(Disclaimer: I work for an oil company) I recently heard an interesting story at work. It goes something like this:

A little while back, a large, producible oil reservoir was discovered off the coast of California, near Santa Barbara. Exxon got the lease from the federal government to drill and produce that oil. So far, so good.....except that this is California, and the rampant NIMBY syndrome in the area interfered. Exxon was not able to get the permits to pipe this oil to shore and into pipelines in the area. The protesting was so vocal and persistent that many outsiders began to wonder if anybody in the city actually held a job.

Fortunately for Exxon, the spot of water where this platform was to be built was outside of the State of California's jurisdiction, although it was visible from shore. The plan for the project was changed from a traditional oil platform to an FPSO, or Floating Production, Storage, and Offloading facility. This meant that instead of a single, fairly small oil platform, there would now be an enormous boat (the FPSO), flanked by two enormous oil tankers, which would receive the oil from the FPSO and ship it elsewhere on the coast.

The project was built, and to nobody's surprise, the locals were not exactly thrilled with the sight of three huge ships constantly off the coast. But things did not end there. You see, there's always some amount of natural gas that comes up with the oil, varying from just a few percent up to the upper 90%'s, and it has to be put somewhere. Exxon was able to make an agreement with a local utility company to pipe the natural gas from this FPSO to shore for power generation. I'm not clear on the details, but somehow because it was a utility company, this type of agreement is only governed by federal law and not local law.

Eventually, the state government capitulated, and allowed the oil to be piped ashore at that location, in exchange for replacing the three big ships with a platform and promising not to use the FPSO anywhere on the western coast.

As an interesting sidenote the reservoir in this location is under so much pressure that oil naturally seeps through the rock and sediment into the water and finds its way onshore. And, of course, Exxon gets blamed for it....

Here's another pet peeve of mine: commercials for prescription drugs on TV. And here's why:

Certain drugs require a prescription from a doctor. There are various very good reasons for this. Some drugs can be addictive. Many are dangerous to the patient if not taken correctly. Antibiotics are dangerous to society if not taken correctly. Many drugs have nasty interactions with other drugs. Many diseases or disorders can require different drugs based on subtle differences in the patient's condition. In short, without a prescription system, we would see people killing themselves due to overdose, killing themselves because of a drug interaction, becoming addicted to some drug, contributing to antibiotic-resistant diseases, etc. That's why we have doctors and pharmacists who prescribe specific drugs for specific patients.

So why advertise on TV to people who don't know enough to correctly self-medicate? Because of those magic words "Ask your doctor about [insert medicine name here]." These people have zero need to know about Megadrug or Instacure. If a person has a health problem, he or she can go to a doctor. Doctors are trained to recognize medical conditions and prescribe (if necessary) the correct medicine. Now, however, we have people going in to their doctor and saying "I have condition X, give me medicine Y" instead of letting the doctor do his job, for which he is far better qualified than the patient is.

So as a result, you have pharmaceutical companies spending ridiculous amounts of money on TV ads (which raises the cost of the drug, which is passed on to the customer), and a lot of people who think they know what they need because of a commercial on TV. Oh, and a lot of people who think "Gee, I didn't sleep well last night, I must need a 'sleep aid' to help!"--or, in effect, overmedication.

Let me see if I can say this succinctly. Drug companies spend lots of money marketing to people who can't be trusted with making a decision about buying their products. These people will be convinced that they need it, just like they need a new car or a home equity loan to pay for a new boat. The difference is that the result can be far more dangerous. People complain about expensive prescription drugs, and drug companies complain about the cost of bringing drugs to market. Banning the marketing of prescription drugs to the pubic would benefit both parties.

Nuclear power is one of my hot-buttons. While much of Europe has built many nuclear plants, the US lags. Why? There's a moratorium on the construction of new nuclear power plants in the US. While the reasons for the 1974 ban may have been valid at the time (and vindicated by Three Mile Island and Chernobyl), the most common concerns about nuclear power no longer make any sense.

What follows is a line-by-line look at some of the most popular objections to nuclear power, and why I don't think they're valid:

Concern #1: An accident like Three-Mile Island or Chernobyl could happen.
Why it's wrong: Chernobyl will never happen again. A combination of a seriously flawed reactor design and an operating staff unfamiliar with it caused the accident. Training today is leaps-and-bounds better than it was in the 80's. Some types of reactors now being researched can't melt down even in the worst of circumstances. Control systems and safety systems have also advanced way beyond anything available then. While Chernobyl was a very serious accident that impacted hundreds of thousands in some way, Three-Mile Island really wasn't a big deal. Yes, there was a partial melt-down of the contents of the reactor core. But aside from the coolant water that was released (and contained and stored elsewhere on-site) everything stayed in the core. The reactor maintained its structural integrity. No injuries occurred, and exactly one case of cancer was attributed to the accident.

