Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Just When You Thought Drilling Was Safe

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

“Drill Baby, Drill” advocates who include President Barack Obama along with Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell have been telling us that modern offshore oil technology is so modern that deaths and devastating spills are the problems of yesteryear.

Think twice.
This Tuesday a powerful blast ripped apart and then sank the Deepwater Horizon platform about 50 miles off Louisiana in the Gulf of Mexico. The floating platform which was in mile-deep water burned for two days before sinking. Eleven workers are still missing and presumed dead.
Environmentalists fear that as much as 336,000 gallons of crude oil could be oozing from the wreck every day. Salvage teams are scrambling to see if the wreck of the platform has blocked the wellhead which would make fixing the problem a lot more difficult.
Despite what the politicians and oil lobbyists would have you believe, there have been similar disasters in recent years. One that comes to mind is the Piper Alpha rig off Scotland in the North Sea. Located in 474 feet of water, the rig exploded in July, 1988, killing 167. That one is vivid because I was working in the Soviet Union and some of my friends who were working for British newspapers and wire services covered the disaster.
McDonnell and Obama want to lease a block 50 miles off of Virginia’s Eastern Shore for exploration. So far there’s scant evidence of much oil but some of natural gas reserves.
McDonnell wants to make Virginia “the energy capital of the East Coast.”
He might want to also provide some state economic development grant money for funeral homes in Cape Charles, just in case.
Peter Galuszka

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

62 responses to “Just When You Thought Drilling Was Safe”

  1. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Barack Obama along with Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell have been telling us that modern offshore oil technology is so modern that deaths and devastating spills are the problems of yesteryear.

    I never heard either of them say that or anything like it.

    Oil drilling on land is dangerous and drilling at sea compounds that danger, but drilling in both areas is safer now than it used to be.

    That's not the same as saying the problems are in the past. Do you have a quote or a reference?

    RH

  2. Cargosquid Avatar
    Cargosquid

    No oil is leaking.

  3. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    still.. would be interesting to run another POLL and see how many folks who were tentatively in favor got scared off by the 'reminder'?

  4. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Still, things have improved. Remember that rig in Norway that went down with all hands?

    We don't have any stats yet on what is likely to happen with people working on thousands of wind tubines.

  5. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Here's a look at each component and its role in the retail pump price:
    •Crude oil — 69%
    •Finding the crude oil
    •Getting the crude oil out of the ground
    •Transporting the crude oil to the refinery
    •Maintaining a reserve capacity of crude oil
    •Profit

    •Taxes, federal and state — 15%
    The rest is refining and distribution.

    State and federal gasoline taxes account for about 15 percent of the cost at the pump. This figure equates to a national average of about 57 cents per gallon. As you can understand, states with percentage-based sales tax make considerably more on each gallon as gas prices rise.

    RH

  6. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    to be crass. it's not how many people went down with the rig, it's how much oil might wash up and coat the beaches.

    the drilling idea has been sold to the nervous but tentatively supportive people – on the concept that such oil spills are a thing of the past because the equipment and drilling methods are so much better.

    This disaster pretty much did away with that perspective.

    That's why I suggest taking another poll… to see how much attitudes might have shifted.

    In other words, had the originally poll said – 'are you still in favor of drilling off of Virginia's coast if it is statistically predicted that there will be an oil spill every 25 or 50 years?

    When we say that oil can be "safely" drilled off the coast – that phrase has different connotations to different folks – even depending on news of other oil spills.

  7. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    That's why I suggest taking another poll… to see how much attitudes might have shifted.

    Attitudes don't control the economics or the safety. Sometimes you have to let experts do their job.

    It is the hardest thing for managers to learn.

    RH

  8. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    to be crass. it's not how many people went down with the rig, it's how much oil might wash up and coat the beaches.

    Not only is that crass, but it plays straight into the hands of right wing anti-environmentalists who claim the problem eith the environmental movement is that it puts creatures before people.

    If the creatures can't livehere,neither can we, but that doesn;t mean you put them first.

    RH

  9. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    but we don't leave these things to the "experts" because if we did that – they'd be deciding what our values are instead of us – right?

    The role of the experts is to develop and provide the information so that citizens can make an informed decision with respect to the trade-offs which include not only costs and benefit but values and judgement about things that are impossible to put absolute numbers on.

    No "expert" is going to tell people that 50 miles of oil-soaked beach is a "good trade" for something.

    The experts report the facts and statistics and give their recommendations and ultimately the citizens decide in the kind of governance that we have.

    If you think the citizens are ignorant – then it's your job to convince them – because at the end of the day – in our country – citizens decide – even if they are ignorant.

    If you don't believe that.. take a look at the health care debate where no amount of facts about spending twice as money for HC will convince those who are opposed to subsidized benefits for people who did not earn them.

    Obama and Congress and Va leaders make the decision about drilling – based on the sentiment of the public – and no decision made is irrevocable in the future if enough citizens believe we initially made a bad decision.

    So.. if citizens initially believe that oil drilling is a "safe" activity off our shores and agree.. they can (and will) later on change that opinion if events prove it's not as safe as they originally thought..

