623-ft vessel hits object, grounded in Columbia River

http://koin.com/2016/03/21/623-foot-vessel-grounded-in-columbia-river/

Sparna hit submerged object

The motor vessel Sparna, a 623-foot Panamanian-flagged bulk carrier sits aground in the Columbia River near Cathlamet, Wash., March 21, 2016.
The motor vessel Sparna, a 623-foot Panamanian-flagged bulk carrier sits aground in the Columbia River near Cathlamet, Wash., March 21, 2016.

ASTORIA, Ore. (KOIN) – Multiple agencies are monitoring a 623-foot merchant ship that has become grounded in the main shipping channel of the Columbia River.

The motor vessel Sparna, a 623-foot Panamanian-flagged bulk carrier sits aground in the Columbia River near Cathlamet, Wash., March 21, 2016.
The motor vessel Sparna, a 623-foot Panamanian-flagged bulk carrier sits aground in the Columbia River near Cathlamet, Wash., March 21, 2016.

The U.S. Coast Guard says “Sparna” went aground at 12:16 a.m. on Monday in a narrow part of the river near Cathlamet, Wash. It reportedly hit a submerged object.

The vessel took on water in void spaces, but the fuel tanks were not damaged, the Coast Guard said.

“The positive news so far is that responders have not observed any oil in the water,” said Capt. Dan Travers, Coast Guard Captain of the Port for the Columbia River.

The Sparna is fully loaded with grain and was heading west in the Columbia River, towards the ocean, with a river pilot still on-board when it ran into trouble.

The Sparna is weighed down with 218,380 gallons of high sulfur fuel and 39,380 gallons of marine diesel. Two tug boats are on scene to keep the Sparna stabilized, according to the Coast Guard.

The Coast Guard, Washington Department of Ecology and Oregon Department of Environmental along with other state and county agencies are on scene monitoring the situation. They say the Coast Guard will need to approve a salvage plan.

The vessel isn’t blocking the navigation channel so it is open to other vessels.

Cathlamet, Wash. is about 1.5 hours from downtown Portland.

Bulk carrier runs aground

http://www.dailyastorian.com/Free/20160321/eagle-dies-after-attack-by-mating-rival?utm_source=Daily+Astorian+Updates&utm_campaign=754ffa1e27-TEMPLATE_Daily_Astorian_Newsletter_Update&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_e787c9ed3c-754ffa1e27-109860249
Pollution responders are watching a ship that ran aground just after midnight.

The Daily Astorian

Published on March 21, 2016 9:19AM

Last changed on March 21, 2016 12:20PM

Photo by Petty Officer 1st Class Levi ReadA tug boat helps stabalize the motor vessel Sparna, a 623-foot Panamanian-flagged bulk carrier that ran aground Monday in the Columbia River near Cathlamet, Washington. The Sparna is loaded with grain and fuel and was headed west on the Columbia River when it grounded.

Photo by Petty Officer 1st Class Levi ReadA tug boat helps stabalize the motor vessel Sparna, a 623-foot Panamanian-flagged bulk carrier that ran aground Monday in the Columbia River near Cathlamet, Washington. The Sparna is loaded with grain and fuel and was headed west on the Columbia River when it grounded.

Buy this photo

<!–

–>

CATHLAMET, Wash. — The U.S. Coast Guard is closely monitoring a bulk carrier that ran aground in the main shipping channel of the Columbia River just after midnight today near Cathlamet.

Pollution responders from the Coast Guard alerted local and federal agencies and established an incident command with the Washington Department of Ecology and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.

“The positive news so far is that responders have not observed any oil in the water,” Capt. Dan Travers, commander of Sector Columbia River, said in a statement. “The vessel quickly activated its plan and all federal, state, and county responders mobilized immediately. This is a joint effort with both states and hopefully will just turn out to have been an exercise in mobilizing pollution response resources.”

The cause of the grounding is under investigation. The bulk carrier — the Sparna — was outbound, fully loaded with grain, and heading west in the Columbia with a river pilot still on board when it ran aground. The vessel is also filled with more than 218,000 gallons of high-sulfur fuel and more than 39,000 gallons of marine diesel.

The Maritime Fire & Safety Association and Clean Rivers Cooperative deployed response vessels, booms and personnel. The tugs PJ Brix and Pacific Escort are on scene to keep the Sparna stabilized. The Coast Guard has not closed the river channel.