Concern #2: It's dangerous to those who live nearby
Why it's wrong: Let's take Three-Mile Island, where some of the contaminated gases (hydrogen, and steam) were vented to the atmosphere. Testing of people living within a 10-mile radius showed a maximum exposure of 100 millirads (equivalent to 1/3 of a year of natural background radiation) and average of only 8 millirads of exposure (about the same as a chest x-ray). That's after radioactive gases were released after an accident. Under normal circumstances, practically zero radiation escapes.

Concern #3: We have to store the radioactive waste for 10,000 years
Response: Well that's only partially true. Yes, there is solid nuclear waste produced by the reactor, and it is highly radioactive. However, consider the following:
--1) 95% of spent fuel is unconsumed Uranium that can be reprocessed into new fuel. Although Great Britain, France, and Russia do so, the US has banned reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel from civilian uses because of proliferation concerns. (me: this is stupid--it's far more likely to proliferate from Russia than the US in any case, and proper security can help prevent it anyway)
--2) actinides, the component of spent fuel that is responsible for the oft-quoted 10,000 storage time can also be reprocessed into new fuel. This reduces the total amount of waste down to about 3% of the original amount.
--3) The 3% left after reprocessing the unspent uranium and the actinides is called the Fission products. These are highly radioactive, but reach safe levels in around 300 years--a far cry from the 10,000 years you hear.

In addition, there is some amount of other 'stuff' like tools and clothing, that gets exposed to radiation and currently must be treated as hazardous. But it's not, really. Your morning cup of coffee is more radioactive. But your coffee grounds go to the landfill and this other stuff has to be stored.

Concern #4: Proliferation
Why it's wrong: Proliferation is gonna happen one way or another. There are enough nuts running around this world with nuclear programs that the likelihood of proliferation from a US facility is, by comparison, negligible.

Concer #5: Other alternative energy is better
Response: I personally love the idea of solar, wind, and water power. However, the economics currently just don't support it. A 1 GW nuclear reactor with all associated equipment, building, and infrastructure is not that big. A solar installation with that capacity, however, would be ridiculously huge. If we could collect 100% of the solar energy in an area and convert it perfectly to electricity, we would require an entire square kilometer to generate that much power. And it would only generate that much power when the sun is perfectly perpendicular to that spot. Although the efficiency of photovoltaic cells has been increasing, global demand has made supply extremely tight and prices are very high. Solar and Wind power both have the problem that we can't depend on them. Cloudy or windless days render them practically useless. Hydroelectric I like, but there are only so many places to put a dam, and there are lots of other environmental issues that must be worked.

Now, let's compare nuclear power to the status quo: coal-fired plants.
Coal: Huge amounts of CO2, sulphur, and naturally-occurring radioactive material (NORM) get released into the atmosphere to go....wherever. Things are improving, but the fact remains that you're burning stuff and releasing much of the remains into the atmosphere.
Nuclear: A few cubic meters of spent fuel per reactor, of which some 97% can be reprocessed. And we can very effectively control the remainder. We know exactly where it's going.

Yup, that's right. For all the concerns people have about radiation coming from a nuclear power plant, a coal-fired power plant produces (and releases!) far more.

The blame for all the misinformation can, I think, be laid squarely at the feet of those who misguidedly attempt to perpetuate myths that were mostly false when they originated and are all false now. What is so telling about the viability of nuclear energy is this:

The environmentalists that fought so hard against nuclear power 30 years ago? They now promote it.

Would I be willing to have a nuclear plant built behind my house. Absolutely.

(Disclaimer: I work for an oil company)

An article was posted today about the National Science Teachers' Association's rejection of several tens of thousands of copies of "An Inconvenient Truth". Naturally, much discussion ensued about how Big Oil (and big companies in general) are too involved in politics. What I want to discuss is a side topic that arose: Big Oil and Global Warming. I can't and won't debate whether Global Warming is real or not--my knowledge and expertise are not sufficient to make a judgement. For the sake of this piece, we'll assume that Global Warming is real and caused directly by humans.

The general consensus is that an increase in the quantities of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere traps solar radiation and, over time, increases the temperature of the earth. And the largest source of Carbon Dioxide, a major greenhouse gas, is the combustion of fossil fuels--oil, natural gas, propane, coal, etc. I have no problem with that. However, to blame it on the companies that produce that fuel is at best a mistake and at worst an attempt to seize political power by eliminating any responsibility for our own actions.

Blaming the human race's use of fossil fuels on the companies that produce them is a logical non-sequitur. It's like blaming auto manufacturers for car accidents (at least those not caused by a defect). The oil/gas/coal companies are simply supplying a good that people demand. Did you catch that? Supply and Demand. People demand energy, whether it's in the form of electricity for the home or business, gasoline for the car, or heat for the home. Under current circumstances, oil/gas/coal are the most economical way to produce that energy. The people, WE, are the ones causing the production of greenhouse gases.

