• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
Jennifer Marohasy

Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

  • Home
  • About
  • Publications
  • Speaker
  • Blog
  • Temperatures
  • Coral Reefs
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Archives for November 2006

Key Outcomes: Summit on the Southern Murray Darling Basin

November 7, 2006 By jennifer

The Commonwealth and Governments of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Queensland agreed or noted at this morning’s water summit on the Southern Murray Darling Basin (MDB):

1. The need for a shared understanding of the likely water availability over the next year and a half.

2. The need for an informed whole of Basin approach to be developed collaboratively, not by jurisdictions acting without regard to the consequences for other States.

3. Establish a group of high-level officials drawn from First Ministers’ Departments and the MDB Commission to examine contingency planning to secure urban and town supplies during 2007-08. This group will report to First Ministers by 15 December 2006.

4. Accelerate the implementation of key aspects of the NWI, especially on water trading, overallocation, water accounting and data sharing. Ensure that permanent interstate trading will commence in the southern MDB States by 1 January 2007 as recommended by the National Water Commission. New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Queensland also agreed in substance to accept the advice from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission on exit fees.

5. Not intervene in Snowy Hydro Ltd commercial arrangements this year.

6. Commission the CSIRO to report progressively by the end of 2007 on sustainable yields of surface and groundwater systems within the MDB, including an examination of assumptions about sustainable yield in light of changes in climate and other issues.

7. The Commonwealth will process speedily its response to major projects under the Australian Government Water Fund.

8. The Commonwealth indicated it was providing over $2.3 billion for a wide range of drought assistance in EC-affected areas, and announced a new initiative (costing approximately $210 million over two years) to extend income support and interest rate subsidies to the owners of small businesses that receive 70 per cent of their income from farm businesses.

9. The States have agreed to pay 10 per cent of interest costs under the Commonwealth’s small business announcement. The States have also agreed to consider a Commonwealth proposal that they follow the lead of Victoria in providing a 50 per cent rebate for municipal and shire rates to eligible recipients, and also to waive or rebate water charges (or equivalents thereof) in EC declared areas where water allocations have been substantially reduced.

10. It has already been agreed that water and climate change would be items for consideration at the next COAG meeting.

———————————–
I wrote a blog piece earlier today entitled ‘Murray River: Last Year Biggest Environmental Flow, This Year Water Crisis’ on the water shortage issue.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Drought, Murray River, Water

Murray River: Last Year Biggest Environmental Flow, This Year Water Crisis

November 7, 2006 By jennifer

The Prime Minister, John Howard, has called a summit to discuss the water crisis in the Murray-Darling Basin.

The meeting, being held as I write this blog, was apparently triggered by the NSW government decision to suspend water trading on the Murray and Murrumbidgee rivers and the low state of the dams in New South Wales and Victoria.

According to Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, the big dams on the river will be just about empty by Autumn if it doesn’t rain.

Leader of the Australian Greens Bob Brown is claiming there has been a problem for years, the government has done nothing, and “seventy per cent of the river red gums along the Murray are either dead or dying.”

There are a few dead red gums along the Murray. But anyone who lives along the river, regularly visits the river, or saw the recent ABC series ‘Two Men in a Tinnie’ would know most of the river red gums along both the Darling and Murray Rivers are very much alive. Another huge porkie from Mr Brown! Another piece of misleading, probably originally from the MDBC.

What seems to have been forgotten in all the recent hand wringing is that just last October the NSW and Victorian governments – the same governments who this year are complaining their dams are empty – made the world’s largest delivery of environmental water letting the equivalent of a Sydney Harbor of water flood the Barmah-Millewa red gum forest which straddles the Murray River upstream of Echuca.