Radioactive Water From Fukushima Is Leaking Into the Pacific

Dahr Jamail | Radioactive Water From Fukushima Is Leaking Into the Pacific Wednesday, 27 January 2016 00:00
Written by 
Dahr Jamail By Dahr Jamail, Truthout.org

The Ikata Nuclear Power Plant, which was idled after the 2011 disaster in Fukushima, in the Ehime prefecture of Japan, Jan. 23, 2014. (Ko Sasaki / The New York Times)The Ikata Nuclear Power Plant, which was idled after the 2011 disaster in Fukushima, in the Ehime prefecture of Japan, January 23, 2014. (Photo: Ko Sasaki / The New York Times)

Truthout will never hide stories like this behind a paywall or subscription fee. Help us continue publishing free and uncensored news by making a donation today!

“Fukushima is the biggest industrial catastrophe in the history of mankind,” Arnold Gundersen, a former nuclear industry senior vice president, told Truthout shortly after a 9.0 earthquake in Japan caused a tsunami that destroyed the cooling system of Tokyo Electric Power Company’s (TEPCO) nuclear plant in Fukushima, Japan.

While this statement might sound overdramatic, Gundersen may be right.

Several nuclear reactor meltdowns in the plant, which at the time forced the mandatory evacuations of thousands of people living within a 15-mile radius of the damaged power plant, persist, and experts like Gundersen continue to warn that this problem is not going to go away.

More: http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/34565-radioactive-water-from-fukushima-is-leaking-into-the-pacific

The demand for oil is growing exponentially

addict2 Crude oil Clock: http://www.oildecline.com/
The time to kick the habit is now…safe_image

It has taken between 50-300 million years to form, and yet we have managed to burn roughly half of all global oil reserves in merely 125 years or so.

The world now consumes 85 million barrels of oil per day, or 40,000 gallons per second, and demand is growing exponentially.

Oil production in 33 out of 48 out countries has now peaked, including Kuwait, Russia and Mexico. Global oil production is now also approaching an all time peak and can potentially end our Industrial Civilization. The most distinguished and prominent geologists, oil industry experts, energy analysts and organizations all agree that big trouble is brewing.

The world is not running out of oil itself, but rather its ability to produce high-quality cheap and economically extractable oil on demand. After more than fifty years of research and analysis on the subject by the most widely respected & rational scientists, it is now clear that the rate at which world oil producers can extract oil is reaching the maximum level possible. This is what is meant by Peak Oil. With great effort and expenditure, the current level of oil production can possibly be maintained for a few more years, but beyond that oil production must begin a permanent & irreversible decline. The Stone Age did not end because of the lack of stones, and the Oil Age won’t end because of lack of oil. The issue is lack of further growth, followed by gradual, then steep decline. Dr King Hubbert correctly predicted peaking of USA oil production in the 1970’s on this basis.

It is now widely acknowledged by the world’s leading petroleum geologists that more than 95 percent of all recoverable oil has now been found. We therefore know, within a reasonable degree of certainty, the total amount of oil available to us. Any oil well has roughly the same life cycle where the production rate peaks before it goes into terminal decline. This happens when about half of the oil has been recovered from the well. We have consumed approximately half of the world’s total reserve of about 2.5 trillion barrels of conventional oil in the ground when we started drilling the first well at a current rate of over 30 billion a year, meaning the world is nearing its production plateau.

Worldwide discovery of oil peaked in 1964 and has followed a steady decline since. According to industry consultants IHS Energy, 90% of all known reserves are now in production, suggesting that few major discoveries remain to be made. There have been no significant discoveries of new oil since 2002. In 2001 there were 8 large scale discoveries, and in 2002 there were 3 such discoveries. In 2003 there were no large scale discoveries of oil. Given geologists’ sophisticated understanding of the characteristics that would indicate a major oil find, is is highly unlikely that any area large enough to be significant has eluded attention and no amount or kind of technology will alter that. Since 1981 we have consumed oil faster than we have found it, and the gap continues to widen. Developing an area such as the Artic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska has a ten year lead time and would ultimately produce well under 1% of what the world currently consumes (IEA).

Oil is now being consumed four times faster than it is being discovered, and the situation is becoming critical.

“The consumption of a finite resource is simply a finite venture and the faster we use the quicker it peaks”  (M. Simmons)

Global oil production is rapidly approaching its peak, even if natural gas liquids and expensive, destructive, risky deepwater and polar oil are included.