    Arguing for "experts" to hold that decision is not how this country operates..

    ask the global warming skeptics that question.

  10. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    You didn't read what I said carefully and jumped to cinclusions.

  11. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    If you think the citizens are ignorant – then it's your job to convince them – because at the end of the day – in our country – citizens decide – even if they are ignorant.

    Besides being wrong, that is the stupidest thing I ever heard.

    Citizens decide who to hire. they don't or shouldn't be making decisions they know nothing about.

    RH

  12. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    ask the global warming skeptics that question.

    The global warming skeptics are either idiots or ideologues.

    I am as afraid of the morons who think they know how to fix global wrming as I am of the global warming skeptics.

    Just today while working witht the tractor I was listining to the author of "The Value of Nothing" expound on how commercial agriculture was unsustainable and would have to be replaced with more diversified and simpler methods.

    After listening for a while I concluded this guy had never grown a tomato. There was no mention about how much more labor this would take and how much less production would result.

    He is right, of course, but he isn't telling the whole story. I'd go on but I gotta burn some more diesel before the day is over.

    RH

  13. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    well.. yep.. it's all about people who vote and who, in the opinion of others, are not adequately educated to truly understand how to vote intelligently on some issues.

    People will openly admit this sometimes.

    There will be a referenda and they'll go around asking others which way to vote or try to find other sources of info.

    Happens all the time in places like California where referenda often draw pro/con media campaigns seeking to influence potential voters.

    more than a few folks in Va often show up to vote – for one particular guy and not have a clue who the other folks are much less their positions on issues.

    I know folks who have voted for people who have positions 180 degrees – because they were totally unfamiliar with the guy but they felt the need to vote for someone.

    I'd dare say that more of us that would like to admit it have found ourselves in that exact situation at times.

    You have others who don't believe those "experts" you cite because they're suspicious of who they work for – sometimes industry, sometimes the govt.

    so ..they do vote.. ignorant..

    Democracy is a terribly flawed system of governance because we don't have to know the issues to cast our vote.

    So… who really decides if we drill offshore or not?

    not the "experts".. who, by the way, do not agree among themselves quite often and so you end up with two different expert "opinions" each one calling the other – "ignorant" in effect.

    we have millions and millions of dollars of advocacy ads on TV these days.. it's called voter "education".

    Now.. add to this.. the idea that people are gullible and lay such that a well-designed, clever ad can influence them – and we've got a fine but flawed way of making decisions about things like Offshore Drilling.

    There is no benevolent all-knowing leader with a bevy of experts who will decide for us.

    Nope. The reality is – ignorant people will indeed participate in the decision.

    heck.. last poll I saw.. about 50% of the people asked still thought that Saddam or even ths US govt toppled the twin-towers.

    but the point here is …they do vote.. and that's pretty much how we make decisions about many issues including offshore drilling….

    Obama made a calculation.

    a political decision – intended to win back some of the folks in the middle while only angering – but not losing his base…..

    who is his environmental base going to run to on that decision – the Tea Party folks or Eric Cantor?

  14. Mimi Stratton Avatar
    Mimi Stratton

    Well, I vote no on the oil drilling. Not that Obama asked me.

  15. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    how many people are killed working at 7-11 or banks or walking across the street everyday? should we therefore close all convenience stores, banks and streets down? look around you. everything you see is either made from petroleum, was transported using petroleum, or petroleum propelled the transportation that brought the workers to the place it was manufactured or the sales person who wrung you up at checkout or the mailman who delivered the box if an online purchase.

    if oil were discovered today, it would be considered 'green' because, really, all it is is compressed and liquified dinosaurs, plants, trees etc that were once at the bottom of an ocean. consider that corn ethanol uses about 150 gallons of water to produce 1 gallon of fuel, while petroleum uses only 5.

    by the way, the oil & gas industry directly or indirectly provides 1 in 12 jobs in the USA.

    all that being said, transportation does need to be fueled by natural gas, not oil.

    people who are 'oil snobs' are hypocrites at best (unless they live in a tree and eat leaves), and at worst, have no clue about how it provides all the modern conveniences people take for granted.

  16. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    I don't think people are opposed to oil drilling because of the risk of workers being killed any more or less than they are from coal mining for electricity or delivery driver deaths for FedEx.

    People understand for the most part that any industry and for that matter, any activity has risks that are acceptable.

    Not so acceptable is an industry or activity that not only can kill it's workers but damage a wide geographic area threatening others including critters.

    So.. it's "okay" if 2 people are killed working in a Nuclear Plant – as long as the mishap does not become an "event" that affects the surrounding communities.

    Sam deal with offshore oil rigs, IMHO.

    and in both cases, Nukes and offshore oil – there are "experts" and the general public that can look at the same exact data that other experts and general public are looking at – and come away with a different view with respect to whether or not it is 'too risky – for the potential consequences".

    And of course the mother of all of this kind of trade-off is Global Warming where even if there were agreement on the likely outcome of true global warming.. there are vociferous differences of opinion as to the actual risk level of it actually happening.