According to a Victorian government report on water operations: “The joint release saw 513 gigalitres of water delivered to the forest and the inundation of over half of the forest floodplain, resulting in greatly improved condition for wetland vegetation and breeding activity for key wetland fauna. Wetland vegetation, including moira grass and the threatened wavy marshwort, responded with significantly improved condition and the flooding waters provided for new growth and canopy regeneration in stressed river red gums. The release also triggered large reproductive events in important native fish species such as golden perch and the threatened silver perch as well as in many water bird species, including the great egret, darters, spoonbills, grebes, ibis and cormorants, and the critically endangered intermediate egret.”

All this during one of the worst droughts on record!

Then there is the water being sucked up from regrowth following the January 2003 bushfires in the upper catchment, new plantations, groundwater licences being activated by farmers who can now trade that water, improved on-farm water use efficiency and recycling some of this in place because of a past fear of rising groundwater tables*, water being evaporated by the Murray Darling Basin Commission’s salt interception schemes and low rainfall …and it is not that surprising that the region has a chronic water shortage.

But rather than do a proper water audit and work out the relative contribution of these factors which have probably all contributed to the current problem, governments and many key commentators keep blaming climate change. Yet the rainfall record for the MDB doesn’t show an abnormal decline.**

BOM to 2005 rainfall.JPG
Rainfall record for the Murray Darling Basin from 1900 to the end of 2005.

South Australian Premier Mike Rann said he would use today’s summit to ensure water reached the bottom of the Murray-Darling basin. Yeah, many South Australians see the river as nothing more than an channel for getting water from the Hume and Dartmouth dams to Adelaide and their wine grape growers.

But sorry Mr Rann, noone can ensure that their will be water for South Australia if the dams run dry.

In advance of the summit, the National Farmers Federation Executive Director, Ben Fargher, put out a media release saying, “As a first priority, we need to ensure that towns which support regional communities have certainty over water supply. “There must also be a clear strategy to effectively manage core breeding stock, permanent plantings and other production issues in order to protect Australia’s agricultural base through this unprecedented drought.”

But that’s also impossible Mr Fargher if there is no water.

If the Murray runs dry next year it would be devastating for farmers and rural communities that draw their water from the river, but it would not be a disaster for the environment. Australian rivers run dry. Water levels in the Murray River have been artificially high so far this drought, because of the dams and weirs.

Dry Murray 1914 blog3.JPG
The Murray River at Riversdale in 1914.

Riversdale_P1000053 blog 2.JPG
The Murray River at Riversdale early this year.

Here’s some really ridiculous commentary from an article in last week’s The Age to illustrate the extent to which our politicians and environmentalists seem to not really care or understand the issue. They don’t seem to understand that if you don’t have any water, there will be none to save, and none for the environment. The article follows an announcement by Mr Turnbull inviting farmers and irrigators to participate in an “excess water scheme”.

“The scheme will provide an incentive for those with water entitlements in the southern Murray-Darling Basin to cut their water use.

Farmers could switch from flood-irrigating an orchard to using water drippers, for example, and sell the water they saved from their entitlements to the Federal Government.

… Peter Cosier, from the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, slammed the tender, claiming it was “too complex” and “too bureaucratic”.

Mr Cosier said Australia was “way behind” its target to return 500 billion litres to the Murray River by 2009. “We don’t have time to muck around with inefficient grant schemes because they are not delivering water for the environment.”

… Opposition environment spokesman Anthony Albanese said that while Labor supported buying water, the Murray needed water now, not in 2009.

… Meanwhile, the Murray-Darling Water Crisis Management Council warned that the Hume Dam – a source of water to many towns and now at only 11 per cent capacity – would run dry in 24 weeks unless all environmental flows down the Murray were suspended.”

No Mr Albanese, the river doesn’t need water now, it’s all the industries that have grown up along the river that need water now. Without the dams and weirs built for these same industries the river would have already run dry.

———————–
* I explain how past policies driven by a fear of rising groundwater and spreading salinity may have artificially dehydrated the landscape in a piece I recently wrote for OLO: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5076 .