Recent Warnings:

“Peak oil is now.” German Energy Watch Group –2008

“By 2012, surplus oil production capacity could entirely disappear..…” U.S. Department of Defense –2008 & 2010.

“A global peak is inevitable. The timing is uncertain, but the window is rapidly narrowing.” UK Energy Research Centre -2009

“The next five years will see us face … the oil crunch.” UK Industry Taskforce on Peak Oil and Energy Security –2009

 

The Saudi Arabia Case

With more than fifty oil-producing countries now in decline, focus on the oil-rich Middle East has sharpened dramatically. Countries of the Middle East have traditionally been able to relieve tight oil markets by increasing production, but, as the this region nears its own oil peak, any relief it can provide is limited and temporary.

Saudi Arabia is a major oil producer with 73% of all incremental world demand being met by this country. The worrying fact is that 90% of their production comes from only 5 mega fields (one is the Ghawar field which is the biggest ever discovered), and are all at risk of unplanned production collapse. In 2004 there were warning signs of production falling into depletion. For years, Aramco, the Saudi national company, use secondary recovery techniques by injecting enormous amounts of seawater (7 million  barrels daily) into their biggest field to boost production. These methods have only temporary effects, and lead to accelerated rates of depletion in the future.

Matt Simmons, long time energy analyst who studied energy for 34 years, in his book “Twilight in the Desert” effectively confronts the complacent belief that there are ample oil reserves in Saudi Arabia and has created a compelling case that Saudi Arabia production will soon reach a peak, after which its production will decline and the world will be confronted with a catastrophic oil shortage. The factual basis of the book is over 200 technical papers published over the last 20 years which individually detail problems with particular wells or particular fields, but which collectively demonstrate that the entire Saudi oil system is “old and fraying” with reserves deliberately vastly overestimated.

Geologist Dr Colin Campbell in a 1998 article in Scientific American also details numerous discrepancies about estimates in Middle East reserves. The extent of reserves reported remained amazingly constant from year to year and then jumped dramatically. A similar unexplainable jump occurred in other countries in the Middle East, sometimes even in the total absence of exploration, strongly suggesting that OPEC’s reserves are overstated.

 

Peak Oil Imminent

The only uncertainty about peak oil is the time scale, which is difficult to predict accurately. Over the years, accurate prediction of oil production was confronted by fluctuating ecological, economical, and political factors, which imposed many restrictions on its exploration, transportation, and supply and demand. At the end of 2009, the Kuwait university and the Kuwait Oil company collaborated in a study to predict the peak date using multicylic models, depending on the historical 2 oil production trend and known oil reserves of 47 major oil production countries, to overcome the limitations and restrictions associated with other previous models. Based on this model, world production is estimated to peak in 2014. Other experts, oil companies and analyst firm estimate the peak date between now and around 2020. What’s certain is that the global production will go into a permanent decline within our generation.

“One of nature’s biggest forces is exponential growth” 

(Albert Einstein)

At a current average global consumption growth rate of 2% annually (1995-2005), by 2025 the world will need 50% more oil (120 mbd), and the International Energy Agency (IEA) admits that Saudi will have to double oil production to achieve this, which is not feasible in even the most optimistic scenario. And that’s not even taking into account that 80% of the world is only just starting to use oil & gas. In recent years, energy demands from mostly emerging economies have increased dramatically in populous countries as their oil consumption per capita grows. The International Energy Agency estimates that 93% of all incremental demand comes from non-OECD countries. Therefore, in time oil prices will continue to rise.

Based on Simmon’s analysis, sudden and sharp oil production declines could happen at any time. Even under the most optimistic scenario, Saudi Arabia may be able to maintain current rates of production for several years, but will not be able to increase production enough to meet the expected increase in world demand. There is no likely scenario that some new frontier can replace Middle East oil declines.

From Wiki leaks it has emerged that Senior Saudi energy officials have privately warned US and European counterparts that Opec would have an “extremely difficult time” meeting demand and that the reserves of Saudi have been overstated by as much as 40%.

“Even an attempt to get up to 12 mbd would wreak havoc within a decade by causing damage to the oil fields. 
-Saudi Aramco official

Exxon Mobil Corporation, one of the world’s largest publicly owned petroleum companies, is the most forthright of the major oil companies having had the courage and honesty to quietly publish the declining discovery trend, based on sound industry data with reserve revisions properly backdated. Furthermore, the company is running page-size advertisements in European papers stressing the immense challenges to be faced in meeting future energy demand, hinting that the challenges might not be met despite its considerable expertise. Chevron recently joined their campaign publishing an advertisement in national newspapers stating that the ‘Era of Easy Oil is Over’ (see here to view full ad).