    It's the perception of risk – along with the fact that if the experts themselves are not in agreement that will drive the decision-making that rests with elected officials.

    The proof of this is how long in this country – the specter of 3-mile island has affected people's attitudes about the acceptability of risk.

    and .. it's not just the general public either.

    To date – no financial interests will agree to provide insurance for an operating Nuke and the govt has to.

    Which makes me wonder.. who would actually pay in the event of an offshore drilling disaster and whether or not those activities are fully self-insured also.

    Exxon paid for the Valdez disaster – in theory – but

    …… " According to several studies funded by the state of Alaska, the spill had both short- and long-term economic effects. These included the loss of recreational sports, fisheries, reduced tourism, and an estimate of what economists call "existence value," which is the value to the public of a pristine Prince William Sound."

    " Existence value is separate from the value accruing from any use or potential use of the asset."[citation needed]
    These values are commonly measured through contingent valuation surveys and have been actionable damages in the US since State of Ohio v United States Department of the Interior.[who?] They were used in a legal assessment of damages following the Exxon Valdez oil spill."

    The bottom line is that how people feel about the risk and potential damage (even if minuscule) of offshore oil drilling – has as much or more to do with the politics as a team of "experts" attempting to calculate the cost/benefit.

    As long as we are governed by elected representatives – the folks who elect them will hold the ultimate decision on issues like this.

    Perceptions and timing of events plays into this.

  17. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    On 23 April at 12:25 “Cargosquid” said:

    “No oil is leaking.”

    The note was intended to suggest Peter G was some sort of fool to go on and on about off-shore drilling.

    The Coast Guard said the same thing about the spill … that day.

    Today, the Coast Guard admits it is 1,000 barrels a day.

    Sound like Exxon Valdez?

    Have you met any of the senior Coast Guard staff who support the oil industry in the Gulf? Peas in a pod.

    Remember those “the people of the oil and gas industry” ads of a ganglia of pipes looping up to a platform with fish swimming around??

    Another nail in the coffin of advertising as a way to influence citizens to consume.

    Someone asks “how many people are killed working at 7-11 or banks or walking across the street everyday? should we therefore close all convenience stores, banks and streets down?”

    A better question would be the one Professor Risse asks in THE PROBLEM WITH CARS:

    “How many people a day have to be killed by cars before humans understand they need an alternative to mixed vehicle Roadways for individual controlled, Large, Private Vehicles as the basis for Mobility and Access for an Urban society?

    Larry is absolutely right about the views and fears of citizens, especially citizens badly informed by MainStream Media.

    The contemporary civilization is now based on a petroleum dependent economy as Owen documents in “Green Metropolis.”

    That must change but the question is, to quote Professor Risse: “Are there enough resources left to make the conversion to functional patterns of settlement and sustainable patterns of consumption without billions dying in the process?

    What if humans had really started to change on the first Earth Day?

    Gaylord Nelson was right about the economy being a subsidiary of natural systems, not the other way around.

    Observer

  18. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    the phrase for today is "natural gas/propane hybrid cars".

    also observe that most mass transit also runs on fossil fuels and the BTU per person mile for rail is about 2800 btu per passenger mile while 1322 for a van. Cars are 3512.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_efficiency_in_transportation

    so trains use twice as much energy per passenger mile as vans.

    Vans can easily serve different densities and can easily adapt to dynamic passenger loads and vary routes from hour to hour, year-to-year, decade-to-decade no matter how the settlement pattern changes size/shape and ebbs and flows.

    Vibrant settlement patterns will grow and change and fixed rail cannot adapt.

    Why should we insist that settlement patterns cannot change if in changing they grow or shrink in ways not in concert with fixed guideways?

    Perhaps we should be saying not "the problem with cars" but "the problem with inefficient and inflexible fixed guideway transit"?

  19. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "Perhaps we should be saying not "the problem with cars" but "the problem with inefficient and inflexible fixed guideway transit"?"

    There may well be a place for rail, but Larry's point seems very well taken. The big push for heavy rail is being backed by companies, such as Bechtel, that want expensive construction contracts; public sector unions; and real estate developers who know rail gives them more density than other forms of transit.

    I have a good friend who had a fairly high level position at DOT during the Clinton administration. He's been making these same points for years.

    TMT

  20. Gooze Views Avatar
    Gooze Views

    RH,
    For q quote on the supposed safety of oil drilling offshore, check out McDonnell's Dec. 23 letter to U.S. Interior Sect. Salazar. Obama has made similar popints.

    Cargoquid. I beg to differ. Oil has resumed leaking in numbers
    Peter Galuszka

  21. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Larry:

    You are often right about some of the details but you continue to miss the big picture.

    Yes, most powered vehicles now derive their motive power from non-renewable sources.

    The more important reality is that functional settlement patterns reduce the need for ANY vehicle.

    Those who want to live, work and secure services, recreation and amenity at locations that have dysfunctional relationships and thus generate demand for extensive vehicle travel are welcome to do that so long as they pay the TOTAL costs.

