• Magnetic soap made for oil spills

    University of Bristol

    A magnet plunged into test tubes filled with soap under an organic solution. The soap on the right is magnetic. You can see how it is attracted to the magnet.

    By John Roach, Contributing Writer, NBC News

    Scientists have created the world's first soap that can be controlled by magnets. 

    That's right: magnetic suds.

    The breakthrough may revolutionize industrial cleaning products and the response to environmental disasters such as oil spills, reports the research team from Bristol University in England.

    The soap works like ordinary soap — breaking up the oily, grimy particles it touches and clumping it all into a drop. Only these clumps can be controlled simply by turning on a magnet.

    The property could, for example, allow environmental cleanup crews to dump soap onto an oil spill, let it do its thing and then turn on a magnet to remove it all from the environment.

    The soap was created by dissolving iron in a range of standard soap materials made of chlorine and bromine ions, similar to those found in mouthwash and fabric softener.

    Molecular change
    "Any fool would know that if you tried to put a magnet next to a soap bottle, nothing happens," Julian Eastoe, a chemist at Bristol University who led the group that developed the soap, told me Tuesday.

    "But what we did is we changed ... an important part of the molecule for a known magnetically active group." 

    Soap molecules have an oil-loving part and a water-loving part. "It is almost like a schizophrenic molecule," he explained. His team left the oil-loving part alone, but made the water-loving part magnetic.

    The addition of iron creates metallic centers within the soap particles that, lab tests show, are big enough be magnetically attractive. 

    While ionic liquid soaps infused with iron have been suggested as possible, scientists thought the metallic centers would be too isolated for the long-range interactions necessary for magnetic attraction.

    Bristol University

    A droplet of liquid soap responds to a magnet.

    "A single atom alone is not magnetic," Eastoe said. "It is only when put next to neighbors, brothers, that there is a communication between the brothers in a network and that connective communication gives rise to a macroscopic magnetic effect."

    Surprised by their lab results, the Bristol University researchers took a sample to the Institut Laue-Langevin in France where they studied it with a so-called neutron microscope. 

    The neutrons revealed the iron particles were clumping together sufficiently to make the suds magnetic.

    Potential applications
    According to Eastoe, the potential applications are many. 

    Simply by turning on or off a magnet, researchers can change the electrical conductivity of the soap, its melting point, and the size and shape of aggregates, for example.

    These properties are traditionally controlled with the addition of electrical charge, or changing the pH or temperature of a system. All of these alter the system and can cost money to remediate.

    The magnetic property also makes the soap easier to collect and remove from a system once it has done its job. This could prove particularly useful, for example, in cleaning up oil spills.

    Research to make the soap commercially viable is ongoing, Eastoe noted. 

    "We've uncovered a proof of principle," he said, noting that it should open minds to consider other ways to make magnetic soaps. Other solutions might be more attractive, less expensive, or more appropriate for a given application.

    But within one to three years, he surmised, "you might see something appear."

    More stories on soapy technology:

    Findings are reported January 23 in Angewandte Chemie.  

    John Roach is a contributing writer for msnbc.com. To learn more about him, check out his website. For more of our Future of Technology series, watch the featured video below.

    As computing power increases exponentially, the ways we relate to computers become more natural — and more ubiquitous. Msnbc.com's Wilson Rothman explores the evolution of interfaces, from primitive punch cards to interactive buildings.

     

  • Oil cleanup teams win $1.3 million

    Team Elastec's members talk about their oil-cleanup technology in an X Challenge video.

    By Alan Boyle, Science Editor, NBC News

    A year and a half after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill sparked a months-long environmental crisis, experts from a cleanup company in Illinois have earned a $1 million prize for coming up with a better way to deal with future spills.

    Another team from Norway took the $300,000 second prize in the Wendy Schmidt Oil Cleanup X Challenge, which was organized even as the Gulf oil spill was going on. And wouldn't you know it? Yet another oil-spill crisis is unfolding off the coast of New Zealand, even as the awards are being announced today in New York.

    The risks posed by offshore drilling and tanker accidents are what prompted Silicon Valley philanthropist Wendy Schmidt to fund the prize program almost as soon as she was asked. Until fossil fuels can be phased out entirely, there's a crying need for better oil-cleanup technologies.

    "We're really playing with fire, and I hope we move beyond this," she told me in an interview before today's ceremony, "But in the meantime, it's very encouraging to see so many people who care about the problem."

    The $1.4 million Oil Cleanup X Challenge was organized by the X Prize Foundation, which has also managed two $10 million competitions for private spaceflight and more efficient cars, as well as a $2 million contest for lunar lander prototypes. Several other X Prizes are in the works, including the $30 million Google Lunar X Prize for private-sector moon missions.

    The X Prize Foundation's chairman and CEO, Peter Diamandis, said the oil-cleanup challenge sprang out of a suggestion made by film director James Cameron, a member of the foundation's board of trustees.

    "It really was a rapid-response X Challenge," Diamandis told me. "The idea that a $1.4 million purse could attract roughly 350 teams to pre-register was really incredible." 

    The competition was designed to encourage the development of cleanup methods that could outdo the current industry standard for speed and efficiency. Ten finalists were selected to go through a series of tests this summer at the OHMSETT oil-spill research facility in New Jersey. To have a chance at winning a prize, the teams had to recover at least 2,500 gallons of oil a minute, with a recovery efficiency of 70 percent or better.

    Three times as fast as the previous best
    Two teams hit that mark and then some. Illinois-based Team Elastec's grooved-disc skimming system sucked out 4,670 gallons per minute at 89.5 percent efficiency — a recovery rate that was three times as good as the industry's previous best oil recovery rate, tested under controlled conditions. That earned Elastec/American Marine, a well-known manufacturer of oil-cleanup equipment, the million-dollar prize.

    Norway's Team NOFI, representing a midsize player in the oil-cleanup game, came in second with a recovery rate of 2,712 gallons per minute at 83 percent efficiency. The competition's $100,000 third prize went unclaimed because no other team hit the minimum requirements.

    It might sound strange that the ones to beat the industry standard are industry leaders — but Peter Velez, one of the judges for the competition and global emergency response manager for Shell International Exploration, said the winners found innovative ways to improve on their own records. "None of them brought equipment that they already had built and were selling," Velez told me.

    Like mowing a field with a tractor
    The keys to success for oil-spill recovery include being able to take in more surface area at once, and moving faster through a given area. "It's like you're mowing a field with a big tractor: The bigger you can make your pass, the more you can do at one time," Velez explained.

    For Elastec, that meant building a huge oil-skimming system with four rows of rapidly spinning grooved discs. "It's essentially a box that moves around in the water and captures the oil very well. The more oil you can gather, the more effective you can be," Velez said.

    The NOFI team, meanwhile, built a large boom system called the "Current Buster."

    "This was a different setup, in that it also had a way to travel in the water at higher speeds than a typical boom can," Velez said. The contraption, which has been compared to a giant "Slip 'N' Slide" sheet, was built to concentrate the oil and slurp it into a recovery device.

    An X Challenge video highlights Team NOFI's oil-cleanup technology.

    Velez said the competition provided an opportunity to see how a wide variety of oil-cleanup systems worked in a standardized setting. Some of the systems are built to work better in calm seas, while others would put in a better performance in choppy waters. "It helps us make the selection when we go to purchase equipment," Velez said.

    A $1.3 million 'jump start'
    This competition attracted brand-new entrants in the oil-equipment market as well as established players. One of the finalists was Team Vor-Tek, whose members came from a background in metal recycling and adapted a system they originally developed for recovering plastic from the ocean. The X Challenge gave Vor-Tek's entrepreneurs an opportunity to test the waters (so to speak) with a whole new product.

    "For a relatively modest investment on my part, we've really jump-started some technological advances that I don't think would have happened otherwise," Schmidt said. 

