion from the huge steel beams – acres of them. You'd never guess this was part of that unsightly structure above.

The panorama of marine life around an offshore oil platform staggers anyone who puts on goggles and takes a peek, even (especially!) the most worldly scuba divers. Here's a video peek at this seafood bonanza.

June 17, 2008

Humberto Fontova [send him mail] is the author of Exposing the Real Che Guevara and the Useful Idiots Who Idolize Him. Visit his website.

[Dynamique]

Bravo Dixon,

There's a sobering series of articles in this month's Discover magazine. It describes how the oceanic ecosystem and large numbers of species are in grave danger because of various forms of human abuse, including global warming and acidification of the seas as a result of increase in atmospheric CO2.

Having lived in Santa Barbara during the 1969 oil spill from on offshore oil rig, I can tell you that offshore drilling is a problem, not a solution. They are an accident waiting to happen. The petrodiesel generators used to make electricity create significant plumes of air pollution. Of course, there is always the risk of an oil spill and the constant smaller releases of polluting crud. They are ugly and just plain bad news.

If you want to make artificial reefs, sink old battleships and such.

Thanks for posting this interesting article which illuminates a new (to me) aspect of the issue. It seems the rigs serve as a sort of artificial reef, supporting a relatively rich community of yummy fish, etc.

I don't know a lot about the pros and cons of this stuff, but it seems to me that we should not conclude from this that it would be good for fish populations in the long run to keep sucking up petroleum and burning it, as opposed to switching over to more sustainable energy sources.

Why do I say this? Simple-- While increasing fish around the oil rigs is dandy in the short term, stop and think about what our use of that oil does to fish populations--indeed, to the whole ecosystem--in the longer term. Most of the oil from those rigs gets burned, creating (among other nasty things) greenhouse gases, leading to more global warming, leading to accelerating death of real coral reefs all over the world, leading to global decline of all those yummy fish. Since the natural reefs we're driving to extinction vastly outnumber any amount of oil rigs or other artificial "reefs" we could conceivably build, the net effect will soon be less, not more fish (and other species) globally, regardless of isolated spots of plentiful fish around rigs. And please note that the presence of coral growing on these rigs does not mean that it will survive as the ocean gets warmer any more than its "self-supporting" coral cousins will.

Again, I'm not knowledgeable about this stuff, but if I'm right, we need to be building less oil rigs and putting that effort and $$ into more sustainable energy sources.
Dixon

[PeriodThree]

Humberto Fontova, who wrote the article, also write _The Helldiver's Rodeo_ which is mentioned in the article.

It is an entertaining book - I have a copy in front of me right now :-)

Most other attempts at artificial reef building have met with indifferent success, but the offshore oil rigs, including in Santa Barbara, do provide an amazing marine ecosystem.

Bravo Dixon,

There's a sobering series of articles in this month's Discover magazine. It describes how the oceanic ecosystem and large numbers of species are in grave danger because of various forms of human abuse, including global warming and acidification of the seas as a result of increase in atmospheric CO2.

Having lived in Santa Barbara during the 1969 oil spill from on offshore oil rig, I can tell you that offshore drilling is a problem, not a solution. They are an accident waiting to happen. The petrodiesel generators used to make electricity create significant plumes of air pollution. Of course, there is always the risk of an oil spill and the constant smaller releases of polluting crud. They are ugly and just plain bad news.

If you want to make artificial reefs, sink old battleships and such.

[handy]

Bravo Dixon,

There's a sobering series of articles in this month's Discover magazine. It describes how the oceanic ecosystem and large numbers of species are in grave danger because of various forms of human abuse, including global warming and acidification of the seas as a result of increase in atmospheric CO2.

Having lived in Santa Barbara during the 1969 oil spill from on offshore oil rig, I can tell you that offshore drilling is a problem, not a solution. They are an accident waiting to happen. The petrodiesel generators used to make electricity create significant plumes of air pollution. Of course, there is always the risk of an oil spill and the constant smaller releases of polluting crud. They are ugly and just plain bad news.

If you want to make artificial reefs, sink old battleships and such.

Yes. Of course. Much better that we waste fuel by the millions of gallons/day using Army/Air Force/Marines/Navy to steal oil from halfway around the world.

Much better that we brain wash our young to become murderers, torturers, body counts and basket cases for the state.

I mean, It's just so WRONG! to consider inserting a high tech drinking straw into mother earth and not only getting fuel locally, but actually being able to harvest FOOD as a serendipitous, synergetic "side effect".

MUCH better that we avoid a potential leak in the straw every 40 years or so. Gee, at $140 a barrel, those nasty corporations would just let it leak and leak and leak...

So much easier and cleaner to just vote for the next warmonger and tell your kid to enlist...

[Dynamique]

This whole thing is a distraction argument. Don't fall for it!

The real issue is using petroleum at all. Here's a real win-win solution: put all those resources into non-fossil energy systems, such as some sort of solar collector on every roof, and the whole "where do we drill for oil" issue will be moot.

Personally, I DO NOT condone or support the whole militarism to protect the oil supply thing. It's a horrendous waste on every level, and it has turned my country into a petulant fascist bully. It needs to stop. Drilling for more oil -- anywhere -- is not the solution, however.

