Matt Simmons Has Died

[Ruby the Liberal]

Source: Business Insider vis CNBC

Prominent oil investor Matt Simmons died of a heart attack last night at his home in North Haven, Maine, according to police reports.
The famed energy banker was a prominent proponent of peak oil theory, and most recently got attention for his dire calls about the fate of the Gulf of Mexico.

The debate about the effect of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill -- he thought it would be cataclysmic -- lead him to split with his old firm, Simmons & Co., of which he was the chairman emeritus.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/matt-simmons-dies-2010-8

[xchrom]

1. Peace be with his family and friends at this time. Nt

[FedUpWithIt All]

2. RIP Mr. Simmons

Damn. That is some crazy timing.

Edited to add that i am confused. Some sources are saying he was found dead in his pool.

[Imajika]

3. Very sad...

Well, his claim that "we've now killed the Gulf of Mexico" looks to have been ridiculously wrong. Might make people consider how incorrect his views on "Peak Oil" may turn out being too.

[depakid]

4. Actually what it makes me wonder is whether his medical condition

affected his mental processes in his final months.

On peak oil, his and others previous assessments still stand, based on both common sense and the math. The only questions are when and how fast we run down the depletion curve.

[janedum]

30. IMHO, it was pretty OBVIOUS he was ill. In last video he looked AWFUL.

[FedUpWithIt All]

5. Are you kidding?

You think he was wrong when he said that we were "killing the Gulf" by saturating it with over 200,000,000 gallons of toxic chemicals? Really...you must be joking.

[alfredo]

10. Because the gulf is not a closed system, it might be killed for now

but to hasten its rebirth, we must stop dumping poisons in it.

[Imajika]

36. It's not killed for now either...

Where do these bizarre ideas come from?

We are talking about a giant body of water that is as alive today as it was a year ago.

Too many people here suck up the media hype and start churning out stuff that is beyond ridiculous.

The Gulf is NOT dead. It is not killed. In the grand scheme of things, it's barely even wounded. The Gulf suffered some damage, but will recover quickly. It is a HUGE body of water. This is not a tanker dumping its oil out on a beach, this is a well 50 miles out in the ocean and over a mile down. As unfortunate as ANY damage is to our environment, writing off the Gulf as some "killed" body of water is beyond silly. People who say this stuff sound completely ignorant.

[alfredo]

43. I don't believe the gulf is dead, but I feel it is in a sad shape and needs

Us to clean up our act.

[Imajika]

11. What he said is...

"And unfortunately, we now have killed the Gulf of Mexico.”

This is simply not even remotely close to being true. We have not killed the Gulf of Mexico. We did not even come close to killing the Gulf of Mexico. What is it some people just don't seem to get about how massive a body of water that is?

Anyway, he was laughable wrong on that statement.

I didn't say the Gulf was not damaged. I did not even say the Gulf has not been more damaged than scientists currently understand. What I am saying is we most assuredly did NOT kill the Gulf of Mexico. In fact, my guess is this time next year we will have to look really hard to find much damage at all.

[niyad]

16. you are making a lot of assertions. perhaps you could provide links to back up those assertions?

[maddezmom]

18. not picking sides here and I'm not sure an obit thread is the best place to be

digging through someone's life but there is a lot of stuff out there that critiques his comments/analysis about the gulf.

here is one that might be useful:
http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2010/07/23/is-matt-simmons-credible/

[niyad]

26. self-delete

[Joe Chi Minh]

25. "Pass".

[Imajika]

33. Why do I need to bother?

Is the Gulf dead? No. Is the Gulf even close to being dead? No.

Here is Simmons saying we "killed the Gulf" on Bloomberg.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDfafDtTIuw

Anything more you need?

[JDPriestly]

50. Yes. The scientific authorities' explanations about just what is happening

in the Gulf. And more information about your experience and expertise. What makes you so sure of your information?

[The Stranger]

54. I guess it depends upon what the fuck you consider to be "dead" and "alive."

If you're here telling us that there is still at least one living organism in the Gulf of Mexico, then no, it is not dead. That's great.

But give us a fucking break. Millions of gallons of a toxic chemical flowed into the ecosystems of the Gulf of Mexico. The implications and consequences of this will not be completely known for a decade, at the very least. There is already a growing dead zone of no life in the Gulf that is apparently being exacerbated by the millions of gallons of additional oil. Dead animals have washed up on beaches. We have seen them. We know why they were killed.

I mean, come the fuck on.

[truedelphi]

59. + 1. n/t

[FedUpWithIt All]

31. And they knew that that well, that riser, would finally deplete. And then they could say it’s over.

Here is what he really said IN CONTEXT.

"What we don’t know anything about is the open hole which is caused by the drill bit when it tossed the blow-out preventer way out of the hole…and 120,000 minimum of toxic poison has now covered the floor of the Gulf of Mexico. So what they’re talking about is the biggest environmental cover-up ever. And they knew that that well, that riser, would finally deplete. And then they could say it’s over. And unfortunately, we now have killed the Gulf of Mexico.”

Interesting in light of the fact that the riser did stop flowing and BP is now ridiculously claiming that it is "all over" in the same week that Mr. Simmons dies from a heart attack/drowning in his pool/hot tub.

http://www.businessinsider.com/matthew-simmons-we-now-have-killed-the-gulf-of-mexico-2010-7

[Veilex]

39. You guys seem to be missing the point....

It doesn't matter who's perception is right on if the gulf has "Been killed" or not. There has been an excessive amount of a toxic substance released into the gulf. It may be ok within a year and it may not. Regardless, we effectively have someone who just defecated where we eat (assuming you like crab, shrimp or any other form os seafood that normally comes from the gulf). What we know is we will have to deal with this for at the very least, the next year.