** I have recently explained that blaming the current drought on climate change is indeed drawing a long bow in a piece for the Courier Mail: http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,20678328-27197,00.html

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Drought, Murray River, Water

Abiotic Oil: A Note from Louis Hissink

November 5, 2006 By jennifer

“There is a widely held belief that coal and oil are the result of a conversion from organic matter, both vegetable and biotic, that accumulated in sedimentary basins over geological time to become fossil fuels. It is presumed that vast periods of geological time converted the raw buried organic material into petroleum at the base of the sedimentary piles in the earth’s crust. An alternative theory proposes that coal and oil are abiotic in origin and derived from upper mantle processes as suggested by the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of abiotic oil, but also popularised by the late Tommy Gold in his controversial book, ‘The Deep Hot Biosphere’.*

In this guest blog post Louis Hissink explains the alternative theory, but begins by explaining how the current consensus came to be …

“Modern geological thinking remains wedded to its uniformitarian paradigm set up during the early nineteenth century when Charles Lyell, a Whig lawyer and amateur geologist, wrote his ‘Principles of Geology’ as a political work to refute the authority of the ruling Tories in England.

Rather than refute his critics facts with evidence, Lyell used his skills as a lawyer to convert his opponents by the art of persuasion, and his ‘Principles of Geology’ the main weapon.

Until then, geology was limited by the constraints of the Christian bible. There was a belief in one original catastrophe, the Noachian flood, which occurred during the recent geological past.

George Grinnell in his paper ‘The Origins of Modern Geological Theory’ describes the political circumstances that prompted the adoption of Lyellian doctrine or uniformitarianism that dominates modern geology thinking to this day.

Lyell’s Principles allowed the clerical geologists of his day to have their cake but also to eat it.

What Lyell did was to shift Biblical creation from its Ussherian date of 4004 BC to some more distant time by interposing an arbitrary period of geological time during which miracles could be invoked to explain geological observations under the principle that anything becomes possible if enough time is allocated. Lyell also dismissed the Old Testament as literature rather than a badly interpreted historical account of the Jewish Peoples and finally banished biblical catastrophism from the nascent science of geology.

When Lyell went to North America he visited the famous Horseshoe Falls (Niagara Falls) and asked a native at what rate the falls were receding. The native American answered that the rate was some 3 -4 feet per year. Lyell, however, assumed that as natives of a country tend to exaggerate their country’s facts then the quoted rate was too high and arbitrarily reduced it to 1 foot per year, subsequently establishing the date of the last ice-age at some 10,000 years past.

Is this relevant to abiotic oil? Yes because it demonstrates how the empirically obvious is changed by persuasive argument. Much of geology relies on the Lyellian system of persuasian and biogenic oil theory is no exception.

The paramount axiom in geology is that the key to the past is the present. Which means that what we observe, and have observed, of natural forces operating on the surface of the planet, in a geological sense, must explain the past. If the key to the past is indeed the present, then somewhere on the surface of the earth there must exist modern day precursors of the ancient coal seams and petroleum deposits — accumulations of vegetable and organic masses in sedimentary basins, pre-fossil deposits as it were — to produce tomorrow’s coal and oil.

It is generally assumed that the Pacific Ocean is of Jurassic age but no widespread accumulations of organic detritus have been found on the seafloor or in its thin sedimentary cover, and equally so for the other seas over the earth. Nor are there any enormous ever increasing accumulations of organic material on the land surfaces comprising dead animals or forests. Of course a minor amount of organic detritus does accumulate in the existing sediments today, but not at sufficient quantities to allow the interpretation that one day in the future oil will be produced from them. How could so much oil be produced from so few organisms?

But it is an irrefutable fact that the earth’s biosphere is continually recycling itself, whether via the plant or animal kingdoms and nowhere are deposits of organic material that could be the future coal and oil deposits forming. If petroleum is truly biotic, then enormous masses of organic material must be accumulating somewhere on the earth’s surface to form future oils. Why don’t we see them? Could the biogenic oil theory be wrong?