    Although the X Challenge competition is finished, this is by no means the end of Schmidt's environmental efforts. The Schmidt Family Foundation — which Wendy Schmidt and her husband, Google executive chairman Eric Schmidt, established in 2006 — is backing other environmental initiatives such as the 11th Hour Project and ReMain Nantucket. Wendy Schmidt is looking for still more opportunities to make a difference on the energy/environment front. "We're not done yet," she told me.

    The X Prize Foundation, meanwhile, is moving ahead with still more competitions. Last week, the foundation announced that Shell would be the exclusive sponsor for a $9 million, three-year prize program aimed at encouraging the exploration of Earth's frontiers, the world's oceans and outer space.

    All about X Prizes and other awards:

    Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page, following @b0yle on Twitter or adding me to your Google+ circle. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for other worlds.

  • Experts spar over Gulf methane's fate

    John Kessler / Texas A&M

    Wearing protective masks, Texas A&M's John Kessler and David Valentine of the University of California at Santa Barbara stand in front of ground zero of the Deepwater Horizon Gulf oil spill in June 2010. Their research, published in the journal Science early this year, is the subject of renewed debate this week.

    By Alan Boyle, Science Editor, NBC News

    What happened to all the methane that was released into the ocean during last year's Gulf of Mexico oil spill? Scientists are revisiting that question this week in dueling research papers.

    The two papers appearing in this week's issue of Science follow up on a study that was published in the same journal in January. Back then, a team of scientists reported that bacteria gobbled up the methane released during the Deepwater Horizon spill at a surprising rate. Experts estimate that 200,000 tons of methane were released during the spill, in addition to the more than 200 million gallons of oil. The researchers concluded that "nearly all" of the methane was consumed in the ocean before it reached the atmosphere.

    A rival group, led by University of Georgia marine ecologist Samantha Joye, takes issue with that conclusion in this week's issue. Joye and her colleagues say too many uncertainties surround the observations. "I believe there is still a lot to learn about the environmental factors that regulate methane consumption in the Gulf's waters and elsewhere," Joye said in a news release.

    The researchers behind the earlier study defended their results in a response that was published alongside their critics' comments.

    "The case is actually in pretty good shape right now," said David Valentine, a geochemist at the University of California at Santa Barbara who was behind the earlier research as well as today's response to Joye's group. "They're not countering the data, they're not countering any sort of technical issues. They're just really trying to argue interpretation without offering any alternative."

    Why it matters
    Although the methane from the Gulf spill is pretty much gone by now, one way or the other, this isn't an empty debate. Scientists say the fate of the Gulf of Mexico methane could hint at how Earth's ecosystems might respond to future methane releases — for example, a meltdown of frozen deep-sea methane reserves caused by climate change. Methane is a greenhouse gas even more potent than carbon dioxide, and some fear that a massive atmospheric release could create a climate catastrophe. If methane-munching microbes could handle a meltdown, that might put that nightmare to rest.

    June 29, 2010: NBC's Robert Bazell reports on the search for Gulf of Mexico methane.

    Valentine and his colleagues concluded that the microbes did the trick by tracking ocean methane levels as well as reductions in oxygen levels. Such oxygen anomalies might indicate that the microbes were oxidizing the methane gas in order to digest it. But Joye and her colleagues suggested that the lower oxygen levels might have been caused by other factors, such as the "dead zone" phenomenon observed in the Gulf.

    Joye also pointed to studies indicating that considerable amounts of methane released from natural deep-sea vents are not consumed by microbes. "A range of data exists that shows a significant release of methane seeping out at the seafloor to the atmosphere, indicating that the microbial biofilter is not as effective," she said in the news release.

    Valentine, however, said there was "absolutely no basis" for the dead-zone argument, because that kind of oxygen depletion occurs in shallow waters, not in the depths that he and his colleagues studied. They insist in their Science paper that "natural emission does not mimic" the Deepwater Horizon release of methane.

    Oily, gassy debate
    This scientific back-and-forth is likely to go on for a while, just like the similar back-and-forth over what happened to the oil spilled in the Gulf. Joye happens to be involved in that debate as well, which similarly centers on how efficiently microbes removed the hydrocarbons that leaked into the sea. She contends there's a lot more oil left behind than other researchers have claimed.

    Valentine said one of the factors behind the disagreement is a study that Joye and her colleagues published in Nature Geoscience in February. That study included an estimate of the hydrocarbon leakage that turned out to be too high, he said. "That sets a false stage for the argument and makes it seem as if there's a much greater discrepancy than there is," he told me.

    Geochemist David Valentine discusses the Deepwater Horizon oil spill at the American Society for Microbiology's 2011 annual meeting.

    So how well can Mother Nature clean up after our oily, gassy messes? The answer to that question is still being contested, but eventually, both Joye and Valentine would like to get this debate resolved.

    "For me, it's important to get this right because I'm trying to understand how nature works," Valentine told me. "Undestanding how the ocean deals with these inputs is an important thing, in order to understand what happened in the past — and what will happen in the future."

    More on the oil spill aftermath:

    In addition to Joye, the authors of "Comment on 'A Persistent Oxygen Anomaly Reveals the Fate of Spilled Methane in the Deep Gulf of Mexico'" include Ira Leifer, Ian R. MacDonald, Jeffery P. Chanton, Christof D. Meile, Andreas P. Teske, Joel E. Kostka, Ludmila Chistoserdova, Richard Coffin, David Hollander, Miriam Kastner, Joseph P. Montoya, Gregor Rehder, Evan Solomon, Tina Treude and Tracy A. Villareal.

    In addition to Valentine, the authors of "Response to Comment on 'A Persistent Oxygen Anomaly Reveals the Fate of Spilled Methane in the Deep Gulf of Mexico'" include John D. Kessler, Molly C. Redmond and Mengran Du.

    You can connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page or following @b0yle on Twitter. Also, give a look to  "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for new worlds.

  • One year after spill, where's the oil?

    Sean Gardner / Reuters

    A worker takes soil samples on an island in Barataria Bay to determine if the island needs to be cleaned again near Myrtle Grove, La., on March 31. Oil fouled Louisiana's coast in the wake of the wake of the Deepwater Horizon drilling-rig explosion on April 20 last year.

    By Alan Boyle, Science Editor, NBC News

    One year ago this week, an oil-rig explosion in the Gulf of Mexico touched off a deep-sea leak amounting to 2.5 million gallons of Louisiana light crude every day for months. In all, nearly 207 million gallons (4.9 million barrels) of oil are thought to have gushed from the leak, along with huge volumes of methane. So what's happened to all those petrochemicals over the past year? The answer is surprisingly complex and contentious.

    Or maybe it shouldn't be so surprising. After all, the task requires figuring out what effect Mother Nature and millions of gallons of dispersants had on the plumes of oil and gas, as much as a mile beneath the sea's surface. What's more, the question carries policy implications: BP and the other companies that operated the well would have an interest in downplaying the spill's long-term legacy, while that's exactly the issue that BP's critics want to highlight.

    The legal implications could also be huge. Scientists already are finding that their studies are being impeded by civil and criminal investigations into the spill and its effect. For instance, researchers looking into a spate of dolphin deaths that may be linked to oil-fouled seas were told by the National Marine Fisheries Service to keep mum about their findings. "Because of the seriousness of the legal case, no data or findings may be released, presented or discussed outside the UME [unusual mortality event] investigative team without prior approval," the agency told scientists in a letter.

    Even the federal government's assessment of what happened to the oil, released last August and updated in November, has been widely criticized by experts who think it downplays the seriousness of the spill's impact. Georgia Tech biologist Joseph Montoya complained last year that the federal government's estimates "always seemed to be biased to the best case."

    But here are a few statements that everyone can agree with: Some of the oil evaporated, some was gobbled up by microbes, some was burned, some washed up onto shore, some is still washing up as tar balls, some was dispersed in the sea, and some settled to the bottom of the ocean.

