The Ostrich Head

Tokyo Electric Power: A history of lies, denial and safety infringements now leads to disaster

    At first it was minor damage.  Then the "possibility" of a release of small amounts of contaminated steam that posed "no significant health risk." 

    Now, as a third explosion rips through Tokyo Electric's reactors and a fourth one catches fire, the company and national authorities continues to deny that there's any significant risk.  They're a bunch of liars.

 

    This isn't new.  A radiation leak at a uranium processing plant in Tokaimura in 1999 that killed 2 and irradiated 600 had the public skeptical about whether Tokyo Electric actually took safety seriously.  Sure enough, in 2002 it came to light that Tokyo Electric Power Company had faked safety reports since the 1980s.  

    In one of the most shocking ones, brought to light by Wikileaks, the company injected air into the containment area of the Fukushima reactor (yup, the one now leaking like a sieve) to artificially lower the leak rate.

    Then in February 2003, eight workers were accidentally sprayed with radioactive water.  Oops.  Wrong hose.

    Senior management was shuffled around, the Chairman was forced out, and the company temporarily closed all 17 of its plants in 2003.

    … and nothing changed.

    This is nuclear power we're talking about.  Not some kid's fun ride that could hurt a dozen people and some bystanders. 

    So the company promised to clean up its act and be safe.  Sure.  For a whole year.

    One year later, in August 2004, blasts of radioactive steam killed four workers and severely burned 7 others.  But the company vowed to make sure its nuclear facilities were actually safe.  I mean, really, really safe.  Especially against radiation leaks in one of the most earthquake prone countries in the world.

    Then, come 2007, the largest nuclear reactor in the world was hit by an earthquake with magnitude 6.8.  That, on the logarithmic Richter Scale, means it was less than 1/100^th the size of the most recent 8.9 magnitude earthquake.  

    Once again, the plant sent plumes of contaminated steam into the air and spilled 317 gallons of contaminated water.  

    The president of the Japan Nuclear Technology Institute was quick to criticize Tokyo Electric: "The plant did an excellent job of ensuring the safety of the reactors."  Say what?  Oh, a minor earthquake the shut them down, caused a fire, and leaked radiation into the sea and atmosphere… ensured the safety of the reactors?

    But to his credit, he did question why Tokyo Power would build a reactor on a fault line.  I think in grade one in primary school my teacher said, "Now remember, children, ever build a nuclear reactor on a known fault line.  And if you do, make damn sure it's earthquake proof."  I think she added, "And don't build it near the coast in the path of tsunamis.  That's a Japanese word, so they must have a lot of them over there."

    Naturally, after the 2007 earthquake, the Japanese government set up a committee to set new guidelines to earthquake-proof the rest of Japan's nuclear reactors.  So the committee set guidelines that looked more stringent, but didn't affect any of the existing plants or force them to increase safety standards.

    One member of the committee, who in a very un-Japanese style outburst, resigned in disgust saying, "The new guidelines are very insufficient and have loopholes."

    His critics responded with their own detailed incident analysis: "The Kashiwazaki plant was just unlucky."

    It also resulted in 50 unlucky cases of water leakage, fire and other problems at the seven reactors.  Well heck, you can't get unluckier than building on an earthquake fault-line.

    Oh, except building in the path of a tsunami.

    Damn unlucky.  A tsunami hasn't ever hit Japan except for an unlucky one in 1993.  And another unlucky one in 1983.  And in 1952, 1946, 1923…  

    But the new guidelines simply ignored the possibility of luck and stuck to proper issues, with the attitude of crossing that bridge when it got washed away.

 

    But back to Tokyo Power and The Authorities…

    According to Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano yesterday, there's little or no health danger from radiation outside the 12-mile evacuation zone. 

    This is slightly better than Tokyo Electric.  The only thing on its website that would make you even suspect there was a major problem was this little announcement:

At approximately 6:00am, a loud explosion was heard from within the
power station. Afterwards, it was confirmed that the 4th floor rooftop
area of the Unit 4 Nuclear Reactor Building had sustained damage.

 After usage, fuel is stored in a pool designated for spent fuel.
Plant conditions as well as potential outside radiation effects
are currently under investigation.

TEPCO, along with other involved organizations, is doing its best to
contain the situation. Simultaneously, the surrounding environment
is being kept under constant surveillance.

 

    Talk about forthcoming!

    Meanwhile, the USS Ronald Reagan, operating 100 miles away -- eight times as far as the evacuation zone -- had to reposition because crew members were exposed to radiation.  

    A reporter friend of mine fresh from Japan once told me, "You can call up a Japanese in an office building with smoke billowing out of his window and he'll still insist that there's no fire and everything's under control.

    Well everything seem to be under control right now, according to the authorities.  They may change their tune at the first sign of a mushroom cloud.  Maybe.

 

  Update:  Not an effing chance.  Now, far greater levels of radiation are being found in water and the government's telling people, "But it's still safe for you.  Just not for babies."  But this is a one off.  Apparently there was a natural phenomenon that caused this.  Yup, the Science Ministry blamed it on the rain.

 

    And to make sure people know they're in no real danger, they raised the decontamination threshold from 6,000 cpm to 100,000 cpm.  Say what???

    That's the equivalent of raising the safe blood alcohol content for driving from 0.06% to 1%.  It's ludicrous.  It's insane.  The lies and the coverups are getting worse.

    Two nuclear plant workers were hospitalized with radiation injuries.  One wonders if they had been within the decontamination threshold.  

