Cleaning up our act

This year marks the 25th anniversary of the Exxon Valdez oil spill of 1989, when the ship of that name spilt its contents off the coast of Alaska and created an iconic image for the then-rising environmental movement. This was a big moment for greens around the world – the visceral images of birds, seals, and the normally pristine Alaskan shoreline covered in slimy oil caught the public’s imagination in a way that many environmental issues cannot.

The public reaction to the spill contributed to the years of strong environmental action that happened in its immediate aftermath. Along with the ozone hole which was being addressed by international treaties at the time, we also saw the 1992 Rio Conference at which the Agenda 21 plan for sustainable development was agreed and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (eventually leading to the famous 1997 Kyoto Protocol) was signed. Ultimately though, we have gone backwards since the 1990s in terms of care for our environment, and with the Exxon Valdez now firmly relegated to the back of our collective memory, we have once again elevated oil to a paramount position in our economy.

Perhaps the biggest indicator of this is the fact that we let it happen again, with the Gulf of Mexico oil spill in 2010 – a spill which was actually bigger in size than the Exxon one (although the Exxon one was harder to deal with due to its remote location). But the oil industry is also responsible for many smaller spills on an almost daily basis, which hardly ever make it further than the local news because we consider them almost a normal part of life or because they are in equally remote areas with small populations. These spills contaminate water supplies and damage ecosystems, but that’s considered a small price to pay compared to the need to keep our oil-based economy going at full speed.

In Ontario, Canada, the government has recently approved the ‘Line 9′ project, in which a pipeline which usually transports processed oil from the east coast to the inland US will be reversed to carry heavy tar sands from the Canadian interior to the eastern ports. The line is already ageing, and regularly leaks. It goes through large areas of land owned by indigenous Canadians, and runs just north of densely populated Toronto. There remains numerous questions over the safety of using this pipeline to carry tar sands, and there has been a spirited campaign against it for well over a year. But none of this holds any weight with the people who make the decisions – as far as they are concerned, the oil economy is more important than safety, health, indigenous rights, or the economy.

It is clear to see that after the initial burst of concern for the environment in the wake of Exxon Valdez, we have since travelled backwards when it comes to protecting our ecology and the health of our citizens. Despite the fact that companies and government must today put on an image of being ‘green’, the truth is that we are as trapped by our use of oil today as we have been at any time. Serious alternatives are not being developed at any reasonable speed, and politicians continue to pay more attention to oil executives than to their own voters. On this anniversary, it’s time to look back at Exxon Valdez, remind ourselves of the damage that oil is doing to us all, and strengthen our efforts to change our economy and get ourselves of this terribly addictive black liquid.

1992 Rio Conference, 1997 Kyoto Protocol, 25th anniversary, Agenda 21 plan for sustainable development, Alaskan shoreline, carry tar sands, climate change, coast of Alaska, elevated oil, environmental issues, environmental movement, Exxon Valdez, Exxon Valdez oil spill, Gulf of Mexico oil spill, indigenous rights, international treaties, Line 9 project, oil industry, oil spill, oil-based economy, ozone hole, process oil, protect health of citizens, protecting ecology, public reaction, strengthen efforts, strong environmental action, sustainable development, UN Framework Convention on Climate Change

Extreme extraction

A few weeks ago, during the latest round of international climate negotiations, the Polish delegation (who were hosting the meeting) claimed that climate change might actually be a good thing – particularly because it could melt much of the ice in the so-called northwestern passage between Canada and the Arctic. This, they argued, would make international shipping easier, but would also provide better access to much of the offshore oil that is thought to lie under the Arctic Ocean.

This is obviously a ridiculous position for a nation state to hold, especially one that was supposed to be hosting an international meeting on climate change at the time. However, while Poland's idea was seen as risible, the general idea that we should continue to dig up oil from anywhere that we possibly can holds firm among many people. A large number of countries and companies have no problem with the idea of extracting oil from ever more extreme places.

This is the mindset that has led to the tar sands developments in northern Alberta, Canada. Tar sands are difficult to get out of the ground, and still take a huge amount of processing even once they've been dug up – yet we seem happy to pay the price, as long as we get more oil. It is the mindset that has led companies from Russia and the UK to start drilling in waters in the Arctic Ocean. An oil spill in these regions would be disastrous to local wildlife and incredibly difficult to clean up, but this seems to be of no matter to these corporations – indeed, Russia went as far as arresting 30 people in international waters after they protested against one of the offshore drilling rigs. It seems the power of the state is just as strongly invested as the corporations in the continuation of the oil age.