With respect to artificial reefs and what substrate makes the best structure, it's likely that the reason why drilling rigs work better than sunken ships is because the rig goes all the way through the water column rather than just near the bottom. Again, if you want to make artificial reefs to enhance ocean ecology, there are plenty of other options besides oil drilling rigs. Saying that we should expand offshore oil drilling because the rigs make good artificial reefs is an absurd and foolish argument!

Yes. Of course. Much better that we waste fuel by the millions of gallons/day using Army/Air Force/Marines/Navy to steal oil from halfway around the world.

Much better that we brain wash our young to become murderers, torturers, body counts and basket cases for the state.

I mean, It's just so WRONG! to consider inserting a high tech drinking straw into mother earth and not only getting fuel locally, but actually being able to harvest FOOD as a serendipitous, synergetic "side effect".

MUCH better that we avoid a potential leak in the straw every 40 years or so. Gee, at $140 a barrel, those nasty corporations would just let it leak and leak and leak...

So much easier and cleaner to just vote for the next warmonger and tell your kid to enlist...

[handy]

This whole thing is a distraction argument. Don't fall for it!

The real issue is using petroleum at all. Here's a real win-win solution: put all those resources into non-fossil energy systems, such as some sort of solar collector on every roof, and the whole "where do we drill for oil" issue will be moot.

Personally, I DO NOT condone or support the whole militarism to protect the oil supply thing. It's a horrendous waste on every level, and it has turned my country into a petulant fascist bully. It needs to stop. Drilling for more oil -- anywhere -- is not the solution, however.

With respect to artificial reefs and what substrate makes the best structure, it's likely that the reason why drilling rigs work better than sunken ships is because the rig goes all the way through the water column rather than just near the bottom. Again, if you want to make artificial reefs to enhance ocean ecology, there are plenty of other options besides oil drilling rigs. Saying that we should expand offshore oil drilling because the rigs make good artificial reefs is an absurd and foolish argument!

NO. This is NOT a distraction argument! And I resent the implication.

I would LOVE to see more wind, solar, etc., BUT until we can match the energy density of oil, none of them will compete. And as long as you shun local access, you DO support using the "petulant fascist bully" to bring it home.

You say, "Here's a real win-win solution: put all those resources into non-fossil energy systems,..." All WHAT resources? Yours? Or do you plan to use the government to steal the productivity of others to prop up your pet project?

We should expand offshore (and onshore) drilling because WE NEED THE OIL! If and when we can completely replace it with something else, wonderful! What do you plan to do in the meantime? Increasing fish habitat is just gravy, and given the present constraints on the local fishing industry, I find it difficult to see this as a bad thing.

[Dixon]

Yo, Dude--

I think you express some plausible concerns. It's a complex situation.

By way of sorting out the complexities, I'll start by saying that killing people for oil should simply NOT be an option, no matter what--even if refraining from it results in our having to REALLY painfully tighten our belts and simplify our lifestyles. I do understand that you're not endorsing killing for oil, and also that, realistically, decreasing our domestic supply is likely to lead to that, but only IF we fail to decrease our usage.

That "IF" is important to the discussion. "Either we suck up all the oil we can or we'll be invading more countries to get it" may be a false dichotomy. Your statement "WE NEED THE OIL", even if true, obscures the fact that we don't need nearly the amount we've been using/wasting. The last I knew, we USAmericans were using nearly twice as much energy per capita as the second-heaviest users (Western industrialized nations like Germany), and those folks aren't living in primitive conditions; they're quite comfortable on considerably less oil usage. So it's a problem of addiction and extravagant use as much as it's a problem of "needing the oil". We're not just people who "need" oil to live; we're lazy, irresponsible junkies who'd rather kill for oil AND fuck up our own environment than change our lifestyles a little--or a lot.

I don't want to be absolutistic. I won't argue that we should kick the oil habit immediately and totally without first preparing other options, so that we end up living at a Neolithic level. And with that in mind, maybe we could justify some more rigs for awhile. BUT, from what I've seen of human nature, as long as we're still sucking up oil, we'll ALSO be killing for it AND we'll be putting off research and development of more sustainable energy sources. I fear that each new well we sink will delay the necessary changes.

If we had the national will, we could immediately decrease our oil use enough to offset any number of proposed oil rigs, and that would do as much to avoid oil wars as the rigs would. So again I can't quite buy "Drill more oil wells or we'll have to start more oil wars".

Humans being creatures of habit, and with power being strongly entrenched in oil and other traditional industries, I think that we'll need to get REAL uncomfortable before we make the HUGE switch from fossil fuels to something more sustainable. Drilling more oil wells may just be putting off that necessary discomfort/crisis, which will come anyway regardless.

If we'd been wise enough to listen to the environmentalists 30-40 years ago, we'd have developed other alternatives by now, instead of being out on this oily limb now. We were stupid, self-centered and short-sighted, so it's natural and appropriate that we're in trouble now. It's just sad that our children and grandchildren will suffer the consequences of our irresponsibility.

No easy answers here, but I can't entirely buy your blithe enthusiasm about oil rigs.