    Most researchers also agree that the spill was a catastrophe, no matter how the percentages for those various categories add up. "This was an ecological disaster, no doubt about it," Terry Hazen, a microbial ecologist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, told me.

    Can Mother Nature clean it up?
    A study led by Hazen and published in the journal Science last August lines up on one side of the oil-spill controversy: He and his colleagues reported that a newly identified bacterial strain was digesting the oil at a faster-than-expected rate. "We took 170 samples from where the plume was and couldn't detect any oil in the water column," Hazen said. The researchers also saw no sign of oxygen depletion, which often arises as the result of microbial blooms.

    Hazen said only 6 percent of his team's deep-sea core samples contained oil contamination that could be associated with the spill. Additional oil washed up on shorelines and sank into the soil, Hazen said, but he said it may be riskier to do "aggressive treatment" of that soil than to leave it alone.

    "Nature does a pretty good job of cleaning herself up, and we shouldn't be mucking things up unless we know what we're doing," Hazen said.

    He said that 400,000 barrels' worth of oil (1.7 million gallons) leaks into the Gulf of Mexico from natural seeps every year, and that the Gulf's ecosystem has evolved to handle such natural contamination. "This has been going on for millions of years, literally," he said. "The bacteria that degrade oil are naturally adapted to degrade this oil. They do it quite well."

    Mucked up at the bottom of the sea
    Studies conducted by the University of Georgia's Samantha Joye and her colleagues tell a different tale: During diving expeditions on the Alvin submersible vessel, they found that areas of the seafloor around the spill site were covered with an oily muck and littered with dead organisms.

    So how does Joye answer the "where's the oil" question? "A lot of it's on the bottom, and it's on the bottom all over the place," she told me. "The question is, how long does it stay on the bottom?"

    Joye said her findings don't really contradict Hazen's. She stressed that the results from his team on microbial digestion were based on the degradation of a particular component of the oil known as alkane, in a particular zone of the Gulf waters. "His results were based on the deep-water plume, and some people have extrapolated that to the entire oil spill," she said. "And I think that's inappropriate."

    She said the Deepwater Horizon blowout of 60,000 barrels a day dwarfed the natural seepage of 500 to 1,000 barrels a day, and doubted that "magic microbes" could have made much of a dent in last year's spillage.

    Hazen acknowledged that the area around the spill site is all mucked up, but says his analysis of core samples led him to a different conclusion. He pointed out that during one phase of the response to the spill, millions of gallons of heavy drilling mud were pumped down into the well in an unsuccessful attempt to perform a "top kill" and stop the leak.

    "We can see the oil there, but we can also see aluminates and silicates and clay," he told me. "What we're seeing in that layer close to the wellhead is oil that was trapped in the drilling mud."

    The bottom line
    For now, the best that Hazen, Joye and other researchers can do is agree with the federal government's estimate that roughly a quarter of the oil that leaked from the Deepwater Horizon well was captured or burned at the surface, and then keep trying to track down what happened to the other three-quarters. The federal estimate suggests that a little more than half of the oil has dispersed, evaporated or dissolved. That would leave a little less than a quarter as "residual" oil — that is, oil that looks like oil.

    Joye thinks the federal estimate is too optimistic. "The majority of that stuff is still in the system and on the seabed," she said. But gathering the evidence to back up that view will take months or years — which is generally the way it works in science, especially when what you're studying is a mile deep.

    "We have to evaluate and very carefully monitor the system to see how long it takes to recover," Joye told me, "because I don't think we can even begin to predict the recovery trajectory at this point."

    How quickly will the Gulf recover? What do you think? Feel free to weigh in below with your comments as well as your pointers to other perspectives.

    Extra credit: Last August's report from the U.S. Geological Survey and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration estimated that nearly 207 million gallons of oil leaked from the broken well, with nearly 35 million gallons' worth collected by a temporary containment cap. That implies that a little more than 172 million gallons actually leaked into the Gulf. Caveat: The federal report says there's a 10 percent uncertainty factor to its numbers, and as I've tried to make clear above, some researchers don't trust the federal figures.

    Voices from the Gulf: NBC reports from the spill zone

    More about the Gulf spill anniversary:

    Join the Cosmic Log community by clicking the "like" button on our Facebook page or by following msnbc.com science editor Alan Boyle as b0yle on Twitter. To learn more about my book on Pluto and the search for planets, check out the website for "The Case for Pluto." 

  • Oil spill dispersants don't disappear

    David L. Valentine, University of California Santa Barbara

    A fresh oil slick from the Deepwater Horizon spill, during June 2010. Note that one drop of detergent was added to the oil slick, forming the cleared circle. A chemical of such dispersants lingers in the deep ocean, a new study found.

    By John Roach, Contributing Writer, NBC News

    When nearly 800,000 gallons of a chemical dispersant were injected into the oil gushing from the busted wellhead on the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico during last year's Deepwater Horizon disaster, nobody knew for sure what would happen. Now, scientists are getting their first answers, and the results are mixed.

    Tests for a key component of the chemical concoction reveal that the dispersant worked its way into the oil-laden plume in the deep ocean, and stayed in the deep ocean. But the chemical did not degrade as much as scientists thought it would.

    "It is hard for me at this point to say whether or not it is bad or good that it stuck around," study lead author Elizabeth Kujawinski, a chemist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts, told me today. She and colleagues were surprised that little or no biodegradation of the dispersant substance had occurred.

    Molecule measurements
    The team analyzed concentrations of a molecule called DOSS (dioctyl sodium sulfoscuccinate), which makes up about 10 percent of the dispersant solution. In May and June of last year, it was present in the oil plume in parts-per-million concentrations. More than 640,000 pounds of DOSS were injected into the deep ocean from April to July.

    By September, the plume had drifted 200 miles away from the wellhead, and concentrations of DOSS were detected there in parts-per-billion concentrations. The finding suggests that the degradation of the molecule was insubstantial relative to other factors such as simple dilution, Kujawinski said.

    Click for interactives:
    Learn more about the physics of oil spills and dispersal
    USA v. BP: Background on the Deepwater Horizon case
    A day-by-day look at the Gulf oil spill's spread

    While the researchers expected the molecule to degrade faster, they note that there is a dearth of data on the fate of the molecule in seawater and dispersants in the deep ocean, making any interpretation scientifically tentative. Instead, they see this study as a foundation for future studies.

    "By knowing how the dispersant was distributed in the deep ocean, we can begin to assess the subsurface biological exposure, and ultimately what effects the dispersant the dispersant may have had," another study co-author, David Valentine from the University of California at Santa Barbara, said in a statement. "The results indicate that an important component of the chemical dispersant injected into the deep ocean remained there and resisted rapid biodegradation. This knowledge will ultimately help us understand the efficacy of the dispersant application as well as the biological effects."

    Valentine said that the decision to use the dispersants at the sea floor "was a classic choice between bad and worse," and that scientists will need to do more studies on the chemicals' biological effects. "The deep ocean is a sensitive ecosystem unaccustomed to chemical irruptions like this, and there is a lot we don't understand about this cold, dark world," he said.

    Environmental impact
    The existing scientific literature indicates that toxic concentrations of DOSS are about 1,000 times more concentrated than the highest concentration Kujawinski and colleagues observed, which suggests the concentrations of the molecule they detected in the deep ocean are not toxic to the ecosystem there.

    Kujawinski noted, however, that she's unclear on how long organisms were exposed to the chemical in those toxicity studies. In any case,  most if not all of those studies were conducted on coastal organisms such as blue crab.

    "One of the concerns about this deepwater application is that it affects a different group of organisms, deep sea corals, deepwater fish, and so on," she told me. "And the question is whether or not they would be as sensitive, more sensitive, or less sensitive, as the organisms that were actually studied."

    Findings were published online today in the American Chemical Society journal Environmental Science & Technology.