This is because both the states and the companies desire the continuation of the status quo by any means necessary. They benefit from a society which is hooked on cheap fuel – cheap fuel which supports the production necessary for a consumer society, and helps maintain the dominant position of certain people and certain countries, and the subjection of others. There are a few clear winners from this state of affairs, but there are just as many losers around the world – and I don't just mean the people who will be most affected by the climatic changes caused by burning all those fossil fuels.

The Arctic, and other remote but oil-rich regions like the tar sands area around the Athabasca river in Canada, have people living in them. These people have led simple but dignified lives in these areas for centuries, if not millennia. The Inuit, for example, have built their lives in some of the most inhospitable terrain on earth by following nature's rhythms and catching fish and mammals. This way of life is threatened by oil drilling that will destroy the natural order of ecosystems in the area. Even those of us living more conventional lives lose out from this rush for oil – we pay more and more at the gas pump just to get to and from work, we breathe in more and more pollution from the air around us, and we see more and more government money go on supporting the oil industry rather than providing essential services to people who need them.

This is what NRGLab is struggling against, particularly with our work on alternative energy. We don't believe human civilization should be so reliant on such an outdated form of energy, one which causes such destruction to the environment, and requires such damage to human lifestyles and livelihoods the world over. And we'd love to hear from you if you agree with us, and if you think you have the necessary skills to help fight back.

climate negotiations, Polish delegation, oil spill, Arctic ocean, fossil fuels, oil drilling, NRGLab

Another oil spill?! This time in Thailand

It’s cleanup Day 6 in Thailand, where one of the country’s largest oil and gas companies has yet to atone for ANOTHER oil spill.

I feel like I’m starting to sound like a broken record – every week, I’m writing about some new oil spill and the havoc it wreaks. When will the world learn?

This past Saturday, a rupture in a pipeline operated by PTT Global Chemical spilled roughly 13,000 gallons (or 50,000 liters) of crude oil into the Gulf of Thailand.

The spill washed up off Samet Island, a resort that draws a million tourists annually to its exotic beaches.

"This is a failure to solve a problem by a company that earns hundreds of billions [of dollars] every year, using the country's natural resources," says Sathit Pitutecha, a member of Thailand’s parliament. "I wouldn't criticize if this was the first time, but it's the fourth time already. Now the people of Rayong have to bear the burden of risk from the industrial sector."

That’s right – it’s the FOURTH spill the company has had to answer for. Back in 2009, a subsidiary of PTT was involved in the Montara oil spill, one of Australia's worst oil disasters.

Thursday, authorities claimed that oil slicks remained onshore. PTT Global Chemical flew oil spill management experts from Singapore to the site, but failed to stop the spill from spreading.

“We've worked day and night to clean up the bay," says Boworn Vongsinudom, President of PTTGC. "It was supposed to be finished, as we aimed, on the third day, but more oil came in from another spot, so we had to take care of it, too."

Stop Global Warming, an environmental advocacy group based out of Thailand, is accusing the company of being ill-informed and ill-prepared for the disaster.

"The transfer of crude oil through the pipeline takes place every day, but when an oil spill happens, PTTGC tackled it with unbelievably limited resources," claims Srisuwan Janya, head of SGW. "This shows their solutions are inefficient and not enough."

PTT is Thailand's largest energy supplier and one of the largest oil and gas conglomerates in Southeast-Asia.

When will the world learn? Fossil fuels are simply too dangerous to lead us into the future. Let’s stop reading about disasters and death, and let’s start reading about technological innovation.

To start, visit nrglab.asia, and check out our slate of alternative energy projects that are sure to take the world by storm. A good storm, that is.

A spill too close to home

Thought oil spills only occurred in the middle of the ocean? You thought wrong.

Last week, the Pegasus pipeline burst near the Arkansas suburb of Mayflower, spewing approximately 5,000 barrels of Canadian crude oil into the streets. 22 families were forced to evacuate their homes, with a total of 60 reported to have been affected. Once playful and gardened backyards now sport disgusting pools of oil. See below:

Could this prove to be the final straw? Up until the incident, many people viewed the hazards of oil transportation strictly from an ecological standpoint. Think of all the pictures of fish, birds, and seals caked in oil being cleaned up by kindly rescue volunteers. Could you have ever imagined a small child standing there instead of an animal?