“Initially it will be denied. There will be much lying and obfuscation. Then prices will rise and demand will fall. The rich will outbid the poor for available supplies.” 

 

The fallacy of Alternatives

The public, business leaders and politicians are all under the false assumption that oil depletion is a straightforward engineering problem of exactly the kind that technology and human ingenuity have so successfully solved before. Technology itself has become a kind of supernatural force, although in reality it is just the hardware and programming for running that fuel, and governed by the basic laws of physics and thermodynamics. Much of our existing technology simply won’t work without an abundant underlying fossil fuel base. In addition, physicist Jonathan Huebner has concluded in The History of Science and Technology that the rate of innovation in the US peaked in 1873, and the current rate of innovation is about the same as it was in 1600. According to Huebner, by 2024 it will have slumped to the same level as it was in the Dark Ages. Hence, without sufficient innovation and a comfortable surplus of fossil fuels, we may simply lack the tools to move forward.

With this energy base dwindling, there is simply not enough time to replace a fluid so cheap, abundant and versatile. It is rich in energy, easy to use, store, and transport. Nothing has the bang for the buck of oil, and nothing can replace it in time – either separately or in combination. Wind, waves and other renewables are all pretty marginal and also take a lot of energy to construct and require a petroleum platform to work off.

Natural gas is a diminishing resource as well and cannot satisfy the growing demand for energy. US Gas supplies were so low in 2003 after a harsh winter that to preserve life and property supplies were close to being cut off to manufacturers, electric plants and lastly homes.

Ethanol has a net energy value of zero (not accounting for soil and water damage and other costs due to unsustainable agricultural practices) – it is subsidized as a boon to agribusiness and would have a negligible effect (Prindle, ACEEE).

Solar energy produces marginal net energy, but are still decades away at best from being a viable substitute given the recent rate of progress in efficiency and costs (averaging about five percent a year) and is nowhere ready to meet the world’s energy needs. More importantly, solar photovoltaic cells (PVC) are built from hydrocarbon feed stocks and therefore require excess resources. It is estimated that a global solar energy system would take a century to build and would consume a major portion of world iron production (Foreign Affairs, Rhodes).

The widespread belief that hydrogen is going to save the day is a good example of how delusional people have become. Hydrogen fuel cells are not an energy source at all, but are more properly termed a form of energy storage. Free hydrogen does not exist on this planet. It requires more energy to break a hydrogen bond than will ever be garnered from that free hydrogen. The current source of hydrogen is natural gas – that is, a hydrocarbon. In the envisioned system of solar PVC & hydrogen fuel cells, every major component of the system, from the PVC to the fuel cells themselves will require hydrocarbon energy and feedstocks. The oil age will never be replaced by a hydrogen fuel-cell economy.

Coal is abundant, but its net energy profile is poor compared to oil and its conversion process to synthetic fuels is very inefficient. Coal would have to be mined at much higher rates to replace declining oil field. In addition, coal production is extremely harmful to the environment. One large coal burning electric plant releases enough radioactive material in a year to build two atomic bombs, apart from emitting more greenhouse gases than any other fuels.  Coal is implicated in mercury pollution that causes 60.000 cases of brain damage in newborn children every year in the USA. Resorting to coal would be a very big step backwards and what we may face then may be more like the Dim Ages. More importantly,  coal is distributed very unevenly with the top three countries (China, USA, USSR) possessing almost 70% of total. Much of the current oil and gas supply is in low-population countries, such as Saudi Arabia, that cannot possibly use all of the production for themselves. They are hence quite willing, indeed eager, to sell it to other countries. When oil and gas are gone, and only coal remains, and the few (large-population) countries that possess it need all of it for their own populations, it will be interesting to see how much is offered for sale to other countries.

Obtaining usable oil from tar sands requires huge amounts of energy, as it has to be mined and washed with super hot water. From an energy balance, it takes the equivalence of two barrels of oil to produce three, which is still positive but poor in terms of energy economics. In the early days of conventional oil, this ratio used to be one to thirty.

Nuclear power plants are simply too expensive and take ten years to build, relying on a fossil fuel platform for all stages of construction, maintenance, and extracting & processing nuclear fuels. Additionally, uranium is also a rare and finite source with its own production peak. Since 2006, the uranium price has already more than doubled.