For news on the coverup and how bad this is really going to get, have a look at http://thekeytoeternity.blogspot.com/2011/03/worlds-worst-nuclear-disaster-newly.html

 

    Second update:  The Japanese government 

BP's oil spill costs will likely exceed $30 billion

    The sinking of Transocean's Deepwater Horizon, operated by BP, has resulted in an oil slick of around 80,000 barrels, and growing by 5,000 barrels a day -- and up to 25,000 a day by some estimates.

    The 5,000 barrels a day ($400,000 worth) is small change compared to the total costs.

   If we have a look at what we already know, we can find that total costs should exceed $30 billion:

    Oil production:  $1.5 billion

    BP will lose its entire production from these wells for the foreseeable future.  If we discount the revenues of $146 billion (at $80 a barrel) at 10%, we get $1.46 billion.  This is conservative given that BP's cost of finance is a fraction of this, and that oil prices are headed higher.

 

    Cleanup:  $8-10 billion

    Exxon spent around $2 billion cleaning up the Valdez disaster in Alaska in 1991.  After 19 years of inflation averaging 5% based on data from shadowstats (probably conservative given that energy company costs have climbed faster), this would be $5.05 billion. 

    Of course, we aren't comparing apples with apples right now.  When the Valdez struck Bligh Reef in Alaska, it spilled 250,000 barrels of oil into Prince William Sound -- a place so cold that oil remains very gooey and doesn't like to spread out too far.

    The Gulf of Mexico, however, is a nice warm 80°F (27°C).  This warms up the oil to a nice runny mess and helps it spread into a massive slick -- as the news programs never get sick of showing.

    So there will be a slick of around 100 miles square or more (10,000 square miles).  To put that in perspective, an oil skimmer travelling at a rapid 10 knots skimming a width of 300 feet would skim a respectable 18.2 million square feet per hour.  Not bad until you realize that 100 miles square is 279 billion square feet.  100 such skimmers could cover the area in just 60 days -- IF they existed, IF the weather permitted, and IF the oil were to stay in one spot.  They don't, the weather won't, and the oil won't.  Instead, it will be skimmed off beaches.  At great cost.

     Already BP is spending $6 million a day to clean up this mess, or an annualized $2 billion.  That's not bad considering they've only had 10 days to begin the cleanup.  Seriously, if FEMA were this fast, New Orleans would have made George Bush smell like roses.  This spending is obviously going to increase rapidly and keep going for a year or more.

    New well.  BP is drilling a new well to plug the leaking one.  No estimates on costs here yet, but a deep water rig with associated equipment typically costs around $1 million a day.  Conservatively, this would be costing BP closer to $2 million a day with contractors brought in a short notice.  That's another $120 million at least.

    In total, based on the cleanup cost of the Valdez and the increased complications of having warmer sea, BP's cost should head towards $8-10 billion.  That may well be conservative, given some other estimates put the cost at $12.5 billion.

 

    Lawyers and legal fees: $3 billion

    BP has hired a large law firm to send people out to everyone near by to buy them off.  Specifically, BP is offering up to $5,000 to coastal land owners and fishermen to waive their right to sue BP.  This is already backfiring and BP has agreed not to enforce the waivers already signed.  How's that for fast response?  Already getting waivers signed and now already backpedalling.  This is just one more thing that will blow up in their face.

    For the Valdez sinking, Exxon spent about $1 billion on legal fees.  Adjusting for inflation, that's around $2.5 billion.  And considering that there are a bunch more affected parties (Valdez was in Alaska after all), total legal costs could be double this.  

 

    Litigation and penalties

    This of course is the big one.  There are going to be dozens of lawsuits and probably one great big dirty tort case that will milk BP for billions.  If we ignore all the other settlements of a few million here and a few million there, and concentrate on the Big Two, it makes the numbers a little easier.

 

    Penalties: $2 billion

    In BP's most recent incident in Alaska, a pipeline leaked 5,000 barrels of oil, resulting in a criminal case (thanks to around 100 whistle-blowers) and fines of $20 million -- $4,000 a barrel.  If we assume a similar fine (which may be conservative given the public furore and presidential attention) for around 500,000 barrels , this should be around $2 billion.

 

    Litigation: $20 billion+

    Four class action suits have already been filed by the fishing industry.

    Either a class action or an action by the fishing industry should be able to net at least $2.5 billion in economic damages (the fishing industry is worth $2.4 billion a year).  BP is protected from this by the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund beyond the first $75 million and up to a maximum of $2.7 billion (although the trust only has funding worth $1.6 billion so far).

    If we assume BP gets the same treatment at court that Exxon did for the Valdez disaster (quite a conservative assumption considering the points below), BP will be ordered to pay punitive damages worth a year's profits, which in three of the past four years has been over $20 billion.

    This may balloon far higher because:

    1. It's a foreign company.  While we like to imagine that this doesn't make a difference, you only have to look at the difference between how Japanese Toyota and American companies CTS (who made the pedals) and Chrysler (same problem as Toyota) are and were being treated for the same sticky accelerator problem. 

    2. There are a growing number of reports about BP's negligence related to the Atlantis project in the Gulf.  This is even larger than the one that just sank.  Reports stating, for example,  that "95% of the underwater welds didn't receive final approval" seem pretty damning and wouldn't endear BP to a jury.

 

Total cost:  $33 billion

Adding up the costs (and being conservative) we get:

Lost production: $1.46

Clean-up: $8 billion

Penalties and fines: $2 billion

Legal fees: $3 billion

Lawsuits and settlements: $20 billion

A very conservative total: $34.5 billion

Emptying the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund completely: ($1.6 billion)

Total:  $32.9 billion

 

Cheers,

 

Peter.