In a statement released Friday, ExxonMobil claimed that “about 600 people are responding to the incident in addition to federal, state and local responders. Affected wildlife includes ducks, turtles, a beaver and a muskrat. Fourteen dead ducks, one dead nutria and two dead turtles have been recovered.”

But think of all the unseen consequences. Tainted water supplies. Ruined crops. Sickness. Premature death. When hazardous materials are introduced into nature, it’s difficult to predict the ramifications since so many ecosystems are so closely intertwined.

Oil transportation is closer to home than ever. Too close, according to two women who live near the ruptured pipeline. They’re filing a $5 million lawsuit against ExxonMobil for the “permanent diminishment of property value.”

One of the lawyers involved in the case, Phillip Duncan, claims the section of pipeline that ruptured was in an “unsafe, defective and deficient condition presenting an immediate environmental harm.”

ExxonMobil asserts that all inspections were up to date. (Didn’t they originally say the same thing about the BP oil spill?) The Pegasus Pipeline was built in 1947 and runs 858 miles from Patoka, Illinois to the Texas Gulf Coast, stretching from the northwest to southeast tips of Arkansas. It’s currently out of service. In order to get the pipeline up and running again, ExxonMobil would have to obtain written authorization from a federal pipeline safety official.

The cause of the spill is still under investigation. By the time the government does identify a culprit, perhaps the dangers of domestic oil transportation will have become so glaring that politicians will have no choice but to surrender to the will of their public, and push for real change to our energy infrastructure.

NRGLab is ready to be a force for change. By developing cost-effective alternatives to traditional means of oil production, there may not be a need for pipelines in the future. From low caloric value coal, to agricultural waste -- NRGLab has the technology to extract oil like never before.

To learn more about NRGLab’s efforts to reinvent and revitalize our world’s energy infrastructure, visit nrglab.asia.

Photos first published by the Environmental Protection Agency.

Can't afford another spill

As we approach the 24^th anniversary of the Exxon Valdez oil spill, we must ask ourselves: have we done enough to protect our oceans and beaches from this filthy substance?

According to Art Sterritt, Executive Director of the Coastal First Nations, we haven’t. He summarized the CFN’s position on oil tanker traffic along the coast and the potentially disastrous effect a spill would have on the region’s ecosystem and communities: “If you transpose the geographic area affected by the Valdez spill onto the area tankers would travel down the west coast, a spill could theoretically stretch from Prince Rupert (Canada) to Vancouver (Roughly 1,500 kilometers).”

The Exxon Valdez spill occurred on March 24, 1989. Up to 750,000 barrels of crude oil poured into the Pacific Ocean off the coast of Alaska, the remote location of which made response efforts that much more difficult. Roughly 11 million gallons of oil went on to cover 2,100 km of coastline, and 28,000 square km of ocean.

This had been the largest ecological disaster in American waters, until the 2010 Deepwater Horizon incident. Following an explosion in the Gulf of Mexico, an opening in the sea-floor gushed oil unabated for three whole months! That pumped an estimated 4.9 million barrels of crude oil into the gulf, poisoning hundreds of thousands of marine and coastal wildlife.

But what if these risky long-distance tanker runs and off-shore oil rigs were no longer necessary? We could save millions of dollars in disaster relief. We could save millions of lives. If only energy production was made accessible to the public, freeing them from the big oil companies who’d have no choice but to cut-back on operational costs, including transportation.

That’s part of the reason why NRGLab created the SH-box. Semi-conductive, thermo-generating technology is contained within a small case producing electricity for $0.03 per kW, which is four times less expensive than current rates. Better yet, the battery has a shelf-life of 20 years! That means the SH-box is there and ready whenever you need it.

The box itself is comprised of relatively inexpensive materials, like rare-earth elements and metal oxides, making the box affordable to a wide demographic. By introducing it to market, NRGLab hopes the SH-box will lay a devastating blow to big oil. How many spills is it going to take? How many millions of gallons of water and miles of coastline must mankind destroy before we say, “Enough is enough,” and do away with these bulky, ticking-time bombs they call oil tankers and rigs?

Out with the old, and cumbersome. In with the new, and all-natural. In with the SH-box.