Nuclear fusion is the kind of energy that the world needs. However, mastering it has been 25 years away for the past 50 years, and still is…

Fossil fuels allowed us to operate highly complex systems at gigantic scales. Renewables are simply incompatible in this context and the new fuels and technologies required would simply take a lot more time to develop than available and require access to abundant supplies of cheap fossil fuels, putting the industrial adventure out of business.

In an interview with The Times, former Shell CEO Jeroen van der Veer calls for a “reality check” and warns that the world’s energy crisis cannot be solved by renewables. “Contrary to public perceptions, renewable energy is not the silver bullet that will soon solve all our problems. Just when energy demand is surging, many of the world’s conventional oilfields are going into decline. The world is blinding itself to the reality of its energy problems, ignoring the scale of growth in demand from developing countries and placing too much faith in renewable sources of power”.

Alternative energies will never replace fossil fuels at the scale, rate and manner at which the world currently consumes them, and humankind’s ingenuity will simply not overcome the upper limits of geology & physics.  

Current Global Energy Production: No substitutes can replace fossil fuels at the same scale & rate at which the world currently use them

 

When Humans Declared War on Fish

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/10/opinion/sunday/when-humans-declared-war-on-fish.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20150510
When Humans Declared War on Fish

By PAUL GREENBERG and BORIS WORM

ON Friday we humans observed V-E Day, the end to one part of a global catastrophe that cost the planet at least 60 million lives. But if we were fish, we would have marked the day differently – as the beginning of a campaign of violence against our taxonomic classes, one that has resulted in trillions of casualties.

Oddly, the war itself was a great reprieve for many marine species. Just as Axis and Allied submarines and mines made the transportation of war matériel a highly perilous endeavor, they similarly interfered with fishing. The ability to catch staple seafoods, like cod, declined markedly. Freed from human pursuit, overexploited species multiplied in abundance.

But World War II also brought a leap in human ingenuity, power and technical ability that led to an unprecedented assault on our oceans. Not only did ships themselves become larger, faster and more numerous, but the war-derived technologies they carried exponentially increased their fishing power.

Take sonar. Before the 1930s, electronic echolocation was a barely functioning concept. It allowed operators to trace the vague contours of the seafloor topography and crudely track the pathway of a large moving object. But the war pushed forward dramatic advances in sonar technology; by its end, sophisticated devices, developed for hunting submarines, had grown infinitely more precise, and could now be repurposed to hunt fish.

Schools of fish could soon be pinpointed to within a few yards, and clearly differentiated from the sea’s bottom. Coupled with high-powered diesel engines that had been developed during the global conflict, the modern fishing vessel became a kind of war machine with a completely new arsenal: lightweight polymer-based nets, monofilament long lines that could extend for miles and onboard freezers capable of storing a day’s catch for months at a time.

Even human resources developed during the war were later redirected toward fishing: Japanese fighter pilots adept at spotting subsurface Allied submarines were later retrained to look for whales. Likewise, more than a few former Allied pilots found postwar employment hunting bluefin tuna and Atlantic menhaden.

In some ways, the “war machine” wasn’t a metaphor. Across South Asia, leftover explosives were “recycled” for “bomb fishing,” an obscenely destructive way of killing coastal fish, which turned many coral reefs into rubble fields. And the technological overkill continued into the Cold War era: Satellite imagery and GPS technology originally intended to track the movements of the Soviet nuclear arsenal eventually allowed well-populated fish habitats to be clearly identified from space.

Because the war incentivized the creation of ships with much longer oceangoing ranges, it also meant that fishing was transformed from a local endeavor into a global one. “Industrial fishing,” maybe the first globalized economic enterprise, meant the wholesale, permanent occupation of marine ecosystems, instead of the local raids practiced by previous generations.

In addition, emerging economies of scale meant that it wasn’t just the target fish that suffered. With the invention of postwar super trawlers that scooped up everything in their path, a sort of scorched-earth approach to fishing became commonplace.

Taken collectively, the rise of postwar fishing technology meant that the global reported catch rose from some 15 million metric tons at war’s end to 85 million metric tons today – the equivalent, in weight, of the entire human population at the turn of the 20th century, removed from the sea each and every year.

Only the turn of the third millennium saw a new kind of reprieve, this time not caused by human adversity, but by the insight that we need to make peace with other species as well. Growing signs of exhaustion and failure in global fisheries made humans reconsider the totality of their assault.