    This fact is really quite simple and your failure to understand seems to be intentional.

    You say:

    “also observe that most mass transit also runs on fossil fuels and the BTU per person mile for rail is about 2800 btu per passenger mile while 1322 for a van. Cars are 3512.”

    This is true because of inefficient and dysfunctional settlement patterns in the ‘rail’ station areas.

    As Professor Risse notes concerning METRO: Most of the trains leave most of the stations most of the time essentially empty because of an ImBalance between system capacity and station-area trip generation demand.

    The idea that somehow the practice of more and more land area being devoted to Urban land uses – as has been the case over the past 80 years – or that the planet’s resources can support scattered inefficiency is a form of insanity.

    TMT said:

    "Perhaps we should be saying not "the problem with cars" but "the problem with inefficient and inflexible fixed guideway transit"?"

    When TMT reads THE PROBLEM WITH CARS he will find that it deals with the fundamental ‘problem with cars’ that make Large, Private Vehicles poor candidates to provide Mobility and Access for Urban citizens.

    Also see above re Balance of system capacity with travel demand.

    Observer

  22. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: " The idea that somehow the practice of more and more land area being devoted to Urban land uses – as has been the case over the past 80 years – or that the planet’s resources can support scattered inefficiency is a form of insanity."

    I'm not going to disagree with your premise but you offer no practical solution to the issue.

    but if we had the answers, we'd certainly not have 60,000 people a day thundering up I-95 from Fredericksburg to NoVa and back.

    The one fixed-guideway mode – VRE – carries but a fraction of people and it's future capacity is virtually nil…

    where we're headed is to buses and vans…both of which BTW are more efficient than METRO by far…. on a BTU per passenger mile basis because they basically run full and not empty.

    How will you convince those those folks to move to NoVa to live …or alternatively – convince the companies in NoVa to move down to Fredericksburg?

  23. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    When you look at a NoVa employment center employees in terms of where they live – you'll find in most cases a wide variety of locations all around the NoVa region and extending to Fredericksburg, Culpeper, Loudoun, etc.

    So your goal for a functional settlement pattern would seem to be to find a location where the company can be and all of it's employees live within walking/biking distance of that company .. and of course all the other things required ..shopping, recreation, medical, schools, etc, right?

    We used to do business this way.

    They were called company towns.

    You can still see their remnants in small towns where the entire city block had one after another house built pretty much the same way.

    but companies don't work this way now days.

    they want the best talent they can staff with and if that guy lives 30 miles away and he is what they need – and he likes their offer.. he is not going to sell his house and move to next door especially i his wife works close to their other house and their kids attend schools nearby also.

    I don't know how you fix this – without some equally insane and impractical solution but I'm willing to listen.

    The reason why you think it is insane is that you do not understand what companies want and need to prosper ..to compete and.. to provide those jobs.

    If you take away a company's ability to be nimble and adapt.. it fails.. and the jobs go away – along with your functional settlement pattern..no?

  24. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    that's a mere unfortunate "detail" to those who think drilling is "worth it".

    it also points up – the fickle nature of the public to think one way about the relative risk of something like this – and then to turn 180 degrees when an event occurs that they though was unlikely.

    same cost/benefit, in theory, but perceptions change…

  25. Mimi Stratton Avatar
    Mimi Stratton

    The company town idea sounds GREAT to me. What would it take? OK–so why can't cars be produced not just in Detroit but all over? Why can't there be car factories in many towns, along with all the supplier businesses, parts, service, etc?

  26. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    The more important reality is that functional settlement patterns reduce the need for ANY vehicle.

    Complete and total nonsense. A pipe dream that is incompatible with true sustainability. A waste of money and resources. Ignores the psychological and econoic benefits of travel and transportation. Dismisses economies of scale, and trades moving goods for moviing people, and limits both access and opportunity.

    RH

  27. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    People understand for the most part that any industry and for that matter, any activity has risks that are acceptable.

    Not so acceptable is an industry or activity that not only can kill it's workers but damage a wide geographic area threatening others including critters.

    And how is it that we are able to assess the value of one risk and not the other?

    Because we have a market in jobs and enery but not for habitat.

  28. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    no amount of facts about spending twice as money for HC will convince those who are opposed to subsidized benefits for people who did not earn them.

    We don't know that yet, because we do not have the facts yet. We do know that people in Britain are proeud of their national health care system, and consider it a cornerstone of their civil society.

  29. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    To date – no financial interests will agree to provide insurance for an operating Nuke and the govt has to.

    Such a financial interest would hae to be too big to fail, wouldn't it?

    Anyway, what financial interest could step forward and compete with government? As long as the industry insists on government insurance and we allow it to have government insurance, we cannot know the answer to your question.

    Who insures nuclear power in France? Or Iran for that matter?

  30. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "Under U.S. nuclear accident liability laws, U.S. nuclear operators are forced to buy roughly $300 million in coverage and could be forced to pay another $10 billion for offsite damages for any single nuclear accident in the U.S."