In the geological record the past mass extinctions of the biosphere of both plant an animal, are preserved with amazing fidelity in the sedimentary strata except that there are no coal and oil deposits associated with these fossils.

Strange, fossils that are not oil.

Of course coal has abundant plant remnants in it but as Tommy Gold pointed out, if coal is the result of compressing hundreds of meters of vegetation debris, then we certainly should not see undeformed tree trunks passing through the coal seams.

Unfortunately Christian fundamentalists have produced most of the scientific evidence for this, guaranteeing it will not be considered as “scientific” evidence. It is not so much the evidence as the interpretation of that evidence which is problematical.

This is a serious problem for the fossil fuel theory – just how are these enormous deposits of petroleum formed from organic material, given that we are not observing any modern day accumulation of organic material. (That minor plankton debris in sediments is capable of accumulation in the sedimentary basins requires a serious stretch of the imagination to produce the trillions of barrels of oil so far discovered). Does this then mean that it occurred in the geological past but not during the present? This is a violation of the key geological paradigm – that the present can explain the past.

Just how much oil do we have?

According to the US Geological Survey, “the earth currently has more than three trillion barrels of conventional, recoverable oil resources of which 1 trillion has already been produced” according to Mark Nolan, chairman of ExxonMobil addressing the Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference in Sydney during September 2006.

Now how much organic material has had to accumulate over geological time to yield these enormous oil reserves. It means living organisms being continuously created on the surface of the earth but then removed from their environment to form deposits of organic matter in ancient sediments where they can be preserved. We do not observe this occurring today so how could we assume that it happened in the past?

Furthermore, surely there must also be ancient deposits of organic material not yet converted to oil in the stratigraphical record too, but no, no such deposits have been discovered. And in any case how are fossils formed in the first place? Again we do not see them forming today. Animals die, decompose and are recycled into the biosphere.

However, in order to form a fossil, all biological processes have to cease to allow preservation. If putrefaction is allowed to proceed, the animal rots and disintegrates back into its environment. The quickest way to form a fossil from a living animal is to take it rapidly away from its normal environment and place it in an alien one so a snake in a tropical rainforest will be rapidly fossilised if quickly placed in the Antarctic.

So how does one accumulate tens of trillions of tonnes of organic matter in sediments without putrefaction or recycling in the biosphere to form the vast deposits that are then transformed into petroleum.

The only reason petroleum is called a fossil fuel is because it contains organic debris but it is quite obvious that if petroleum is abiotic and derived from the mantle, then as an excellent solvent of organic material, up-welling hydrocarbons will naturally incorporate the organic debris found in sedimentary rocks.

Another argument is that no oil has been found in the crystalline basement regions of the earth. Hardly surprising when the majority of petroleum geologists believe in biogenic oil and thus only look for it in sedimentary rocks. They have not found oil in granite simply because they have not drilled granite for oil on the basis of preconceived ideas that it is not possible. Unfortunately for the fossil fuelers petroleum is being found and commercially extracted in fractured granite basement off Vietnam.

According to this website: “ Since its foundation VIETSOVPETRO has drilled over 140 thousand meters of exploration and 800 thousand meters of production wells. As a result of this seven oil fields were discovered, the largest are White Tiger, Dragon and Dai Hung that are already operated by the Joint Venture. White Tiger is so far the largest oil field on the continental shelf of Vietnam. Main reserve of this oil field is concentrated in fractured granite basement that is unique in the world oil and gas production practice”.

Robert O. Russell, a wellsite geologist who drilled into crystalline basement granitic shield rocks for the express purpose of commercial hydrocarbon exploration at Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada, has pointed out that there are more than 400 wells and fields worldwide, both off-shore and on-shore that produce or have recently produced oil from igneous rocks.

This fact alone indicates that many aspects relating to the origin of petroleum need to be revised.

Thomas Gold, a distinguished proponent of the non-organic theory, has expanded the application of the non-organic theory to all hydrocarbons, including coal.