Marine protected areas, an environmental version of a demilitarized zone, started to spring up, and now cover some 3.5 percent of the ocean. Countries formerly at war began to work together to hammer out new deals for fish, exemplified by both the recent revision of the Common Fisheries Policy in Europe and new efforts underway at the United Nations to better regulate fishing on the high seas, the 60 percent of the oceans outside national control.

Collateral damage to sharks, turtles, whales and sea birds is increasingly becoming unacceptable. And some of those same technologies once used to kill fish with precision are now being used to save them: War-inspired satellite technology is being deployed to identify and pursue rogue vessels fishing illegally.

But in remembering the end of World War II and the deliberate steps that led to a lasting peace, we might contemplate a broader Marshall Plan, which would further restrain our destructive tendencies and technological powers elsewhere, not just in fishing the oceans, but in mining, drilling and otherwise exploiting them.

To be sure, the postwar assault on fish mostly sprang from an honorable intention to feed a growing human population that boomed in a prosperous postwar world. But as in war, everybody loses when there is nothing left to fight for. Only when we fully embrace that simple fact, and act accordingly, will our celebrations resonate among what the author Henry Beston called those “other nations caught with ourselves in the net of life and time.”

Paul Greenberg<http://paulgreenberg.org/> is the author, most recently, of “American Catch.” Boris Worm<http://wormlab.biology.dal.ca/> is a professor of marine conservation biology at Dalhousie University, Nova Scotia.

A version of this op-ed appears in print on May 10, 2015, on page SR4 of the New York edition with the headline: When Humans Declared War on Fish.

1795497_611414028914288_1804650880_n

Ntl. Geo. Pictures: Billions of Blue Jellyfish Wash Up on American Beaches

Billions of “By the Wind Sailors” (Velella Velella) or a giant colony (depending on how you look at it) are washed up on Washington’s Long Beach peninsula. It’s at least 5 times as many as anyone has ever seen there at one time. Although no one in the media is yet attributing this to climate change, Velella thrive in warm water and the U.S. West coast has been plagued by a blob of warm water that is effecting everything from sea life to weather patterns. This 1,000 mile wide X 100s of feet deep”blob” and recent ocean acidification are undeniably part of global warming.

Now, the shorebirds seem to be having a hard time finding their food with so many of these jellyfish at the tide line.

We’ve all heard that Florida has an unwritten law forbidding government “scientists” and the media from mentioning climate change/global warming–the same must be true on the West coast. After an extensive search, I finally found someone who dared to risk uttering the words “climate change” in association with these jellyfish.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egEy4fSfkIo

It would not surprise me to learn that climate change-related Velella Velella blooms are responsible for the collapse of entire marine food chains. Sardines (which young California sea lions depend on) have nearly disappeared. Sardines likely depend on the plankton the jellyfish are eating.

Oceans filled with nothing but jellyfish is a depressing vision of the future as anthropogenic climate change and mass extinction scenarios play themselves out…

10999110_1609525825948983_7501551319274198003_n

Coast Guard Cutter Alert rescues sea turtles

February 26, 2015

http://www.dailyastorian.com/Local_News/20150226/coast-guard-cutter-alert-rescues-sea-turtles?utm_source=Daily+Astorian+Updates&utm_campaign=db4b48ca58-TEMPLATE_Daily_Astorian_Newsletter_Update&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_e787c9ed3c-db4b48ca58-109860249

Submitted
Alert’s rescue diver, Seaman Brandon Groshens, cuts away the netting to free the sea turtles.

The second sea turtle swims away unharmed after being freed from the netting by SN Brandon Groshens.

<!–

–>

The Alert, a Coast Guard cutter homeported in Astoria, encountered the struggling turtles while on patrol Feb. 10 in the eastern Pacific

Two sea turtles caught in fishing net were freed earlier this month by a Coast Guard rescue swimmer.

The Alert, a Coast Guard cutter homeported in Astoria, encountered the struggling turtles while on patrol Feb. 10 in the eastern Pacific, according to a statement from the guard.

The cutter’s bridge watch team flagged plastic containers used as buoys floating in the water and then saw the two entangled turtles.

“Jumping into the ocean to free a couple of sea turtles is not something you wake up in the morning expecting to do” Seaman Brandon Groshens, Pendleton, said in a statement. “It was a really great feeling as they swam away, knowing that we just saved their lives.”

Commander Brian Anderson, the Alert’s commanding officer, said he was “especially proud of my diligent watch standers, and how the crew quickly came together in performing their good deed for the day.”