    More on the oil spill and dispersants:

    In addition to Kujawinski and Valentine, the co-authors of the report in Environmental Science & Technology, "Fate of Dispersants Associated With the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill," include Melissa C. Kido Soule, Angela K. Boysen, Krista Longnecker and Molly C. Redmond.

     John Roach is a contributing writer for msnbc.com. Connect with the Cosmic Log community by hitting the "like" button on the Cosmic Log Facebook page or following msnbc.com's science editor, Alan Boyle, on Twitter (@b0yle).

  • Leftover oil spotted on Gulf floor

    Stephen Lehmann / U.S. Coast Guard via Reuters, file

    A Basler BT-67 aircraft releases dispersant over an oil slick from the Deepwater Horizon disaster off Louisiana on May 5.

    By John Roach, Contributing Writer, NBC News

    Not all of the estimated 4.9 million barrels of oil that gushed into the Gulf of Mexico simply vanished when the Deepwater Horizon offshore rig exploded and sank earlier this year. Growing evidence suggests that a good portion of it reached the ocean bottom, where it remains.

    NPR science correspondent Richard Harris reported Monday about a ride he hitched to the ocean floor aboard the Alvin submersible craft with University of Georgia researcher Samantha Joye. The sea churned with seemingly healthy life as they descended. On the bottom, they struck oil.

    "If you look at the camera, you can see the brown coloration," Joye told Harris. The "brown stuff," Harris said, covers coral fans "like pine trees along a dusty road." The oil also hangs over formations of frozen natural gas -- deposits that usually harbor the worms that bottom-dwelling crabs eat.

    "The crabs don't look healthy," Joye said. "See all the dark spots and lesion-looking things? That's not normal."

    Harris points out that it's impossible to say from a single dive how much damage the oil spill did to the Gulf's ecosystem. That's a story that researchers such as Joye will be piecing together over the coming months and years. But the finding serves as another reminder that the oil spill is having a lasting impact on the Gulf of Mexico.

    The discovery of oil on the seafloor also begins to account for the 23 percent of the oil that was not recovered directly, dispersed chemically or naturally, evaporated or dissolved, burned or skimmed, according to a report released Nov. 23 by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. A key finding of that report, which updates controversial findings from August, "is the increase in the estimate for dispersed oil, specifically from 8 percent to 16 percent," NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco told reporters.

    Some scientists and environmentalists criticized the use of chemical dispersants as potentially harmful to critters in the open ocean such as tuna and turtles.

    Lubchenco added that the revised accounting for where the oil went, and for the effectiveness of the dispersants, does not take away from the seriousness of the oil spill.

    "'Dilute' and 'dispersed' do not mean benign," she said. "We have been and remain concerned about the long-term impact on the Gulf and the people who rely on it for their livelihoods and enjoyment, and we remain committed to holding BP and the other responsible parties accountable for damages."

    John Roach is a contributing writer for msnbc.com. Connect with the Cosmic Log community by hitting the "like" button on the Cosmic Log Facebook page or following msnbc.com's science editor, Alan Boyle, on Twitter (@b0yle).

  • $1.4 million for oil cleanup ideas

    Mario Tama / Getty Images file

    Workers use absorbent boom to clean oil from a marsh on July 15 near Cocodrie, La. Oil cleanup technologies have lagged behind oil exploration technologies, but the $1.4 million Wendy Schmidt Oil Cleanup X Challenge could help change that.

    Kevin Costner, here's your chance. Sparked by the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, a well-connected environmental activist is offering $1.4 million for new methods to clean up oil spills.

    The Wendy Schmidt Oil Cleanup X Challenge is being funded by, you guessed it, Wendy Schmidt. She's president of The Schmidt Family Foundation and helped get the foundation's 11th Hour Project and Climate Central going. She's also co-founder of the Schmidt Marine Science Research Institute - along with her husband, Eric Schmidt, Google's billionaire CEO.

    Schmidt said she was prompted to act by the Deepwater Horizon leak and oil spill in the Gulf, which has created environmental havoc for more than three months.

    "With tens of thousands of ocean oil platforms across the globe, and billions of barrels of oil being transported every day by tankers, it's not a question of 'if' there will be another oil spill, but 'when,'" Wendy Schmidt said in today's announcement of the challenge. "We need to come up with better solutions to capture oil on the surface, to minimize the harm these spills are causing to marine life, coastal wetlands, and beaches and to our livelihoods — a harm that can last for generations. This is why I am personally funding this X Challenge: to inspire innovators around the world — and all those who want to help address what has happened in the Gulf — to focus on solutions to an ongoing, systemic problem."

    As Schmidt points out, the Gulf isn't the only place that faces oil-spill ills. Just in the last month, devastating spills have occurred in locales ranging from Michigan to China. And it's widely accepted that the technologies for cleaning up oil leaks have lagged behind the technologies for finding the oil in the first place.

    So here's the deal, as laid out by the X Prize Foundation, which has added Schmidt's challenge to its portfolio of prizes:

    Phase I. From August 2010 to April 2011, teams from around the world are invited to register for this competition, and to submit their approach to clean up oil slicks created by spills or leaks from ships or tankers (e.g. Exxon Valdez) land drainage, waste disposal, or oil platform spill (e.g. Deepwater Horizon). An expert panel of judges from industry and academia will evaluate all of the proposals along the following criteria:

    • Technical approach and commercialization plan
    • No negative environmental impact
    • Scalability of and ability to deploy technology; cost and human labor of implementation
    • Improvement of technology over today's baseline booms and skimmers.

    Phase II. The judges will select up to 10 of the top teams to demonstrate their ability to efficiently and rapidly clean up oil on the ocean surface in a head-to-head competition. These proofs of capability, which will determine the winner, will take place at the National Oil Spill Response Research & Renewable Energy Test Facility (OHSMETT) in New Jersey. The top team that demonstrates the ability to recover oil on the seawater surface at the highest oil recovery rate (ORR) and recovery efficiency (RE) will win the $1 million Grand Purse. Second place will win $300,000 and third place will win $100,000 in purses.

    The money should be awarded around this time next year.

    The X Challenge FAQ file says the challenge is focusing on surface cleanup "because we believe that in order to minimize the environmental impact of all oil spills ... we must capture the oil at the spill site. Once the oil hits the shore or is weathered on the sea surface, it is too late. We must have the technologies necessary to stop oil spills at the spill site."

    Wendy Schmidt hopes that the X Challenge will capitalize on some of the lessons learned by Silicon Valley ventures such as Google and Apple.

    "Silicon Valley has become a culture of venture capitalism that generates new ideas, and competition, and innovation and job creation," she told me today. "With oil, we haven't had that. So with this prize, we look at this as 'pre-venture capital,' if you will. There isn't just one winner in this, even though that's how it's ostensibly set up. There are many winners."

    Even before today's official announcement, the contest's backers have received more than 1,000 e-mails asking for more information. They expect 75 to 100 teams to register for the competition.

    "Any corporate entity can compete. Companies and non-profits can register to compete. Universities and communities can form corporate entities which can then register to compete. Government agencies are not eligible to compete," the backers say.

    The X Prize Foundation has been in charge of four big-ticket competitions, including the Ansari X Prize for spaceflight ($10 million), the Progressive Insurance Automotive X Prize for super-cars ($10 million), the Archon Genetics X Prize for low-cost gene sequencing ($10 million) and the Google Lunar X Prize for moonshots ($30 million). It also ran the Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge (with NASA providing the $2 million purse).

    The foundation said it was making a distinction between its X Prizes (which usually take years to win) and this new X Challenge (which has a smaller purse and a one-year time frame). Despite those differences, the Wendy Schmidt Oil Cleanup X Challenge and the Progressive Automotive X Prize have the same goal: to use cash incentives as an extra lure for environmentally minded innovation.