An international conference on ‘Oil in Granite’ was held recently in Kazan, Tatarstan, Russia. One of the papers by Kosachev et al. from the Institute of Organic Physics and Chemistry, Russian Academy of Sciences, Kazan, concluded that much evidence existed in favour of the non-organic theory, and that viable mechanisms for the creation of migration pathways existed.

Recently, C. Warren Hunt, a geologist of the Anhydride Oil Corporation, Calgary, Canada, has proposed a variant of the non-organic theory. Hunt sets forth the notion that up-welling deep non-organic methane is bacterially modified into petroleum at shallow depths.

There is one other difficulty with the fossil-fuel theory, the violation of the second law of thermodynamics. The only hydrocarbon that can be created at the pressures and depths of the sedimentary basins is methane. Yet by the use of vast amounts of geological time, modern geology asserts that somehow vast quantities of organic debris, not observed accumulating anywhere, is converted to high order hydrocarbons by undefined processes. Saudi Crude, for example, which is essentially grease.

In summary, petroleum, or rock-oil, is not derived from the burial of organic debris in sedimentary basins. It is continually produced from the earth’s mantle as described by the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of abiotic oil. It is emphatically not a fossil fuel derived from dead dinosaurs and fish and no one has yet been able to generate petroleum (apart from methane) from organic matter at the temperatures and pressures at the base of sedimentary basins.“

————————–
* A full account of the Abiotic oil theory is presented at http://www.gasresources.net. C. Warren-Hunt has offered another origin for petroleum at http://www.polarpublishing.com/ .

Thanks Louis.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Energy & Nuclear

Best Hamburgers, Have Best New Oils

November 4, 2006 By jennifer

In the overall scheme of things, the most significant event for Australian agriculture this week was probably not the newest drought aid installment or the drought-breaking rains in south western Queensland. It was probably the decision by hamburger giant McDonald to change the cooking oil it uses in Australian outlets away from standard Australian canola, to healthier new oil blends with much less trans fat.

One way of creating a low trans fat crop variety is through biotechnology. But our farmers have rejected GM food crops. Indeed while Greenpeace championed the bans on new GM food crops in Australia, the NSW Farmers Association supported the legislation in that state. In Victoria it was the milk processors who came to the support of that state govenment as it gave in to the luddites.

Australian farmers, once trail blazers when it came to innovation and new technologies, are now dealing themselves out of the future. Indeed they still arguing about GM canola, a crop grown in Canada for 10 years now, while farmers in the US look forward to the next generation of GM crop varieties that will not only give superior yields and better weed control but also improved nutrition.

Indeed, and quoting Roger Kalla:

“In USA the labelling of the trans fat content in foods is already mandated by law. The low trans fat oils used in North America are derived from Duponts NUTRIUM™ Low Lin Soybean Oil , Monsantos VISTIVE Soybean oil and Dow Agrosciences Natreon Canola oil. We will see where McDonald’s will be sourcing their low transfat oils from in the future.

The Australian canola crop this year is predicted to be barley enough for domestic use of vegetable oil and the fraction of the crop that is of a suitable quality like Monola , marketed by Nutrihealth, will probably not be enough to meet the new demand. Australian farmers seem to be doubly disadvantaged this year with a major drought affecting yields and not having access to the quality oil seed that large end users of canola oil such as McDonald’s increasingly requires.“

I will be talking about Robert Malthus and banning food crops in my next Counterpoint column. If you live in Australia you will be able to hear it by tunning into ABC Radio National at 4pm on Monday, repeated 9pm on Tuesdays.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Food & Farming

Elephants Arrive Safely in Sydney

November 4, 2006 By jennifer

Four elephants have arrived safely in Sydney after two years of court battles and months in quarantine. They are from Thailand and probably destined to spend the rest of their lives behind bars at Taronga Park Zoo. But judging from these seven photographs, so far they are enjoying it.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Plants and Animals

Weekend Reading: More on the Stern Report

November 4, 2006 By jennifer

It was my plan to get out into the garden a bit this weekend. We have had beautiful weather lately here in Brisbane – clear skies, warm days and cool nights. This morning it’s raining – just nicely.

