[Sixstrings]

New Zealand Quake Causes Massive Glacier Break

CHRISTCHURCH, New Zealand -- The earthquake that struck Christchurch has caused some 30 million tons of ice to break off from New Zealand's biggest glacier.

Tour guides at the Tasman Glacier in the Southern Alps say the quake caused the ice to "calve" from the glacier, forming icebergs in the terminal lake.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/02/22/new-zealand-quake-causes-massive-glacier-break/

30 million tons.. that's a lot of ice.

EDIT: and condolences AD.. is everyone you know ok?

[Sixstrings]

Weird.. on Sunday a hundred wales beached themselves:

WELLINGTON, New Zealand - More than 100 pilot whales died in a mass stranding at a remote New Zealand beach, conservation officials said Monday.
http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/more-than-100-whales-die-in-new-zealand-mass-stranding-ncxdc-022111

Quake death toll up to 150 now:

Christchurch earthquake: 150 feared dead on New Zealand's 'darkest day'

More than 150 are feared dead after a major earthquake hit Christchurch, one of New Zealand's biggest cities, in what the prime minister described "New Zealand's darkest day".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/newzealand/8340407/Christchurch-earthquake-150-feared-dead-on-New-Zealands-darkest-day.html

Some pics, looks awful:

[yeahbut]

Does New Zealand have earthquake constructions codes like, say, Japan and LA? Seems like a whole bunch of damage for a 6.X quake.

A bit more understanding of this quake and it's terrible effects is starting to come to light. Even tho it was much lower on the richter scale, it was much shallower- only 5 kms down, and closer to the centre of Christchurch also. It had a tremendous intensity, with apparently the greatest ground acceleration ever measured in NZ.

Associate Professor Charles Clifton, a seismic engineer who was attending a seminar with other Auckland University experts in a hotel next to the Grand Chancellor when the earthquake struck, was surprised at the extent of damage to it.

But he said the earthquake hit central Christchurch with more than twice the intensity of the larger magnitude 7.1 but deeper-seated quake of September 4.

He said Tuesday's quake was of a force statistically unlikely to occur more than once in 1000 years and produced ground acceleration 1.5 to 1.8 times greater than modern buildings were designed to withstand.

That compared with about 65 per cent of the design loading exerted by the September quake, from which the damage was mainly confined to pre-1970s buildings.

There may also have been an effect known as "seismic lensing" caused by the geology of the epicentre of the quake which may have concentrated its intensity:

The hard rock near the quake's epicentre close to Lyttelton may have compounded the effect of the tremor by reflecting greater seismic activity towards the city.

Seismologists say the unlikely combination of depth, size and proximity to a populated region all contributed to the devastation.

The location of the epicentre close to the Port Hills, which are largely basalt rock, may have also played a role in the catastrophic damage.

Geologist Hamish Campbell of GNS Science said seismic activity travels in waves, so it could be compressed, refracted or reflected like an optical waveform.

While the waves could be dispersed or absorbed by some properties, they could also rebound off hard surfaces.

"We suspect that the epicentre was probably on the north side of the Port Hills, where a huge amount of energy would have been literally 'pinged' off the basalt rock, almost behaving like a mirror," said Dr Campbell.

"You can imagine an explosion going off and energy going out towards Christchurch city, but a lot of energy also hitting the hard rock at depth, then being reflected, bounced back and compounding the effect."

This event, called seismic lensing, could explain the hotch-potch damage to the city and suburbs.

link

Death toll currently 145, with hopes fading for up to 200 others unaccounted for.

[Graeme]

New rules for ocean oil exploration

Environmental impact assessments will have to be submitted to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) from today for oil and gas drilling in New Zealand's ocean territory, the Government has announced.

Operators will also need to comply with the latest drilling safety rules developed in the United States following the inquiries into the Gulf of Mexico disaster.

Environment Minister Nick Smith said the rules were interim measures until new legislation was enacted.

He has introduced a bill to Parliament to manage the environmental effects of activities in New Zealand's Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and Extended Continental Shelf (ECS).

It will have its first reading next month, go to a select committee for public submissions, and be passed in the first half of next year, if National wins the November election.

Opposition parties have been pressing for rules around oil exploration and Dr Smith said his bill was part of the Government's agenda to grow the economy while ensuring the environment was protected.

nzherald

[MD]

We should stick to land where we can at least have some hope of controlling our inevitable "oopsies".