Regards;

Dixon

NO. This is NOT a distraction argument! And I resent the implication.

I would LOVE to see more wind, solar, etc., BUT until we can match the energy density of oil, none of them will compete. And as long as you shun local access, you DO support using the "petulant fascist bully" to bring it home.

You say, "Here's a real win-win solution: put all those resources into non-fossil energy systems,..." All WHAT resources? Yours? Or do you plan to use the government to steal the productivity of others to prop up your pet project?

We should expand offshore (and onshore) drilling because WE NEED THE OIL! If and when we can completely replace it with something else, wonderful! What do you plan to do in the meantime? Increasing fish habitat is just gravy, and given the present constraints on the local fishing industry, I find it difficult to see this as a bad thing.

[handy]

Yo, Dude--

I think you express some plausible concerns. It's a complex situation.

By way of sorting out the complexities, I'll start by saying that killing people for oil should simply NOT be an option, no matter what--even if refraining from it results in our having to REALLY painfully tighten our belts and simplify our lifestyles. I do understand that you're not endorsing killing for oil, and also that, realistically, decreasing our domestic supply is likely to lead to that, but only IF we fail to decrease our usage.

That "IF" is important to the discussion. "Either we suck up all the oil we can or we'll be invading more countries to get it" may be a false dichotomy. Your statement "WE NEED THE OIL", even if true, obscures the fact that we don't need nearly the amount we've been using/wasting. The last I knew, we USAmericans were using nearly twice as much energy per capita as the second-heaviest users (Western industrialized nations like Germany), and those folks aren't living in primitive conditions; they're quite comfortable on considerably less oil usage. So it's a problem of addiction and extravagant use as much as it's a problem of "needing the oil". We're not just people who "need" oil to live; we're lazy, irresponsible junkies who'd rather kill for oil AND fuck up our own environment than change our lifestyles a little--or a lot.

I don't want to be absolutistic. I won't argue that we should kick the oil habit immediately and totally without first preparing other options, so that we end up living at a Neolithic level. And with that in mind, maybe we could justify some more rigs for awhile. BUT, from what I've seen of human nature, as long as we're still sucking up oil, we'll ALSO be killing for it AND we'll be putting off research and development of more sustainable energy sources. I fear that each new well we sink will delay the necessary changes.

If we had the national will, we could immediately decrease our oil use enough to offset any number of proposed oil rigs, and that would do as much to avoid oil wars as the rigs would. So again I can't quite buy "Drill more oil wells or we'll have to start more oil wars".

Humans being creatures of habit, and with power being strongly entrenched in oil and other traditional industries, I think that we'll need to get REAL uncomfortable before we make the HUGE switch from fossil fuels to something more sustainable. Drilling more oil wells may just be putting off that necessary discomfort/crisis, which will come anyway regardless.

If we'd been wise enough to listen to the environmentalists 30-40 years ago, we'd have developed other alternatives by now, instead of being out on this oily limb now. We were stupid, self-centered and short-sighted, so it's natural and appropriate that we're in trouble now. It's just sad that our children and grandchildren will suffer the consequences of our irresponsibility.

No easy answers here, but I can't entirely buy your blithe enthusiasm about oil rigs.

Regards;

Dixon

I agree there are no easy answers, but we must first discern whether or not we're asking the right questions. Taking my statements as 'enthusiasm' seems to me to be typical over-reaction. I have no clue where you get 'blithe'.

"We were stupid, self-centered and short-sighted, so it's natural and appropriate that we're in trouble now."

We have always been, throughout our existence, 'in trouble', so I agree that it is a natural and appropriate condition. I disagree with the misanthropic opinion of humanity. Speak for yourself.

We need to understand at least some basic chemistry. The process of oxidizing Carbon gives us the greatest usable energy release that we know how to utilize. It doesn't matter whether it is wood, oil, methane, alcohol, starch, sugar, coal or cowshit being 'burned'; it is, precisely and only, the joining of Carbon with Oxygen that releases the energy we use. Oil happens to have the more Carbon atoms per molecule than most other forms, i.e., greater energy density. Attempting to make a primary constituent of all of Life into "the enemy" strikes me as rather foolish.

Yes, there are alternatives, and yes, they will come on line as they are able to compete. In the meantime, their drawbacks (solar doesn't work at night, wind and wave don't work in calm) make their use less convenient, and state subsidy causes imbalance and disruption while preventing or strongly discouraging competition.

I also agree that we could be less wasteful. But haranguing the individual to 'use less' or be 'more efficient', is rather meaningless, when our transportation 'system' has half of ALL running vehicles sitting at idle at stop signs and lights at any given moment by it's very design. Bringing ALL of the military home from everywhere would make a decent dent in the waste, too.

Only individuals can make new discovery. Science is a verb.
Sir Arthur Eddington, Ernst Mach and R. Buckminster fuller have given us some very good working definitions we would do well to heed.

Science is : the attempt of individual initiative to set in order the facts of experience.
Physics is : the facts of experience, set into most economical order.
Chemistry is : the study of Nature's structuring at it's most intimate.

Carry on. Have fun. Be careful. I'm goin' fishin'.