
Brazil's gamble on deep water oil - yitchelle
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2015/jun/25/brazils-gamble-on-deep-water-oil-guanabara-bay
======
thanatropism
> “Guanabara Bay is a sacred place for us."

No it isn't.

I mean, everyone would like to see the mythical dolphins in our flag back. But
it's not like we're nature-worshipping Na'vi aliens. We've actually blown up
mountains and used them to pave much of the bay in order to build the actual
ground of the city from about... 1600-1980?

The "natural wonders" of Rio are largely works of engineering.

------
dredmorbius
Interesting story.

Killed by presentation.

Autoplay video and audio have no goddamned place on the Web. They violate W3C
recommendation.

Autoplay is bad for all users [http://www.punkchip.com/autoplay-is-bad-for-
all-users/](http://www.punkchip.com/autoplay-is-bad-for-all-users/)

 _Autoplay is a bad idea not just for accessibility but for usability and
general sanity while browsing. This article will explain what the problems
are, where to find backup for arguments and what you can do if autoplay is a
must have._

 _Autoplay of embedded audio and video clips is often requested from clients
for a number of reasons, one is to increase view /listen stats when an advert
is preceding it and fewer views can mean less revenue._

------
the8472
> Suggestions by climate campaigners that this reservoir of fossil fuel is a
> “carbon bomb” that should be left in the ground, are dismissed as hypocrisy.

Just because complaints may be hypocritical does not make them wrong.

Also, that sites layout/scrolling is terrible on a large screen. What happened
to simple paragraphs of text?

~~~
autokad
the idea that once a fossil fuel is burned that carbon stays in the atmosphere
forever is just plain wrong. the oceans absorb the carbon and put it right
back where it was - how do you think the oil formed in the first place? then
they add fear mongering about 'run away global warming' as if we'd become
venus, which is not possible with fossil fuels. earth has had MUCH higher
carbon %s in the atmosphere and ... here we are.

~~~
jofer
While this is technically true, it's important to recognize the difference in
timescales.

By burning fossil fuels, we're moving carbon from the lithosphere to the
atmosphere and hydrosphere. The biosphere can rapidly take in a finite amount
of CO2, but it's not a very large amount.

The main way (on geologic timescales) that it's taken back out of the
atmosphere/hydrosphere and put into the lithosphere is by carbonate deposition
(i.e. limestones). On human timescales, that may as well be forever.

~~~
autokad
creatures are made of carbon, lots of it. they absorb it, die, fall the the
bottom of the ocean. it happens quite fast, and the more carbon the more they
have to absorb the faster it happens.

if we were in such dire straits environmentally, Obama - being a liberal, and
having access to all the numbers and advisors, would have made that priority
#1.

What was his priority #1? forcing people to purchase health care. but wait,
was it priority #2? not even, immigration among other things seemed more
important.

~~~
jofer
Yes, the biosphere can rapidly remove carbon.

However, the total amount it can remove and store on geologic timescales is
very small.

The total amount of biomass on the planet is not that large compared to what
we're talking about. Furthermore, most organic matter decomposes and releases
the carbon back into the atmosphere. On geologic timescales, the biosphere is
not a major player in the carbon cycle.

I don't understand how politcs factors into this. This is basic science.

~~~
johnchristopher
He's calling the higher authority argument (Obama) by using the fact Obama
didn't act on this so he's right. That's funny because he dismisses that same
authority figure in the next sentence.

------
ramon
I don't think it's a gamble, it's a reality already. A lot of oil is already
from those reserves, the investment slowed down due to scandal and oil prices,
but when the prices go up again the investment will grow once more.

~~~
marcosdumay
You see, things are not that simple.

From the supply side, high extraction prices happen because the resource has a
low energy return on energy invested. This means that when prices go up, it's
economically interesting to buy products created with cheaper oil to sell more
expensive oil. But once the price stay high for a while, extraction prices get
up again. (It also means that it's double dumb to invest when prices are going
down - one of the causes of Petrobras problems.)

I don't have all the numbers, but from the little that I've got about "pré-
sal", it's EROEI is bigger than 1. That means that, yes, at some price level
it does become economically viable. It's just much higher than what you'll get
calculating extraction prices today.

At the demand side, lots and lots of people simply can not pay for expensive
oil. That means that when oil get sustainably expensive, its consumption will
be much smaller, and "pré-sal" will have to compete with much cheaper reserves
for those consumers. Yes, eventually there'll come a time when cheaper oil is
mostly gone, but we are not there yet.

------
mangeletti
Despite them being overbearing to some, I thought the music and sounds were
amazing on this article.

I'm not against of a new kind of media like this. It's subtle and elegant, and
very immersive.

~~~
yitchelle
I also like the immersive nature of it too. I think that there will be some
transition time from a lot of folks, transitioning from a "reading" stories
the web to "watching" stories the web.

------
garblegarble
I love that people are trying new ways to present journalism but I can't help
but think this would be much more engaging as a pure video piece (I could have
done without the tense background music while I'm reading paragraphs of text,
too!)