    "The X Prize Foundation is focused on the environment in two ways," Peter Diamandis, the X Prize Foundation's chairman and CEO, told me this week. "First, with Progressive, it's about reducing the consumption of oil. And second, we are pleased with Wendy Schmidt, who is personally funding this, for dealing with the issue of oil spills - not only from platforms, but potentially from tankers. While we have an oil economy, it's naive to think this is the last oil spill we'll have. Finding out ways to much more efficiently clean it up when it does happen is an important objective of that competition."

    Just last week, a consortium of major oil companies announced that they would set aside $1 billion to focus on new technologies for containing deep-sea oil leaks. But the X Challenge's backers said this program "will not negate the need for oil cleanup technology" that focuses on surface spills. They said they hoped non-traditional tinkerers as well as deep-pocketed corporations would go after the X Challenge cash.

    After all, if a couple of bicycle mechanics from Ohio could figure out how to build a heavier-than-air flying machine, a couple of grease monkeys from heaven-knows-where just might come up with a better way to clean up the oil. And thousands upon thousands of potential solutions to the Gulf oil crisis have been streaming in from the general public over the past three months.

    So here's my question: Would "Field of Dreams" film star Kevin Costner, who has bankrolled an oil-sucking invention now being used in the Gulf cleanup effort, be eligible to enter?

    "From what I understand of his centrifuge solution, they could be part of a team competing for the prize," Francis Beland, prize director for the X Challenge, said in a forwarded e-mail.

    There it is, Kevin: If you bring it, you could win.

    More on oil cleanup technologies:

    Join the Cosmic Log corps by signing up as my Facebook friend or hooking up on Twitter. And if you really want to be friendly, ask me about "The Case for Pluto."

  • Next X challenge: Cleaning up oil

    Jiang He / Greenpeace via AP

    A villager holds out a hand coated in crude oil on July 21 during efforts to clean up a spill caused by a pipeline explosion in China's Weitang Bay. The incident ranked as China's largest reported oil spill. Find out more about the Chinese oil spill.

    Update for 1:15 p.m. ET July 29: The Wendy Schmidt Oil Cleanup X Challenge is offering $1.4 million for oil cleanup ideas, and the money will be given away by this time next year. Get the updated story right here.

    Tuesday's original item: Even as the $10 million Progressive Insurance Automotive X Prize competition is nearing its climax, another multimillion-dollar competition is taking shape, courtesy of the X Prize Foundation. This one targets a challenge even more topical than fuel efficiency: cleaning up oil spills.

    The latest venture, the Wendy Schmidt Oil Cleanup X Challenge, is to be fully unveiled at Washington's National Press Club on Thursday, according to a news advisory issued today. The prize's "name sponsor" is Wendy Schmidt, president of the Schmidt Family Foundation, founder of the 11th Hour Project and Climate Central, co-founder of the Schmidt Marine Science Research Institute ... and the wife of Google's billionaire CEO, Eric Schmidt. That's a signal that the foundation is backing the prize purse, the amount of which is yet to be announced.

    The X Prize Foundation says the challenge is "designed to inspire entrepreneurs, engineers and scientists worldwide to develop innovative, rapidly deployable and highly efficient methods of capturing crude oil from the ocean surface."

    If the oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico runs its expected course, the challenge may come too late to turn up fresh technologies for that cleanup. Nevertheless, the three-month-long Gulf crisis points up the need for more rapid - and more environmentally friendly - responses to oil spills.

    In addition to Schmidt and the X Prize Foundation's chairman, Peter Diamandis, attendees at Thursday's news conference are to include Philippe Cousteau Jr., co-founder and CEO of Earth Echo and Azure Worldwide ... and the grandson of the famed late ocean explorer Jacques-Yves Cousteau. Dave Gallo of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and government officials will be on hand as well.

    The X Prize folks have been in charge of several major challenges, including:

    • The $10 million Ansari X Prize for private-sector spaceflight, awarded to the SpaceShipOne team in 2004.
    • The $10 million Progressive Insurance Automotive X Prize for super-efficient vehicles, which is likely to produce winners this summer (more on that later today).
    • The $10 million Archon Genetics X Prize, aimed at promoting low-cost, mass-market genetic sequencing.
    • The $30 million Google Lunar X Prize, which would reward the first rocketeers to launch a private-sector rover on the moon.
    • The $2 million Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge, which handed out the last of the prize money (provided by NASA) last year.

    There's a wide spectrum of models for the prize money and the time frame for competition. We'll have to see where the Oil Cleanup X Challenge fits in that spectrum, but I have a feeling the money will be awarded well before an X Prize rover lands on the moon. Stay tuned for the details on Thursday.

    Join the Cosmic Log corps by signing up as my Facebook friend or hooking up on Twitter. And if you really want to be friendly, ask me about "The Case for Pluto."

  • At 90, an eco-pioneer looks ahead

    AP file

    The Louisiana coast? No, these pelicans are floating on the water near an oil platform off the coast of Santa Barbara, Calif., which experienced a catastrophic oil spill in 1969. The Gulf oil spill may have a similar effect on environmental awareness.

    Worries about a catastrophic oil spill ... a sense of impending ecological decline ... political gridlock over environmental policy. It all sounds familiar to 90-year-old Russell Train, who was in on the beginnings of the environmental movement. Except for the political gridlock, that is.

    The political factor is the big difference that Train sees between how things were back the '70s, when he was a top environmental policymaker in the Nixon White House, and how they are today.

    Many of the pillars of current environmental policy were erected during Train's tenure, as the first chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality and the second adninstrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. And Democrats as well as Republicans were quick to erect those pillars back then. "I think that was a moment in time that we may well never see again insofar as the environment is concerned," Train told me. "The issue has become much more highly politicized than it was back in the '70s."

    Over the past half-century, Train has been in on many of the ups and downs of America's environmental issues - including the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill, which some have compared to the current offshore oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. "This moment may be like the Santa Barbara oil spill in 1969 - because most people got alarmed, that ended California offshore drilling," CleanTechnica's Susan Kraemer observed during the early days of the Gulf spill. "Even people who only watch 'American Idol' now know - there's an oil spill and it's bad."

    Russell Train

    Sam Kittner

    Russell Train still speaks out on environmental policy at 90.

    Train has played a big part in fostering America's environmental awareness, not only as a government official but as a grassroots leader as well. He founded the African Wildlife Leadership Foundation in 1961, was president of The Conservation Foundation from 1965 to 1969 and is founder chairman emeritus of the World Wildlife Fund. "Under his guidance, World Wildlife Fund-U.S. grew from a small, primarily grant-making organization into a global conservation force with over 1 million members," his WWF biography says.

    Last month, Train celebrated his 90th birthday, but that doesn't mean he's resting on his laurels. In May, he wrote a letter to Senate leaders calling on the chamber to reject a resolution that would stop the EPA from regulating greenhouse-gas emissions. "The country would be better served if, rather than attempting to fix what is not broken, the Senate instead focused its energies on finalizing legislation to limit greenhouse gas pollutants and move the United States towards cleaner energy sources," Train wrote.

    The Senate ended up defeating the motion on a 47-53 vote - which you could consider a belated 90th-birthday present for Train. During our interview, the eco-pioneer talked about past and present political controversies, past and present oil spills, and how it feels to be a "new nonagenarian." Here's an edited transcript:

    Cosmic Log: I was very interested in any lessons that could be applied from your experience with the Santa Barbara oil spill to the current oil spill ... and perhaps the shape of environmental challenges to come.

    Russell Train: Looking back, the Santa Barbara oil spill occurred just as I was entering the Department of the Interior as under secretary. I think I had been nominated by the president but had not yet been confirmed. I was in a bit of a no-man's land. It was very much front and center. ... I don't really recall any specific new legislative initiative that arose because of the oil spill. At that time we had in the country a rising tide of environmental awareness - particularly the younger side of society, but not exclusively. Doubtless the Santa Barbara spill helped feed that, but it was already there.