    Damage at 3 mile island cost almost $1 billion, but much of that was the cost of litigation and not the cost of damage.

    RH

  31. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "Happens all the time in places like California where referenda often draw pro/con media campaigns seeking to influence potential voters."

    Out of state media campaigns, and out of state funding for campaigns affect these ballots.

    That is what happened to Measure 39 in Oregon. When that happens, how the people vote is heavily influenced by those who will not be afffected by the policy.

    That is why markets are the best way to resolve such things: make people put money where their mouth is, and there will be a lot less mouthing off.

    RH

  32. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    The oil off the coast of Virginia is in US waters, not Virginia waters. Even if there is oil there the taxes on that oil will go to the federal government not the state government.

    Dear Leader is a con man and McDonnell is being taken to the cleaners.

    Of course, the beaches where the oil will wash up are very much in Virginia.

  33. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Why can't there be car factories in many towns, along with all the supplier businesses, parts, service, etc?

    Because it costs a fortune to build a car factory. You need the economy of scale.

    Also, it would be next to impossible to get zoning in most places.

    Compare that with the printing industry, which is nearly as large as the car industry, and yet it is composed of many smaller plants scattered in every community, although even that has been changing recently with the advent of digital platmakers and other technology.

    It would be nice to imagine a situaton where every car dealler had a couple of bays occupied by robots capable of building or rebuilding a car from scratch, swapping out major components to prevent obsolescence and the like.

    I have a perfectly good truck with a failed transmission. The truck is not worth what the transmission will cost, but if I repair it and keep it I will eventually get enough work out of it to make the repair pay. It will probably go to the junkyard because of other priorities.

    Just like the Feds or state government, I can't afford to fix EVERYTHING, regardless of cost. But this is an example of how we recycle soda bottles and trash valuable stuff. even if the material in the truck is recycled, the value will be a fraction of that of an operating truck.

    So, why isn't there a bettter market for repairable trucks? Like Larry says, it is the perception of risk. Our auto repair industry has nowhere near the proffessional reputation our aircraft repair industry has.

    Also, the auto industry is not held resposnible for this form of pollution.

    RH

  34. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    same cost/benefit, in theory, but perceptions change…

    Right, the costs and benefits will always be what they are: they cannot be "wrong".

    Only the perceptions can be wrong.

    RH

  35. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "…or that the planet’s resources can support scattered inefficiency is a form of insanity."

    You are only looking at one kind of efficiency, and your analysis is insufficient.

    RH

  36. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Settlement patterns are not going to change the BTU per passenger mile very much.

    If settlement patter is able to make transportation more efficient, the ability to carry more passengers in both directions will also distribute to vans and cars so the ratio will not change very much and vans will continue to be more flexible and more versatile.

    RH

  37. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    The US Transportation Energy Data Book states the following figures for Passenger transportation in 2006 (BTU per passenger mile.)

    Vanpool 1,322
    Efficient Hybrid 1,659
    Motorcycles 1,855
    Rail (Commuter) 2,996
    Rail (Transit Light & Heavy) 2,784
    Rail (Intercity Amtrak) 2,650
    Cars 3,512
    Air 3,261
    Buses (Transit) 4,235
    Personal Trucks 3,944

    We can postulate "what – if" concerning how these would change with efficient settlement patterns, but meanshile these rare the facts we are stuck with.

    Re-arranging settlement patterns is going to have to be very cheap indeed, to achieve any kind of payback based on reducing these numbers. Other paybacks are also claimed, like lower utility and infrastructure costs, but these don't pay out in fact, either.

    The only way it DOES pay out is when you have a balance of the costs and cashflow of urban vs rural property / open space / farmland.

  38. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    The more important reality is that functional settlement patterns reduce the need for ANY vehicle.

    Complete and total nonsense. A pipe dream that is incompatible with true sustainability. A waste of money and resources. Ignores the psychological and econoic benefits of travel and transportation. Dismisses economies of scale, and trades moving goods for moviing people, and limits both access and opportunity.

    Right on Brother.

    Also there is no proof of a tobacco cancer conection, DDT does not hurt birds and I have the right under the constituion to pollute the land just like I pollute the water.

    You know it all RH!!

    RH Fan

  39. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Of course, the beaches where the oil will wash up are very much in Virginia.

    Except prevailing winds and current are North and West. Long Island and Cape Cod might actually have more risk, except in winter months.

  40. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "If you take away a company's ability to be nimble and adapt.. it fails.. and the jobs go away – along with your functional settlement pattern..no?"

    NO!

    And Larry knows very well why the answer is no.

    JWD

  41. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    well, we know this..

    this is no such thing as a viable settlement pattern, functional or otherwise without jobs.

    and we know this:

    entire industries can go away – leaving a once vibrant settlement pattern a hollow shell.. the central business district essentially a ghost town with defunct hardware, furniture stores and the grocery store now a quick stop convenience store that does not carry fresh produce and meat – just staples.

    There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of these towns in America now – the only thing keeping them whole is some government offices and retired people on pensions.