Example #1: Please excuse a pet peeve of mine: enormous, bloated, oversized SUVs. I see tons of them on my way to work with a single occupant. There are a few people who genuinely need an SUV, but a vast majority of SUV owners bought it for questionable reasons. How much gas do we waste by driving these behemoths? And why do we insist on living so far from our work?
Example #2: I currently live in Houston, where by some undefined Divine Decree every business sets their thermostat at a frigid 70F or colder during the summer. Nearly everyone finds this too cold, and it wastes lots of electricity, but 70F is the standard. On the flip side, we recently took a trip to Utah, where we found that despite the cold (30-50F) temperatures, all the buildings were heated to the high 70's. Again, how much energy is being wasted here?

The point is that we can't blame the oil & gas/coal companies for our own selfish irresponsibility. The way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is to reduce how much oil/gas/coal/wood/whatever we burn. That's right--Only you can prevent greenhouse gas emissions.

Much has been said in the last several months on the topic of Net Neutrality. Countless thousands have stated their opinion on one side of the topic or the other, and it seems that very few people are in the middle.

From the TelCos' side of the debate, you hear this: Enforcing strict Net Neutrality will hamber innovation on the Internet. Without the ability to give some traffic priority, some services, like video and voice, will not have a guaranteed quality of transmission. There are quite a few applications currently not viable that would become possible with the ability to shape traffic.

From the Geeks' side, you hear this: Unless Net Neutrality is enforced, TelCos will have all the power in the world to get a strangle-hold on any traffic they want. The potential for abuse is very high. In fact, many have already accused Comcast of intentionally causing traffic problems for their users who wish to use Vonage, while simultaneously promoting their own VoIP service. Or, for example, a company could racketeer a successful web-based company--something along the lines of "Pay us lots of money or we won't let your traffic through our lines".

So you have TelCos on one side who say they just want to create an upper tier for special traffic, and geeks who are afraid that ISPs want to create a lower tier for traffic that doesn't directly bring them money, i.e. third-party VoIP.

So while nearly everyone is strongly polarized one way or another, I find myself kind of in the middle. I see the need for a guaranteed-on-time delivery for some data, but I don't want to see anyone get squashed because they didn't pay all the appropriate companies their "insurance".

If I felt I could trust all the TelCos and ISPs, I'd suggest this: allow the TelCos to create the upper tier they want, but force all carriers to leave the current free-for-all alone.

The problem is, I don't trust TelCos and ISPs farther than I can throw them. What is a user or a company to do if an ISP, particularly a large one, intentionally degrades the traffic for that company? Although it seemed that Comcast's customers' problems connecting to Vonage were obviously caused by Comcast, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to prove that Comcast intentionally crippled that traffic. Because of the "best effort" nature of current infrastructure, connection problems could be caused by something as simple as a glitch in a router, or as sinister as an ISP intentionally degrading that traffic to push customers to their own competing service. And it's very difficult to prove intent. Even in a case where abuse is evident, a court case would take years before a conclusion, driving businesses that fall victim to such abuse into bankruptcy.

In the end, until Telecommunications Companies and ISPs prove that they can be trusted, I have to come down in favor of Net Neutrality. I find it hard to believe the big TelCo's story about Net Neutrality preventing them from making enough revenue. Financially, they currently seem to be doing just fine without a multi-tiered Internet. The potential for abuse is so high and so easy to implement that it must be otherwise prevented.

I love listening to classical music. But the excitement of bringing home a new CD of Rachmaninov or Tchaikovsky or Chopin is quickly dampened as soon as I try to put the CD in the CD player. In my way stands a barrier so seemingly weak, yet so obnoxiously strong, that I am tempted to give up and download the music over P2P.

I refer, of course, to the plastic cellophane wrapper on the jewel case. Whoever designed it ought to be taken out back and shot, as should every supervisor/manager/executive up the line who approved the packaging. There is no pull-cord like cassette tapes have, no shrinkwrap seam corners to grab and stretch out, no paper wrapper, no nooks or crannies into which I might conceivably stick the end of a pair of scissors, nothing.

If, perchance, you manage to remove the cellophane, a second line of defense stymies any efforts to listen to your newly-purchased recording. There's a long, sticker-like seal on at least one side of the case, holding your music hostage. This is no ordinary sticker--this one deliberately appears to be easily removable, with a notch in one end and a "Pull here" marking. Alas, it is all misdirection. Good luck getting past that one.

DVDs have a similar problem, though perhaps the movie industry has learned from the music industry's folly. I recently purchased the Toy Story DVD, and found to my delight that the shrink wrap easily tore from the case without any damage. However, I was immediately greeted by a "SECURITY DEVICE ENCLOSED" sticker, similar to the one on a CD. It wraps around the top (and often all three open sides of the case are covered) and adheres to the soft, transparent plastic jacket. If you try to remove this sticker by digging at one corner with your fingernail, the sticker stays firmly put, while the plastic cover stretches and deforms.

I've found that the only way to actually remove this sticker and (*gasp!*) watch my movie was to take a knife and slice the sticker along the crack between the two halves of the case. If you follow this method, you will find that the sticker's stubbornness immediately evaporates, and it will easily pull away from the case as if nothing ever happened.

Perhaps people downloading movies and music from P2P networks are not really pirates after all. They just couldn't open the package.