    I don't think anything specific came out of the oil spill, other than building a wave of public opinion on the environment. There were other things that happened, of course: the Cuyahoga River being set on fire, that sort of thing. These helped move the public attitude on the environment toward awareness and concern. When you look back on it, and think of all the dithering we go through today to get anything done, it was absolutely unbelievable - the variety and quantity of proposals that emanated from the Nixon White House and from the Congress itself.

    Q: Do you think that was a historical turning point that really can't be replicated, even if we are facing new environmental challenges such as global warming and oil spills?

    A: Yeah, good question. I think that was a moment in time that we may well never see again, insofar as the environment is concerned. The issue has become much more highly politicized than it was back in the '70s. My own memory is that most of the major environmental legislation passed with bipartisan support, and rather overwhelmingly. In my own case, my confirmation was unanimous for the EPA job. I don't think that happens anymore. I may be crazy, but it strikes me that way. When I was at EPA I kept in close contact with the Democrats as well as my own Republican members of Congress that had jurisdiction over environmental matters. There were friendly relations. These were people I knew on a personal basis.

    I jotted down some of our initiatives from the Nixon-Ford era, because I knew I wouldn't remember them all. Among them were the Toxic Substances Control Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, ocean dumping legislation, which also called for an international convention that did take place. The whole field of pesticide and herbicide legislation, we put that in an integrated form. And I haven't even mentioned the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, probably the two most important of all. Then you have minor things like proposed tax on sulfur emissions, a whole new approach that didn't get anywhere, but it was a new approach. Legislation calling for better control of strip mining, or surface mining. That never went anywhere, it died in the Congress.

    That's a little bit of a run-through that doesn't include executive actions, such as the banning of the use of DDT on federal lands. It's an extraordinary array of initiatives, including international conventions, international cooperative arrangements, all of this coming primarily from the Nixon White House.

    Q: It's pretty hard to match that record. ...

    A: It's incredible. You can always look at my book, "Politics, Pollution and Pandas." That's a little self-advertising there.

    Q: I'll make sure to link to that. So what lessons do you think can be taken from your experience, either on the sorts of approaches might need to be taken, or any strategies you might suggest for the next generation of environmentalists?

    A: I think something has happened to our public life, and it's hard to know how to turn it around. That's the lack of bipartisanship. Put it the other way around: the acute political partisanship that seems to mark every move on Capitol Hill. Take as an example that initiative by Sen. Murkowski of Alaska, Senate Joint Resolution 26, which specified that the EPA was not to exercise any authority over the regulation of greenhouse gases, carbon emissions in particular. When that came to a vote, every single member of the Republican membership of the Senate voted for it. That's incredible. No divergence whatsoever, even among some of those I know were opposed to it. It's just a very partisan process today. That did not exist when I was involved in such matters. That's going to be extremely hard to turn around.

    What would I recommend? I don't know. How do you change that? Now, maybe if the Republicans got a Republican president who would be more relaxed with the Congress ... I don't know that for a fact at all. By the way, to understand my political viewpoint, I'm registered today as an independent. I grew up as a Republican, served in several Republican administrations, but I'm no longer on that side of the fence. I am independent.

    Q: It almost is like a long philosophical cycle that has to move, as it did from the Goldwater era to the Nixon era. It's almost as if we're in the wrong part of the curve.

    A: That we certainly are. How that's going to change, I don't know. It seems like the only game in town right now is the defeat of Obama and the election of a Republican president the next time around. Everything else is unimportant. That, in my mind, is the picture of a Congress, or at least the Republican side of the Congress, that is abrogating its responsibility to the American people. I don't think that members of Congress are elected simply to pursue political ends, I think they're there to serve the well-being of the American people. That's what we wanted.

    Q: Well, you've been involved with that world for so long, and that's uppermost in the minds of a lot of people - but in the meantime I'm wondering what sorts of strategies can be pursued by environmentalists beyond the Beltway. Is there a way to circumvent the Beltway, or is environmental policy so crucial to these developments that you can't avoid dealing with the politics?

    A: The pendulum probably swings back and forth on something of that kind. I think that there's a huge role for grassroots environmental leadership today. A huge need, and a huge potential, because that's where it all comes from. It's not engendered here in Washington, although leadership in Washington is extremely important. The whole environmental game really started because the general public felt this was an important issue that they cared about - not because someone in Congress or the White House was leading the issue, although that helps.

    You can never do it without grassroots efforts. Today, there's so much education that includes environmental studies. It's extremely important to get an educated society that knows a good deal more about environmental matters than it ever did before. That cannot help but be positive in its impact on public policy.

    Q: Do you think the sorts of challenges we're facing going forward are more complex than the ones you faced? The Gulf oil spill hints at a very complex kind of challenge where you are really operating at the very edge of technology. It's such an important issue to secure those energy resources, but we may be at the limits of what we can do technologically. And with the climate change issue, there is so much that depends on how the general public will react and whether they can change their behavior. Even President George W. Bush talked about our "addiction to oil" - and whether we can break this addiction.

    A: I think, just generalizing, that in the early days, the late '60s and early to mid-'70s, the problems never seemed as complex as they do today. That's not to say they were simple. They were not simple. However, compared to the problems today, they were relatively simple. And I think that made it possible to address them with the public, and have the public understand what you were up to and support it.

    Today, the public hears this cacophony of argument over climate change, carbon emissions, what's the role that mankind plays in creating the problem. There's all this debate going on, and I think the average person all too often tends to say, 'Gee, this is a tough one. I don't really know the answer. Nobody else seems to know the answer.' And they just turn their backs and minds to it. There's a lot of that today.

    I would be the first one to agree that climate change is a hugely complex problem. For the average guy or gal to really put this together clearly in their minds is probably impossible. But I think we have to learn to accept the overwhelming view of the scientific community that climate change is real, it is happening, and it is primarily due to human activity. There's no question about the scientific consensus worldwide on this matter. There is the odd person who speaks up and takes a different view. And those who do tend to get an awful lot of press attention. But when your own National Academy of Sciences comes out with a report presented by the president of the academy to the public, I think the American people have to pay attention to that.

    This is the best scientific judgment there is. I shouldn't second-guess it, our policymakers shouldn't second-guess it. You may not like the result that science gives you, but if properly founded, that is the inevitable result. One has to accept the overwhelming view of the scientific community and move ahead, and not fall into the trap of playing politics. Scientists aren't untouched by politics. We're all human beings. But I think when the National Academy speaks up, they do so honestly, with the best expertise we have in this country, and it deserves to be accepted as a general viewpoint.

    Q: Do you have any advice for people who see what's going on in the world, environmentally speaking, and want to learn more or get involved? How would you advise someone who is sometimes confused by the pros and cons of such-and-such an environmental issue. What sage words do you have, as a new nonagenarian?

    A: Ha, I never thought of it that way. It's a new birth.

    Q: Right ... you're a youngster when it comes to nonagenarians.

    A: Well, I think if an individual cares about the issue and has a general pro-environment sense, they ought to hook up with local and state environmental organizations - and national, as the case may be - and go through a process of self-education. I think the environmental movement as such plays and should play a tremendous role. This is the future we're talking about. Not petty politics of an overnight nature, but the future of humanity on the face of this earth. It's time we woke up to that.

    Q: Do you feel as if you want to hang up your mantle at some point and just go fishing?

    A: I find it's very hard for me to cast a line anymore. I'm afraid it's the other way around. I've had to give up most of my outdoor sporting activities. Even walking is difficult. I'll probably spend more time wearing my environmental mantle. I'm not about to throw that away.

    An earlier version of this item mischaracterized the status of international restrictions on ocean dumping, due to a transcription error. Join the Cosmic Log corps by signing up as my Facebook friend or hooking up on Twitter. And if you really want to be friendly, ask me about "The Case for Pluto."