We dump 8 million tons of plastic into the ocean each year. Where does it all go?

We dump 8 million tons of plastic into the ocean each year. Where does it all go?

&amp;amp;lt;img src=”https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/Ca26x5MHTLo2p1qjoTm4yQTyZsA=/151×0:826×450/234×156/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/45679664/garbagepatch.0.0.0.jpg&#8221; alt=””/&amp;amp;gt;

What happens to all our plastic bottles and lids and containers after we toss them out?

Every single ocean now has a massive swirling plastic garbage patch

The vast majority of plastic trash ends up in landfills, just sitting there and taking thousands of years to degrade. A smaller fraction gets recycled (about 9 percent in the United States).

But there’s another big chunk that finds its way into the oceans, either from people chucking litter into waterways or from storm-water runoff carrying plastic debris to the coasts. And scientists have long worried that all this plastic could have adverse effects on marine life.

Now we can finally quantify this problem: A new study in Science calculates that between 5 and 13 million metric tons of plastic waste made it into the ocean in 2010 alone. What’s more, the authors estimate this amount could more than quadruple by 2025 without better waste management.

 &amp;amp;lt;img alt=” ” src=”https://cdn3.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/1seNwvLej6aEj0XYoTKa3JeAW6A=/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3404256/5999165366_ee15cbe1b2_b.0.jpg”&amp;amp;gt;

Plastic debris in the Mediterranean Sea. (Alan Bachellier/Flickr)

And here’s another surprise twist: We still don’t know where most of that ocean plastic actually ends up. A separate study last year in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences identified massive swirling garbage patches in each of the world’s oceans that contain up to 35,000 tons of plastic.

Yet those patches accounted for less than 1 percent of the plastic thought to be in the oceans — and no one quite knows where the other 99 percent went. One possibility is that marine creatures are eating the rest of the plastic and it’s somehow entering the food chain. But that’s still unclear.

China accounts for one-quarter of plastic ocean waste

&amp;amp;lt;img alt=”(Jambeck et al 2015)” src=”https://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/T7batZ39JcmjoMJjRh7XCoZMzcw=/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3403590/Screen_Shot_2015-02-12_at_10.18.31_AM.0.png”&amp;amp;gt;

The new Science study, led by Jenna R. Jambeck of the University of Georgia, was the first since the 1970s to try to quantify how much of our plastic waste on land ends up in the ocean each year.

The authors looked at plastic production rates, data on waste management and disposal in 193 different coastal countries. Putting this all together, they estimated that the world threw out 275 million metric tons of plastic waste in 2010 (much of it from plastic packaging).

They then estimated that between 4.7 and 12.7 million metric tons made its way to sea — with a best estimate of 8 million tons. That’s enough to cover the world’s entire coastline.

China was the biggest contributor by far, accounting for roughly one-quarter of the marine debris produced each year. (Note that these figures only include plastic waste on land that makes its way to sea. It doesn’t include things like plastic waste from fishing vessels, which makes up an unknown fraction.)

What’s more, the researchers find, the amount of plastic waste could quadruple (or worse) by 2025 unless better waste-management techniques are adopted — like recycling or a reduction in packaging materials used.

Every ocean now has a massive plastic garbage patch

Plastic_concentrations

Concentrations of plastic debris in surface waters of the global ocean. Colored circles indicate mass concentrations (legend on top right). (Cozar et al, 2014.)

So where does this ocean plastic go?

Many people have heard of the Great Pacific garbage patch — a massive patch of trash that’s accumulated in a swirling subtropical gyre in northern Pacific Ocean. Ocean currents carry trash from far and wide into this vortex.

And it turns out that there are at least five of these floating garbage patches around the world. That’s according to a separate 2014 study in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, led by Andres Cózar of the Universidad de Cadiz based on the results of a 2010 circumnavigation cruise.

These garbage patches aren’t visible from up high — or even from a passing boat — since most of the plastic is bobbing just beneath the surface, and most of the particles are smaller than 1 centimeter in diameter. Over time, the plastic bits get broken down into ever smaller pieces as they get battered by waves and degraded by the sun.

Even so, these gyres have a lot of garbage, collectively holding some 7,000 to 35,000 tons of plastic in all. The patch in the North Pacific was by far the biggest — containing about one-third of all the floating plastic found. (Much of the plastic debris from eastern China, for instance, collects here.)