There is plenty of energy available without having to poke holes in the ocean floor.

Is the fossil-fueled combustion engine really that critical to our long term needs? I think not.

It's time to move on!

[Graeme]

MD, Great to see your comment again. You're right, of course. It is time to move on.

However, in NZ we still have a vast unexplored continental shelf. The NZ gov wants to make money from our untapped natural resources. I've tried to influence Ministers here without success.

[yeahbut]

Imagine a situation like the BP GoM blowout down here. They had the greatest concentration of specialist expertise in the world there and it took them months to cap the well. It'd take that long just to get the equipment to NZ, cos it sure won't be standing by. And imagine trying to do it in the roaring forties. Madness.

[Outcast_Searcher]

We should stick to land where we can at least have some hope of controlling our inevitable "oopsies".

There is plenty of energy available without having to poke holes in the ocean floor.

Is the fossil-fueled combustion engine really that critical to our long term needs? I think not.

It's time to move on!

Um, it IS that critical to our "short to moderate" needs, assuming you want a global economy that can actually feed, clothe, house, provide medical care, etc. for the 6.7ish billion (and growing) people on the planet.

I'm all for effective regulation, and for moving, sustainably, over time -- to a model where ALL natural resources have costs that reflect ALL social costs (pollution, military, environmental, etc).

Of course, that implies a world where we consume a lot less, and people don't want that in general, thus the politicians will fight tooth and nail to stop it, in general.

On a site where the central themes are things like:

a). We are running out of cheap oil.
b). The global economy is massively SCREWED without cheap oil, at least in the short run.
c). We are doing FAR too little to prepare for or deal with the reality of "a" and "b".

for you to just pop up with such a claim:

...
There is plenty of energy available without having to poke holes in the ocean floor.

and not expect rather SUBSTANTIAL pushback is, IMO, completely unrealistic.

[americandream]

MD, Great to see your comment again. You're right, of course. It is time to move on.

However, in NZ we still have a vast unexplored continental shelf. The NZ gov wants to make money from our untapped natural resources. I've tried to influence Ministers here without success.

Be precise, move on to what and what is in it for the capitalist? Will he be prepared to sit back and accede willingly to a formula that deprives him of a maximal return on whatever model you adopt in place pf the existing low (as in immediate cost....please note qualifier) cost, high profit model when climate issues attract his ire to the degree they do? Let's be realistic.

[Graeme]

AD, Obviously, we should be moving away from oil and towards alternatives like biofuels, natural gas, electric and possibly hydrogen vehicles. The details in terms of cost and economics in NZ have yet to be worked out. We need alternative fuels and an infrastructure to support them. Climate issues are allied and separate in terms of CCS technologies also yet to be worked out in the NZ context. As you know I've been following the latter issue with great interest and posting geoengineering articles when I see them. Check out said thread now.

[americandream]

AD, Obviously, we should be moving away from oil and towards alternatives like biofuels, natural gas, electric and possibly hydrogen vehicles. The details in terms of cost and economics in NZ have yet to be worked out. We need alternative fuels and an infrastructure to support them. Climate issues are allied and separate in terms of CCS technologies also yet to be worked out in the NZ context. As you know I've been following the latter issue with great interest and posting geoengineering articles when I see them. Check out said thread now.

In a nutshell, how will the globaly integrated New Zealand satisfy global capital (which funds the vast bulk of this open economy, is cost focussed within a very narrow band and vigorously rejects any issues that risks elevating that cost, be brought online.) Forget New Zealand. It may be in the South Seas, but it plays by the same financial rules all countries do, these days.

I am just curious how you intend to, say, comfort an essential capitalist investor say in China or America, who vigorously rejects cost elevation in his own country, to accept such elevation in New Zealand on the basis of reasoning that he rejects, and still expect New Zealand to be in the game of international competitiveness. A few sentences which can convince me that you have a grasp of the issue, even if it is to convince me that I may well be wrong, would be ideal.

[rockdoc123]

Be precise, move on to what and what is in it for the capitalist? Will he be prepared to sit back and accede willingly to a formula that deprives him of a maximal return on whatever model you adopt in place pf the existing low (as in immediate cost....please note qualifier) cost, high profit model when climate issues attract his ire to the degree they do? Let's be realistic.