  • The pilots behind the robot navy

    BP

    Pilots watch a video screen and control a submersible vehicle in the Gulf of Mexico using a joystick and other control devices.

    The machines that are fighting the Gulf of Mexico oil leak have been compared to platoons of Supermen: They work 5,000 feet beneath the surface of the sea, amid pressures that would crush a human. They're built to capture 3-D video of the scene around the gushing well and send it up topside. They can detect objects hundreds of feet away using sonar. They can turn bolts, saw off broken pipe, hook up hoses and carry around equipment weighing hundreds of pounds.

    But they're just machines.

    Those dozens of machines would be useless without the hundreds of humans controlling their every move from a mile away. And if you want to stay on their good side, you'll call those machines "remotely operated vehicles," or ROVs - not underwater robots.

    "To me, as an ROV person, the term 'underwater robot' does conjure up a certain image," said James McLauchlan, a Briton living in Portugal who has 25 years of experience in the offshore subsea construction industry under his belt. "I tend to think of something with a head, two legs and two arms ... something that's down there trying to make its own decisions, trying to make the best of a difficult job."

    The way McLauchlan sees it, the ROV is just a tool - a multimillion-dollar, high-tech tool, to be sure, but nevertheless a tool that's being manipulated by flesh-and-blood professionals, via a local control center on the vessel or rig above, to help save the world from an environmental disaster.

    McLauchlan isn't involved in the BP subsea operation, but he keeps close tabs on it in his role as the head of ROV World, a website that serves as an online watering hole for the ROV community. His company also supplies subsea technology and performs underwater inspections for offshore operations. A veteran of the British Army's Royal Engineers, McLauchlan spent 10 years as a commercial bell diver for the oil and gas industry, and for most of the past 15 years he's been a shift operation supervisor for offshore ROV construction projects.

    Nowadays, much of the chatter on ROV World focuses on what the workers behind the machines are doing in the Gulf. ROV pilots have been trading news and rumors, pictures and points of view since just after the April 20 oil-rig explosion that sparked the disaster in the Gulf.

    As you'd expect, most of the postings see the situation through the eyes of the men behind the joysticks. For example, BP interrupted the collection of thousands of barrels of oil last week because of problems with a line leading up from the leaking well's containment cap. Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen, the federal government's point man on the oil-spill response, said the problem arose because an ROV bumped into the cap - but not all of ROV World's patrons were buying that explanation.

    "Let me guess - Thad Allen again?" one posting read. "Meanwhile, back in the real world, Enterprise had gas alarms and moved off 400 meters, resulting in cap moving 40 meters off the BOP [blowout preventer]."

    During our conversation, McLauchlan stressed that the pilots are careful to execute only the commands they are given, under the watchful eyes of supervisors and clients.

    "The fact that the well is not good, and that BP has lost control of it, that's self-evident," McLauchlan told me. "That doesn't really detract from subsea operations. ... Whether there's a well that is out of control, or whether a well is in normal operation, we carry out operations as suggested by the client. We provide the eyes and the ears for the client, but at the end of the day, it's the client who decides what action should be taken."

    McLauchlan estimated that more than 97 percent of the world's ROV pilot techs are male. For the Gulf of Mexico operation, ROV crews are housed for weeks at a time aboard the dozens of vessels and rigs surrounding the leaking well. Each crew works a 12-hour shift, finishing up with "toolbox time" to brief the crew taking over for the next 12-hour shift. In an on-the-scene report from one of the drillships, The Washington Post's Joel Achenbach notes that workers can take advantage of workout rooms, foosball tables, video games, TV and Internet during their off hours. But drinking and "horseplay" are not allowed.

    In an e-mail exchange, McLauchlan discussed the routine of an ROV pilot, with the understanding that he's an ocean away from the action. Here's an edited transcript of the Q&A:

    Cosmic Log: I'm just trying to visualize how the operation works. With the BP operation, there appears to be "the Hive," which is the ROV Operations Center, part of the Houston Crisis Center. But that looks to be folks sitting around computer terminals. I assume these are the people who are orchestrating the campaign on the big-picture scale, but the actual steering is done on the various ships that are at the site.

    James McLauchlan: You would be correct in assuming that the Ops Center is BP's nerve center for this operation. Normally this is not the case as, when all is well, the client representative on ships (or, in the case of drilling rigs, the company man) is the first point of client liaison for normal operations. Most normal operational issues are dealt with onboard, or changes are implemented during normal working hours onshore unless there is an emergency. Then the emergency plan can be put into action.

    There is always a 24/7 emergency response plan in place onboard, and various numbers on the beach that I (I say 'I' as an offshore project manager during such projects) can call if I feel the need. If we have an emergency situation that is beyond our control we are not simply left alone to get on with it. We can call on help as soon as we need. In any case, any incident or near miss needs to be reported and acted upon ASAP. There are always procedures in place for this.

    Operations-wise, on the BP-chartered vessels right now there will be a couple of BP representatives (at minimum) on the vessels to give 24-hour coverage. They will be having their strings pulled by BP people further up the food chain in the Ops Center on the beach for sure.

    ROV Operations Center

    BP

    A room known as "the Hive" houses the ROV Operations Center inside BP's Houston Crisis Center.

    Q: Is there generally a live two-way link between the onshore center and the offshore pilot operation?

    A: Mostly only in cases such as this type of major disaster, you might get a live video link. It is common for many normal high-end operations these days to have a live 24/7 Ku-band connection to the beach for all sorts of communication. Phones, Internet, fax, etc., but that's just for routine day-to-day stuff, not live video streaming, as it really sucks up the available bandwidth. The vessel or rig comms can be and are utilized for emergency 24/7 communications if required.

    Q: Do the pilots live aboard ship?

    A: ROV pilots and all associated project staff live on the ship. The same applies to drill rigs.

    Q: Are they cycled off and on for shore time?

    A: Often a trip could be 28 days, but it can be as short as two weeks (in Norway and U.K., for example) or as long as six weeks (Asia, Africa and other areas). It varies depending on which part of the world we are operating in, how long the job might be, etc. Many drill rigs have regular crew-change rotation of two weeks on, two weeks off ... or four weeks on, four weeks off.

    Q: You mentioned that there were 12-hour shifts, with a handover and "toolbox talk" at the transition between each shift. Do pilots stare into display monitors and move joysticks around during all that time, or is there usually some down time where the ROV is "parked" because of the demands of simultaneuos operations?

    A: Generally a work-class ROV system, such as the ones being used in the BP Gulf of Mexico operation and globally, has a three-man crew for each 12-hour shift. That's one ROV supervisor and two pilot techs.

    ROV Operations Center

    Courtesy of James McLauchlan

    James McLauchlan keeps close tabs on the oil-spill disaster on the ROV World online forum.

    One person flies, one is co-pilot, the other is around to help out. A three-man team does allow for people to get a break, have a coffee, meals, etc. Each person on the three-man team should be able to rotate out through all positions. The supervisor runs the shift and liaises with the operations supervisor or client depending on how big the vessel or job might be.

    Often the ROV can be put on the bottom, just observing. Watching the oil leak is a prime example. Then you really need only one guy in the pilot's seat and one guy in the shack to help if required. That leaves a guy to float around and do other stuff. In general, a 12-hour shift can be hard on occasions, but perfectly manageable for normal operations ... and sometimes deathly quiet. When the weather is bad there may be no operations for days, which is when we catch up on preventive and ongoing maintenance tasks.

    Sometimes another vessel may need to come in and perform non-ROV-related tasks. Then the ROV boat might pull off for a period.

    Q: How do the ROV pilots on different ships involved in the operation avoid having their machines bump into each other, or getting their lines (for power and comm) tangled up? During simultaneous operations, is there an open channel or a traffic controller that orchestrates the different parts of the operation?