    Can this happen to bigger, more diverse urban areas?

    yes. Think about cities in Michigan that produced Pontiacs and Hudsons .. the jobs left and went to Sunbelt states with right-to-work laws and cheaper labor.

    Think about BRAC .. an army base closes and the town outside of it goes belly up.

    So the reality is that jobs can and do go away and when they do .. the settlement pattern is affected.

    In Detroit's case, contrary to what some might thing.. what used to be j/r/h/s/ is now.. vacant fields.

    If a company wanted to locate in and around Detroit right, now.. I would garner that no one govt soul would dare to say : " yes please come but only on condition you locate where we tell you to".

    A 14% unemployment rate – trumps "functional" settlement patterns. no?

  42. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Loudoun is considering joining in the Chesapeake Bay Act…voluntarily! Seems it will affect every single resident. I found out a bunch of stuff on Facebook under "Loudoun's Bay Act."

  43. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    when we say "Loudoun", are we saying Loudoun Govt or Loudoun Citizens.. or one or more smaller citizen groups?

    How would Loudoun County ..benefit from this?

  44. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    In reference to Cargosquid: Your statement is untrue. According to reports this a.m. there are 45,000 a day leaking into the Gulf.

  45. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    and the jobs go away – along with your functional settlement pattern..no?"

    NO!

    And Larry knows very well why the answer is no.

    Try telling that to Blockbuster or Hollywood Video.

    If you don't adapt, it won't matter what the settlement pattern is.

  46. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    seems like all along in the functional settlement pattern continuum.. that it is ASSUMED that the number of local jobs needed to assure an "efficient density .. will be there.

    why?

    perhaps a few years ago before computers an the economic/trade flattening of the earth, we could assume that industry would also be flush and the problem was the stupidity of people and institutions to "sprawl" instead of not….

    And I've asked several times what happens when DOD consolidates jobs from around the region and centralizes them a Belvoir and Quantico what that means with respect to functional settlement patterns and so far.. the answers I've receive imply that DOD should not be doing that to start with – as if DOD has no legitimate business reason to consolidate/relocate jobs.

    I supposed if DOD decided to move all those jobs..instead to an all-inclusive on-base enclave where everyone walked to work.. and heavy rail connected it to Richmond/Washington.. it would have been hailed as a monumental breakthrough in "Smart Growth".

    Alas.. neither DOD nor any other government or private business feels constrained by such niceties but more about if they can continue to change and adapt to the every changing requirements necessary for them to survive as a entity – that does provide jobs …

    and those the location of those jobs.. so far.. do not involve them being required by some authority to be in the form of a functional settlement pattern.

    Oracle opens a 300-employee operation in NoVa.

    they pick the location.. and the employees get hired – no matter where they live – as long as they can get to work on time and do the job required.

    Who will tell Oracle and/or it's employees that the location of the job and where they live is not their choice?

  47. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Larry rambles on and on and on…

    … making up strawmen and red herring as he goes.

    This statement shows how desperate he is to avoid reality:

    “Who will tell Oracle and/or it's employees that the location of the job and where they live is not their choice?”

    Anyone who has read Professor Risse’s work understands that:

    If the total location-variable costs were equitably and transparently allocated, and

    Data were collected, analyzed and published based on the organic structure of human settlement rather than the mishmash of the existing governance structures, then

    Oracle, its employees and everyone else would choose logical locations for their activities and thus functional settlement patterns would evolve.

    No one would have to tell them.

    This is how an informed market works.

    Those who would come out less well off?

    The land speculators and the others that drive settlement pattern dysfunction as RH will demonstrate with his silly denials of reality.

    Observer

  48. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Census figures released yesterday show that the Washington area added 75,000 residents last year, bringing the population to 5.9 million in a region that extends from the western shore of the Chesapeake Bay to Northern Virginia horse country. The sharpest increases occurred in the outer ring of suburbs.

    From WAPO

    Emphasis mine

    RH

  49. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    as RH will demonstrate with his silly denials of reality.

    Do you deny that the sharpest increases ccored in the outer suburbs? If so, what do you know that the census doesn'T

    Do you deny that I predicted this would happen, over eight years ago?

    I am neither denying nor propmoting reality, but neither am I wasting people's time or distorting their decision processes with hypothetical gains they can make "If we ever achieve functional settlement patterns".

    The reality is that dysfuntional suburbs are growing. So is DC, which showed and actual population gain this time around.

    Those are facts, not a denial of reality.

    RH

  50. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    as RH will demonstrate with his silly denials of reality.

    Do you deny that the sharpest increases ccored in the outer suburbs? If so, what do you know that the census doesn'T

    Do you deny that I predicted this would happen, over eight years ago?

    I am neither denying nor propmoting reality, but neither am I wasting people's time or distorting their decision processes with hypothetical gains they can make "If we ever achieve functional settlement patterns".

    The reality is that dysfuntional suburbs are growing. So is DC, which showed and actual population gain this time around.

    Those are facts, not a denial of reality.

    RH

  51. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Anyone who has read Professor Risse’s work understands that:

    "If" is the only word he wrires that has any importance.