But the official forecast is for a climate crisis.

Indeed, the Stern report with its finding that we risk a global recession because of global warming has dominated media headlines in Australia this last week. According to Sir Nicolas Stern ‘the future’ will be worse than the two world wars and the great depression combined.

But, there were a few lone voices of reason out there, and getting published, and suggesting, that the Stern warning will join Paul Ehrlich’s The Population Bomb and the Club of Rome’s Limits to Growth in “the pantheon of big banana scares that proved to be unfounded”.

Following are three published opinion pieces from three friends of mine:

1. Stern Review: The dodgy numbers behind the latest warming scare
By Bjorn Lomborg
Thursday, 2 November 2006

THE report on climate change by Nicholas Stern and the U.K. government has sparked publicity and scary headlines around the world. Much attention has been devoted to Mr. Stern’s core argument that the price of inaction would be extraordinary and the cost of action modest.

Unfortunately, this claim falls apart when one actually reads the 700-page tome. Despite using many good references, the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change is selective and its conclusion flawed. Its fear-mongering arguments have been sensationalized, which is ultimately only likely to make the world worse off. Read the full article here: http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009182

2. British report the last hurrah of warmaholics
By Bob Carter
Friday, 3 November 2006

NICHOLAS Stern is a distinguished economist. Climate change is a complex, uncertain and contentious scientific issue. Have you spotted the problem with the Stern review yet?

An accomplished cost-benefit analysis of climate change would require two things: a clear, quantitative understanding of the natural climate system and a dispassionate, accurate consideration of all the costs and benefits of warming as well as cooling.

Unfortunately, the Stern review is not a cost-benefit but a risk analysis, and of warming only. Read the full article here: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20690289-7583,00.html

3. The Alternatives Are Too Costly
By Alan Moran
Thursday, 2 November 2006

THE Stern report and its associated intensified diplomatic push for carbon restraints is already having an effect on policy. In Britain the Opposition Leader has announced that if he wins government he will place a windmill on the roof of Number 10 Downing Street. In anticipation of the report, additional subsidies were announced in Australia for exotic and very expensive renewable energy. Australian total taxes, subsidies and other regulatory measures aimed at combating emissions of carbon dioxide will approach $1 billion a year by 2010 even if no further measures are introduced. Read the full article here: http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/the-alternatives-are-too-costly/2006/11/01/1162339917976.html

But The Age left out the most important part of Alan’s piece, the graph. Here it is:

energy Alan costs with tax.JPG

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Climate & Climate Change, Energy & Nuclear

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 4
  • Go to page 5
  • Go to page 6
  • Go to page 7
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Recent Comments

  • Ian Thomson on Vax-ed as Sick as Unvax-ed, Amongst My Friends
  • Dave Ross on Vax-ed as Sick as Unvax-ed, Amongst My Friends
  • Dave Ross on Vax-ed as Sick as Unvax-ed, Amongst My Friends
  • Alex on Incarceration Nation: Frightened of Ivermectin, and Dihydrogen monoxide
  • Wilhelm Grimm III on Incarceration Nation: Frightened of Ivermectin, and Dihydrogen monoxide

Subscribe For News Updates

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

November 2006
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930  
« Oct   Dec »

Archives

Footer

About Me

Jennifer Marohasy Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD has worked in industry and government. She is currently researching a novel technique for long-range weather forecasting funded by the B. Macfie Family Foundation. Read more

Subscribe For News Updates

Subscribe Me

Contact Me

To get in touch with Jennifer call 0418873222 or international call +61418873222.

Email: jennifermarohasy at gmail.com

Connect With Me

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Copyright © 2014 - 2018 Jennifer Marohasy. All rights reserved. | Legal

Website by 46digital