    A: All ROV's have sonar. We can 'see' objects around us, and after a while you build up a mental map of the seabed as you would if you walked in the same park day in, day out. Plus we have multiple cameras and lights. Most ROV's are lit up like a Christmas tree underwater so it's hard to miss seeing one. For positioning we know where the ROVs are by using USBL underwater positioning systems that show the location of an ROV on a screen in relation to the vessel it is operating from. With more complex multivessel operations, all this data and video streams can be fed between vessels and fed to other ROV systems.

    If we have two or more work class systems working together we set up live 24/7 live comms between all ROV control systems. We have hard wire and radio comms plus phones, so should any one system fail we have fallbacks. With regards to tethers ... at these depths, ROV use Tether Management Systems so we rarely have issues with ROV tethers becoming entangled. It happens, but in 99 percent of the instances I have ever known we were able to untangle them without external assistance.

    Q: How does this operation rate compared with the operations in your experience? I've got to think that this is the most complex operation ever conducted in the offshore world, but I have to say I don't have any experience with that.

    A: This operation is not one of the most complex. We do far more complicated construction tasks than this all over the world. This one may look complex, but that might be because the public has no real idea what we do routinely on construction projects.

    Q: Do you find there's a particular type of person who's best-suited for this kind of work (for example, a video gamer, or former military)?

    A: Experienced time-served mechanics with hydraulics experience, and electrical/electronic personnel are the best types. Ex-military with the same experience are good candidates too. Computer gamers probably couldn't even wire up an electrical plug or use a spanner (wrench), so would be of no use to us.

    More on the disaster in the Gulf:

    Join the Cosmic Log corps by signing up as my Facebook friend or hooking up on Twitter. And if you really want to be friendly, ask me about "The Case for Pluto."

  • Is God punishing the Gulf?

    A YouTube video links the Gulf oil spill to policy toward Israel.

    Every time there's a disaster, someone figures out a reason why God would want to do this to us. It happened with Hurricane Katrina, and with the Haiti earthquake, and now it's happening with the Gulf oil spill.

    A YouTube video lays out the case for blaming the spill on a change in U.S. policy toward Israel. The claim is that the Obama administration was signaling Israel that it would not use its veto on a U.N. Security Council resolution against Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem. The weeks-long back-and-forth over this issue turned up on Fox News' website on Israeli Independence Day, April 19 ... the day before the fatal April 20 oil-rig explosion that caused the spill!

    There are alternative explanations, of course: The divine wrath could have marked the 15th anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing on April 19, or Adolf Hitler's birthday and the 11th anniversary of the Columbine tragedy on April 20. But there's nary a mention of the mistakes that BP and other companies might have made before the blast. After all, those companies were merely doing God's work.

    The oil spill thus serves in some quarters as yet another sign that the end times are nigh. On WorldNetDaily, doom-meister Hal Lindsey is quoted as saying "this is evidence that when you turn your back on Israel, especially when you've been a supporter, you're gonna see judgments come from God."

    But the way Lindsey sees it, the disaster in the Gulf isn't the only problem.

    "The current government is overturning our constitutional republic, turning into a socialist country," he's quoted as saying. "That's about as big a curse as you can get. We just have one catastrophe after another and then we have this big wakeup call in the gulf."

    Lindsey noted that his concept of divine retribution in the Gulf is "not a popular view to take, by the way, as critics will say, 'There they go again.'"

    I think that's one prophecy that will come true. What do you think?

    More about the oil spill:

    Join the Cosmic Log corps by signing up as my Facebook friend or hooking up on Twitter. And if you really want to be friendly, ask me about "The Case for Pluto."

  • How to cope with Gulf oil glitches



    Today's temporary loss of a line that has been collecting millions of gallons of leaking oil in the Gulf of Mexico hints at the shape of gusher glitches to come.

    This time, the line and a containment cap were taken off the wellhead because of a pressure hiccup, reportedly due to an accident involving a remotely operated vehicle. Hours after the cap was detached, the BP oil company put it back over the leak. But BP might well have to repeat the exercise as hurricane season continues.

    For more than two weeks, the containment cap has served as the most successful collection point for the oil that has been leaking from BP's broken well since April 20's fatal oil-rig explosion and sinking. The cap system has saved more than 200,000 barrels (8.4 million gallons) of oil so far, at a rate of up to 16,000 barrels (672,000 gallons) a day. Another 10,000 barrels (420,000 gallons) are being captured and burned off every day by a different collection system hooked up to the well's broken blowout preventer.

    The source of the problem
    So when the cap containment system had to be detached today, that made quite a dent in the oil-sucking operation. Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen, the point man for the federal oil-spill response, explained during today's news briefing that the cap was removed after workers "noticed there was some kind of a gas rising through the vent that carries the warm water down that prohibits hydrates from forming." Hydrate crystals, which form from water and methane at a certain pressure and temperature, are what foiled the very first efforts to contain the oil flow - so BP wanted to make sure that didn't happen again.

    Allen said the glitch was apparently caused by "a remotely operated vehicle that ... bumped into one of those vents that allows the excess oil to come out." When the vent was closed, the pressure built up, causing gas to go the wrong way. As of this afternoon, BP double-checked the system to make sure it was safe to reattach the cap and return to capturing oil.

    Was this a remotely operated screw-up? Actually, the way Allen looks at it, this sort of thing is to be expected as the operation proceeds. He pointed out that there's been only one other ROV misstep, made during the early stages of the response to the gulf disaster. "I think the fact that we've had two bumps that have had some kind of a consequence associated with them in the 60-plus days [of the] response is a pretty good record. It's never going to be risk-free out there, and we need to watch it very closely," he told journalists.

    The moderators of the Oil Drum discussion forum speculate that an ROV may not have caused the bump at all, but that it was merely a precipitation plug-up that will happen periodically during the oil-capture operation. If that's the case, bringing up the cap and clearing out the lines will have to become part of the maintenance schedule.

    More complications ahead
    The pace of operations is likely to get even more intense in a couple of weeks, when as many as four oil-capturing operations are to be conducted simultaneously. That will raise the likelihood of ROVs getting in each other's way, and it will take expert choreography to avoid more frequent bumps or plug-ups.

    Another complication has to do with hurricane season. So far, the weather has been mostly favorable for the oil-spill response. There's a weather disturbance brewing in the Caribbean, however, and the National Hurricane Center is predicting a 30 percent chance that the disturbance will turn into a tropical cyclone within 48 hours. If a serious storm threatens the oil-spill area, the response team will need about six or seven days to pack up and evacuate.

    During the evacuation, every drop of oil - an amount currently estimated at 35,000 to 60,000 barrels (1.5 million to 2.5 million gallons) a day - would be going directly into the Gulf. It would be like today's capless situation, only worse. "The principle is the same. We would detach and move out," BP spokesman Mark Salt acknowledged.

    So as things stand now, a serious storm that looks as if it might blow through the Gulf would kill the recovery operation for as much as 10 days at a time. The spill-response team is working on a Plan B, however. Allen mentioned an ambitious scheme that would involve running an underwater pipeline from the broken well to another oil rig or reservoir. "I believe BP is in discussion with other industry producers that have rigs in the area that might be useful for that," he said. "I don't think they have concluded those [talks] yet."

    Allen said such an arrangement could keep the oil under control even during a storm. "This would be one way," he told reporters. "If you are actually connected to another drill site, you would not have to rely on service vessels."

    It's one more option in a long list of strategies aimed at stopping up the leak. But is this option ready to put into action? Not yet. BP's Salt said he couldn't discuss the pipeline project, other than to note that "we've always said we're assessing multiple options." So what else does the spill-response team have up its sleeve? What other strategies should they be working on? Feel free to pass along your suggestions as comments below.

    More links for oil watchers:

    Check out the full Cosmic Log lineup, and join the CosLog corps by signing up as my Facebook friend or hooking up on Twitter. If you really want to be friendly, ask me about "The Case for Pluto."

Older posts