    If utopia comes to pass and everyone thinks the same as Risse wants them to think then everything will be wonderful.

    If it doesn't, we are doomed.

    We agree that the eventual extinction of man on earth is assured.

    Next topic.

  52. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    RH again in denial:

    “Do you deny that the sharpest increases ccored [occurred] in the outer suburbs? If so, what do you know that the census doesn't”

    It is actually painful to imagine ‘RH’ floundering around trying to defend the illusions of his clients. It is interesting to note that a wholly owned subsidiary of the Business as Usual developer interests made the same claim concerning ‘sharpest increases’ to justify building more roads to their speculatively held land.

    The citation from WaPo was for to period from 2000 (Jan, April or July?) to July 2008 or 2009.

    Yes, during that period there was growth in population in the outer Radius Bands (beyond R = 25) of the National Capital SubRegion. Wrong Size House in Wrong Location. Since 2006, not so much.

    For the record these outer Radius Bands have had the highest levels of foreclosure and the most significant value declines suggesting that the era of ‘sharpest increase’ is in the rear view mirror.”
    How much the ‘growth’ there has been in these outer Radius Bands, even in ‘the boom’ as a percentage of SubRegion Core Jobs and dwellings is another question.

    Anyone who has followed Dr. Risse’s work knows that for nearly three decades he has criticized WaPo for it’s use of ‘percentage change’ (‘sharpest increases’) rather than ‘total change’ to generate a false impression with respect to both Job location and dwelling location.

    Anyone who has done a Density-by-Five-Mile-Radius-Band Analysis or a Jobs-by-Five-Mile-Radius-Band Analysis – including studies done by (and then ignored by) WaPo – will understand reality. Risse has a nice PowerPoint in TRILO-G that demonstrates this point.

    If RH had actually read (OK, and was able to understand) what Professor Risse has written he would not make a fool of himself.

    Observer

  53. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    yup – take a look:

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=43768&src=eorss-iotd

    If this thing gets to the Gulf Coast – the pictures will be even worse – eh?

    methinks.. drilling off of Virginia is about to have the wheels come off…..

  54. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    ‘percentage change’ (‘sharpest increases’) rather than ‘total change’ to generate a false impression with respect to both Job location and dwelling location.

    How is that a false impression, as long as the method is identified.

    Since percentage change is the most often used method, using total change would more likely be misleading, even if the method is disclosed.

    What is misleading is the case where the change is presented with a graph in which the current or recent values are shown on an expanded scale. This makes the zero off the bottom of the page, so this is "indicated" by a missing portion of the graph between the data shown and the zero point.

    If we were inthe habit of reporting total change the results would be relatively the same. It would not change the facts about where jobs are growing the fastest or where the best jobs are growing the fastest.

    In my own case, I've chased jobs outbound on three occasions, and my housing followed along once.

    RH

    RH

  55. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Anyone who has done a Density-by-Five-Mile-Radius-Band Analysis

    Anyone who has done that has too much time on their hands, or an agenda.

    Of course the density decreases by band: the area increases drastically.

    It only makes a difference if you assume that density is a good thing. Which computer chips and electrons, that might be a good thing, but even then, the complexity, friction, and heat go up, and the structure is more delicate leading to higher probability of failure.

    The only reason it works with chips is that they can be mass produced, and easily discarded.

    Cities, not so much.

    RH

  56. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    If RH had actually read (OK, and was able to understand) what Professor Risse has written he would not make a fool of himself.

    If observer thought I was a fool, he would not spend so much effort refuting me.

    I don't think Risse is a fool. I just think he presents bad information.

  57. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    and the most significant value declines

    Ahem.

    Is that total decline or perctage of change decline?

    Look at it this way, for the guy that loses a home, it machts nicht.

    He propably bought whatever home he (thought he ) could afford and lost all he put in. On a percentage of change measure, it amounts to an equal opportunity loss, and to the person involved it amounts to an equal amount of hurt, in terms of how long it will take to recover.

    On the other hand, if what you say is true, those homes are going to re-sell, and those that buy in the outer bands will get thi biggest bargains (write down).

    All Risse is telling us is that the market works.

    But lets be honest here. Risse could care less if anyone prospers, he hates profit. His rants about what people drive apparently don't apply to himself. Nor is he really concerned about efficiency or energy, since the only driver to achieve them is to achieve more profit. He has no idea what it would cost to achieve his dream world or what the pay back would be. The best example we have for his ideal is probably Hong Kong which got that way because it is restrined by water on three sides and communism on the fourth.

    Even the water didn't hold it back from expansion, entirely, anymore than it did Holland.

    Risse has a single [admirable] passion: preserving open space.

    I have no problem with that, but if we agree to do it, we should pay what we claim it is worth, and not steal it.

    So, when we become civilized and ethical enough to stop using the law as a weapon for theft, we will be able to afford a lot more open space if we stop claiming it is priceless.

    RH

  58. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    It is actually painful to imagine ‘RH’ floundering around trying to defend the illusions of his clients.