I think the solution is in incentivized research and entrepreneurship through gradually decreasing grants. An example I believe is in the extraction of heavy oil both in the Canadian oil sands as well as the thermal projects. The technology to extract those hydrocarbons would not be here at this moment if the Canadian government had not recognized back in the seventies that conventional oil in North America was in trouble. Heavy oil projects were incentivized strongly which resulted in some failed projects (fire floods) and some successful projects (SAGD). For many years companies like Suncor who bet large on heavy oil did quite poorly but as commodity price rose due to lack of supply and increased demand heavy oil came into its own...the technology was already there due to incentives issued decades previously. Of course the problem becomes how those incentives are removed. My thought is a clear program showing how incentives decline as a consequence of net positive cash flow or some other metric might work.
But I think the model makes sense. It is clear that there is no one magic bullet out there to replace oil, but there are likely a number of items such as wind, solar, electric, GTL etc. that when taken together could go a long way to weaning the world off of oil only consumption. If governments got their act together and incentivized these projects they could become more competitive because of investment by larger companies with more technical resources. Companies will follow the money, there is no argument on that, we are a capitalist culture and unlikely to change. The trick is to take advantage of that rather than fight against it.

[americandream]

Be precise, move on to what and what is in it for the capitalist? Will he be prepared to sit back and accede willingly to a formula that deprives him of a maximal return on whatever model you adopt in place pf the existing low (as in immediate cost....please note qualifier) cost, high profit model when climate issues attract his ire to the degree they do? Let's be realistic.

I think the solution is in incentivized research and entrepreneurship through gradually decreasing grants. An example I believe is in the extraction of heavy oil both in the Canadian oil sands as well as the thermal projects. The technology to extract those hydrocarbons would not be here at this moment if the Canadian government had not recognized back in the seventies that conventional oil in North America was in trouble. Heavy oil projects were incentivized strongly which resulted in some failed projects (fire floods) and some successful projects (SAGD). For many years companies like Suncor who bet large on heavy oil did quite poorly but as commodity price rose due to lack of supply and increased demand heavy oil came into its own...the technology was already there due to incentives issued decades previously. Of course the problem becomes how those incentives are removed. My thought is a clear program showing how incentives decline as a consequence of net positive cash flow or some other metric might work.
But I think the model makes sense. It is clear that there is no one magic bullet out there to replace oil, but there are likely a number of items such as wind, solar, electric, GTL etc. that when taken together could go a long way to weaning the world off of oil only consumption. If governments got their act together and incentivized these projects they could become more competitive because of investment by larger companies with more technical resources. Companies will follow the money, there is no argument on that, we are a capitalist culture and unlikely to change. The trick is to take advantage of that rather than fight against it.

Subsidising profit wont work long term...call it incentivising if you like...it's an inefficient subsidisng of what should be value generating laissez faire. No sooner do you start with subsidies, where do you stop? Especially, with the trend towards minimising the fiscal base.

[Timo]

I hate to admit it, being a Kiwi lover myself, but from what i can tell, NZ, being an island nation and therefore tangibly isolated from the rest of the world except in terms of media (internet, news, phones, etc...), a whole lot of Kiwis leave the country shortly after they turn 18 to explore what they've only seen from distance and read and heard about over the waves. Many of those young folk simply don't come back. NZ's population growth, as i understand it, is entirely due to immigration, which is also very tightly controlled. Also, being an island nation, their physical resources are finite, and once spoiled or depleated, they're gone for good, hence they have the Resource Management Act, which, in essence, requires no net loss in natural systems in order to maintain the life and health of the islands, themselves. (I'm sure i've overstated that understanding of the RMA. I studied it a bit, but i'm no expert, obviously.) Anyway, point is that born Kiwis are leaving and are being replaced by immigrants. The remaining Kiwis who actually run the country are perhaps the most interested people on the planet in preserving their physical resources, beyond those they can simply burn. Yet, times being what they are, those resources they do have are becoming increasingly valuable to the rest of the planet, and the sanctity of the RMA is being diluted by external forces (from within, as immigrants). To some extent, i'm not surprised by this because even Kiwis are human, and geocide is simply a natural human tendency. To those unlucky enough to be there to witness the elimination of a beautiful, clean paradise, i suggest that you get out now and spare yourselves the horror. I hear Perth is racking up the jobs, big time, as the Aussies deplete their own island nation of it's physical resources.

[rockdoc123]

No sooner do you start with subsidies, where do you stop?