And yet, what was most surprising to researchers was that these plastic garbage patches weren’t even bigger. There should be millions of tons of plastic in the oceans. But these subtropical gyres only contained up to 35,000 tons. In particular, there seemed to be much less plastic smaller than 1 millimeter in diameter than expected. So where did the rest go?

99% of plastic in the ocean is missing. Where did it go?

14052480385_8c9c8c6663_k

Bo Eide/Flickr

In the PNAS paper, the authors offer a couple of possible explanations for why they didn’t find nearly as much floating plastic as they expected. The most troubling is that fish and other organisms are eating all the plastic:

One possibility is that plankton and fish are eating the plastic

1) Maybe the plastic is washing back ashore. The problem with this hypothesis is that most of the “missing” plastic is less than 1 millimeter in diameter. It’s unclear why only smaller bits would have washed up ashore.

2) Perhaps the plastic somehow breaks down into really, really tiny, undetectable pieces. This is possible, although the authors note that “there is no reason to assume that the rate of solar-induced fragmentation increased since the 1980s.”

3) Maybe small organisms are growing on some of the plastic bits, causing them to get heavier and sink deeper into the ocean. This is also possible, although other studies have found that when these plastic pieces sink, the organisms on them typically die and the plastic bobs back up to the surface.

4) Plankton and fish are eating the plastic. This one’s a more plausible hypothesis. After all, the tiny plastic bits that seem to have vanished are small enough to be eaten by zooplankton, who are known to munch on plastic. The authors also argue that mesopelagic fish beneath the surface may be eating a lot of plastic too — and, perhaps, pooping it out down to the ocean bottom. This needs further testing though.

Assuming fish are eating all that plastic and it’s entering the food chain, it’s still unclear how dangerous that is. Obviously some marine organisms, like seabirds, can get digestive problems (and can die) if they eat large pieces of plastic. But what about very tiny pieces? There’s some evidence that toxic chemicals can cling to plastic in the ocean and accumulate — but there’s still scant research on how much harm this might actually do as it passes through the food chain.

5) Plastic is accumulating in the ice caps. Meanwhile, a separate 2014 study in Earth’s Future suggested that a great deal of microplastic is accumulating in the polar ice caps. As sea ice forms and expands, the argument goes, it essentially “scavenges” the plastic from the seawater. This, too, might be part of the story.

More: http://www.vox.com/2015/2/12/8028267/plastic-garbage-patch-oceans

Scuba diving assault caught on camera off Kona Coast

By Tim Sakahara
http://m.hawaiinewsnow.com/#!/newsDetail/25497853

An assault is caught on camera 50 feet underwater. The video shows one
diver ripping off the air supply of another diver. Now authorities are
investigating.

Environmentalists and reef fish collectors have had disputes in the past,
but this one may have crossed over into criminal action with one party
calling for serious charges to be filed.

The video was taken off the Kona Coast last Thursday. The dive turned ugly
when one diver darts over and rips off Rene Umberger’s breathing supply 50
feet underwater. The scene was captured on two cameras.

“This man needs to be arrested. I think this man needs to be arrested
immediately for attempted murder,” said Rene Umberger, coral reef
consultant and scuba diver.

Umberger, 53, was eventually able to get her regulator back in and breathe
again. That’s when she captured the suspect make another threatening
gesture with his arms toward her.

“I honestly thought he was coming back for a second attack,” said Umberger.
“I got up on the boat and I said oh my God, someone just tried to kill me
underwater.”

Umberger and the others were documenting damage to coral reefs when they
came across the pair of divers who clearly didn’t want their picture taken.
She credits her experience and more than 10,000 dives with saving her life.

“An inexperienced diver would likely panic. Either panic from the stress of
the situation and shoot for the surface. They may panic because their air
source is missing and they can’t find it. Any of those things causes a
diver to shoot for the surface and those incidents often lead to death,”
said Umberger. “Never in a million years. Never in a million years did I
think that someone would attack like that, especially from such a distance.
It’s not like we were close up or in their face.”

She believes she knows who the suspect is and wants to press charges.

The State Division of Conservation and Resources Enforcement says it is
investigating and will turn its information over to the County Prosecutors
office.

“The greater issue is that Hawaii’s reefs are being emptied by these
commercial operations,” said Umberger. “Hawaii’s reefs are suffering
incredibly from this unlimited collection.”

The video shows how aggressive people can be.

Collecting reef fish is legal if you have a permit and are in a designated
area and meeting fish size, season and quantity rules. There’s no word from
the State if the suspect was diving legally.

images