    Spare yourself the pain. I have no clients, and the simple truth is pretty easy to defend.

    What Risse does is spin the truth.

    I find it is not so easy to actually get anywhere when you are spinning around in circles.

    RH

    RH

  59. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    If all those things happened

    No one would have to tell them.

    This is how an informed market works.

    if it was informed entirely by Ed Risse.

    But it isn't. Everyone has their own reality, and they percieve information differently.

    Only when, and if, the collective reality worsens will they legislate to restrict their own freedom. They are unlikely to do that based on predictions of eventuaql doom. To the extent that they try they are unlikely to succeed.

    When we can predict which butterfly flap will trigger a tornado, maybe things will be different, but for now we have a system characterized by the balance between power, chaos and entropy.

    Even Risse isn't smart enough to manage that.

  60. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    and no decision made is irrevocable in the future if enough citizens believe we initially made a bad decision.

    This is the point that I keep making concerning
    TC = PC + EC + GC.

    You argue that we cannot use it to make decisions because we don't know what numbers to put in.

    I argue (as you are now) that it won't make any difference (to the formuula) WHAT we do.

    The formula will always be correct because it can be no other way.
    We are completely free to make bad decision and then reverse them (when presumably we CAN complete the equation).

    But you are WRONG to say that the earlier decision is not irrevocable. Once we make a wrong decision we start wasting money (and ultimately lives) that cannot be recovered.

    The county makes a rule that seriously damages the net worth of a handfull of individuals. I'm not talking about a crummy $300 a year in extra gas taxes, I'm talking about destroying value equal to a quarter or half of their net worth. Or maybe a lot more than that, for some people it could be 90%.

    That is a damn high tax rate.

    The county claims everyone is better off. They claim, in essence that TC is now lower. But they are constrained by law to consider only GC and they assume that if GC goes down that TC goes down. They are not looking at the whole equation.

    All that has really happened is they transferred $65,000 from one individual to $1 apiece for 65,000 individuals.

    In the meantime, whatever might have happened that the county restricted hasn't happened and no one is better off by an amount equal to what might have been created (nad shared through the economy).

    But that individual is going to grow old and die. For him the decision is irrevocable, and this is the government tyranny of immortality.

    It is an essential problem with our system that government cannot admit it is wrong. It is utterly backwards, because since government is immortal, costs it nothing to admit a mistake: it has forever to recover, but the individual it harms does not.

    What's that got to do with drilling for oil?

    If we drill and we screw up we will kill a lot of horseshoe crabs, for them the decision was irrevocable. That is the environmental argument.

    But we are going to harvest those crabs anyway and use their blood for diabetes medicine to keep people alive. The oil also keeps people alive. Ultimately, the question you have to answer is whose life is worth more?

    We are uncomfortable with asking that question, so we don't do it, at least not overtly.

    So we ignore the equation and make political decisions based on feelings. When we are wrong,the results are irreversible for those most affected.

    RH

  61. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    EMR has predicted the demise of air travel as a rfesult of fuel costs.

    Air travel and air freight have increased virtually every month since Feb of 2008.

    Your turn to spin, Ed.

    RH

  62. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Last note on RH comments by Observer:

    RH said:

    “If observer [Observer] thought I [RH] was a fool, he would not spend so much effort refuting me.”

    For the record almost all of Observers comments are directed to those who post on this site (Mr. Bacon and Mr. Gooze) and those who make a good faith attempt to be rational in their comments – TMT, Larry and Groveton.

    There is a good reason for that.

    A number of us were initially concerned that RH’s unfounded attacks on Professor Risse would lead some to think there was a basis for these comments.

    For example:

    “… he hates profit…”

    The truth is he believes in the power of the profit motive and in markets. He also believes that unearned, obscene profits supported by hidden subsidies, unpaid externalities and unfair allocation of costs must be eliminated to achieve a functional and sustainable economy.

    “… has predicted the demise of air travel …”

    The truth is he believes that, like horse travel, there will be air travel for the foreseeable future. What he has said is that “air travel as it has been experienced over the past 30 years (relatively cheap and reasonably comfortable) has come to an end …” There are many at the top of the Ziggurat that can still afford to fly. Air freight is being used to offset the cost of inventory. “Free shipping” via air is also now being used as an incentive to drive consumer consumption. However, if all the costs of air travel (passenger and freight) were fairly allocated the cost would go up steeply and both modes would decrease over time as civilization evolves to a low carbon, low consumption economy – or in the event of Collapse.

    It turns out we should not have worried about the impact of RH’s comments. It can be demonstrated that these comments have caused many to carefully read the work of Risse and SYNERGY due to the fact that the RH accusations are so bazaar. In the process they learn for themselves there is a lot to admire in the decades long effort to articulate a science of human settlement patterns.

    In effect, RH is one of SYNERGY’s best advocates.

    RH’s comments above spanned 1 hour and 39 mins. This statement took 19 minutes to prepare and post.

    This is the last comment Observer will post concerning RH or his activities.

    Observer

Leave a Reply

Read More