I believe the trick would be to put an end date in each subsidy as a base of measure against profitability (I mentioned cashflow but this could be some other measure such as revenue net of incentives etc). The point is you need something to get companies to begin to investment, which they will not do if they see it as a money losing proposition in the short term.
I think another good example of this incentivising is seen in oil and gas contracts which offer cost recovery. The idea here is that all or a portion of total expenditures prior to and following first production are recovered by the operator. For countries where there is relatively high investment risk (Iraq, Mexico) the cost recovery mechanism helps to soften the blow.
Your comment on laissez-faire capatilism makes me think you believe the solution is to convert the country to some form of Max Webber/marxist economy....good luck. There will be zero traction for that and it didn't work very well for Russia.

[MD]

Rather than subsidizing alternative energy development, I would be in favor of increased tax on the cheapest of flows; especially in the US.

Doing so would have the net effect of reducing overall energy consumption and stabilizing alternative energy capital investments. Both of these outcomes I see as critical goals for the short term.

I'm not expecting it to happen of course. Any US politician suggesting that we mandate such initiatives will have a very short career.

We are such a sorry and short-sighted bunch.

[MD]

Um, it IS that critical to our "short to moderate" needs, assuming you want a global economy that can actually feed, clothe, house, provide medical care, etc. for the 6.7ish billion (and growing) people on the planet.

...and not expect rather SUBSTANTIAL pushback is, IMO, completely unrealistic.

I don't see a global economy that is accomplishing anywhere near those goals now, and i certainly see no reason to expect such any time soon. Of the 6.7 billion currently swarming the planet fully a third have little or no medical care right now, and are moderately or severely malnourished.

Furthermore there is unrest and upheaval in every direction.

As for push-back... why should I care? I see little reason to address any of these issues with anything other than glib cynicism.

[homeboy]

We should stick to land where we can at least have some hope of controlling our inevitable "oopsies".

There is plenty of energy available without having to poke holes in the ocean floor.

Is the fossil-fueled combustion engine really that critical to our long term needs? I think not.

It's time to move on!

"There is plenty of energy available without having to poke holes in the ocean floor."

Isn't that contrary to the theme of this site?

[MD]

We should stick to land where we can at least have some hope of controlling our inevitable "oopsies".

There is plenty of energy available without having to poke holes in the ocean floor.

Is the fossil-fueled combustion engine really that critical to our long term needs? I think not.

It's time to move on!

"There is plenty of energy available without having to poke holes in the ocean floor."

Isn't that contrary to the theme of this site?

Not from my perspective.

The theme of the site is to explore hydrocarbon depletion, and the sweeping cultural and economic changes that will result. Energy -is- the pressing issue of the times, but the issue isn't the lack of, it's how we use it.

[americandream]

No sooner do you start with subsidies, where do you stop?

I believe the trick would be to put an end date in each subsidy as a base of measure against profitability (I mentioned cashflow but this could be some other measure such as revenue net of incentives etc). The point is you need something to get companies to begin to investment, which they will not do if they see it as a money losing proposition in the short term.
I think another good example of this incentivising is seen in oil and gas contracts which offer cost recovery. The idea here is that all or a portion of total expenditures prior to and following first production are recovered by the operator. For countries where there is relatively high investment risk (Iraq, Mexico) the cost recovery mechanism helps to soften the blow.
Your comment on laissez-faire capatilism makes me think you believe the solution is to convert the country to some form of Max Webber/marxist economy....good luck. There will be zero traction for that and it didn't work very well for Russia.

When a family has all but used up it's access to debt funding to borrow a metaphor, you suggest it continue using more debt!!! Is it any wonder that sub-prime mortgage thinking has ruined Western economies with your thinking holding sway.

As we run out of nature's bountiful harvest, we will have no other choice but to live within our natural means. For those of you who believe that we can continue to sell obsolescent trash by using subsidised profit and labour manufacturing, are really the problem. Pointing to the USSR which was also embroiled in a costly ideological war with the spendthrift of this planet, is no excuse for suggesting that we continue with our bad old ways, ways that are strip mining this planet on so many levels, I wouldn't know where to start.

We have the technology to live comfortably and simply and in ways that ensure that each generation has a fair chance at survival, and we have had such technology (much of which was subsidised with taxpayer funded research), for decades. We don't need more stupid Wii games, ever changing fashions, botox mutations and fruit imported from the tropics into Arctic climes to live well. This is not about whooping it up on an ever reducing resources base. This is about using whats left sensibly. The sooner we replace you petulant purveyors of excess with real thinkers who understand what is means to live within our means, the better.