Dispersants in the water (particularly corexit) have ensured that the water is more toxic to humans than ever before. The oil and the dispersant WILL become part of the ecosystem and the food-chain. Chances are very good that the chemical evaporant, such as benzene, will be be swept onshore by weather, which will impact land-based crops and life in general.

Maybe this is temporary... maybe it isn't. The fact of the matter is this: We don't have the luxury to find out which it is. We only have the one planet. If we guess and guess wrong, we have to live (hopefully) with the consequence.

Being that our collective understanding about this style of problem is very limited, we really shouldn't have been forced into taking this type of risk.

Just my 2cp

[Phil The Cat]

42. Right Wing Fools Talk About Dilution and Germs

I read that the Gulf has 640 Quadrillion gallons of water, and that 200 million gallons leaked into it, so the Gulf has 320 Million times as much seawater as oil! And that there were bacteria and fungi which have evolve over the eons to eat the oil that naturally seeps from the seafloor!

But even if so, then aren't the bacteria poisonous after eating oil? And then won't they will use up all the oxygen in the water and infect the other animals in the Gulf? The Gulf Of Mexico filled with a poisonous disease - thanks BP!

Corporate whores are killing the earth for money greed and power! Jail them all and give their money and stuff back to the people they stole it from after cleaning up the messes!

[northernlights]

12. he made very, very extreme (false and dangerous) claims

he stated very early on, straight out, that the only way to plug it was to nuke it. He also kept claiming that it was leaking 6 miles away (and 20 miles away and another distance) under the seabed and the whole thing was going to collapse.

Had his advice on nuking it been followed (luckily it was never considered) the *entire* gulf would have been killed, along with anybody in the path of the ensuing disaster.

The timing of his death really is pretty striking.

[TheWraith]

13. You're grossly misrepresenting the science of his suggestions.

Now, I don't agree with his statements, but the idea that using a nuclear device to fuse the rock would kill the entire Gulf of Mexico and anyone nearby is laughably bad science, and it's completely unsupportable.

[northernlights]

20. um, no I am not

As one actual geologist *working on site* wrote, there was no way to get a nuclear device down the well and keep it there. (Kunstler posted the email he received in response to his blog "What if he's right?" back in August.) As another (nuclear physicist) put it, the only thing worse than radioactive fallout on the region would be radioactive oily fallout on the region. Or something to that effect.


The Soviets (possible) success with this was done *on land.* Attempting to nuke the well closed with zero experience at a mile underwater was a catastrophe in the making. That's why it was not done or even considered by reasonable scientists. I mean, even nuclear physicist Dr. Chu -- who was in a position to say go for it -- didn't consider it. Only by a few nutjobs on the internet.

[TheWraith]

37. I call bullshit.

"As one actual geologist *working on site* wrote, there was no way to get a nuclear device down the well and keep it there."

Assuming, of course, that you felt the need to actually jam the thing all the way down the pipe. Which would still not be impossible given the pipe's diameter of 22 inches, and the fact that nuclear devices come with a diameter of as little as 11 inches.

"As another (nuclear physicist) put it, the only thing worse than radioactive fallout on the region would be radioactive oily fallout on the region. Or something to that effect."

Except that a nuclear detonation a mile underwater wouldn't produce any fallout. Do you even know what that word means? Please explain how it would produce fallout. Also how it would kill the entire Gulf of Mexico and all the people around it. In detail.

[Mojorabbit]

55. I read the article

the physicist was quoted in and his point was re the half life of the components of a nuke which would be present in the gulf after such a detonation.

[TheWraith]

60. Then he's an alarmist.

The radiological threat of a single nuclear detonation is extremely short-lived, and the gulf is a damn big place. Does everyone forget that we've detonated hundreds of nukes over the years, above ground, below ground, and yes, underwater? Operation WIGWAM, a 30 kiloton detonation 2,000 feet below the surface of the ocean. Radiological effects were negligible. Only three people on the test crews received doses over 0.5 REM. To give a sense of scale, radiation poisoning starts at 100 REM.

[northernlights]

63. Matt Simmons was the alarmist

He claimed, repeatedly, that the ONLY way to stop the gusher was with a nuke. That they would NEVER be able to stop the gusher in any other way. And that the cap, top kill, static kill, bottom kill and the relief well would result in the seabed collapsing.

He appears to have been proved wrong. The new cap has worked, static kill is working, the seabed hasn't collapsed. The timing of his death suggests that, having put himself out there on record, in writing, repeatedly spewing doomsday prophcies, and subsequently being proved wrong was a little too much for him to take...

[northernlights]

57. I call bullshit back'atcha

The geologist's letter was (and probably still is) posted at Kunstler's site, and the issue wasn't the diameter of a nuclear device. It was the pressure of the oil spewing *out* of the pipe. If they could have pushed a device down there and kept it down, then top kill would have worked and they wouldn't have needed a nuke or any other explosive. They needed to get the thing far enough down the pipe to cause the bed to collapse in on itself, which could not be done.

I think you meant a detonation under the seabed, not underwater. Or maybe you DID mean under WATER. In which case, YOU explain how a detonation under water -- even deep water -- would seal the well. :rofl:

They would have had to gotten a nuclear device deep enough into the seabed to collapse the seabed in on itself. It is more likely they would have blown up a chunk of the seabed and produced fallout from that. Not to mention the potential damage to other wells in the area.

[TheWraith]

61. There's a world of difference between shoving a small bomb down a billowing pipe...

...and trying to completely plug that pipe with slurry. The oil would still be able to flow around the bomb even as it was pushed down, making it not a question of pressure but of hydrodynamics.

As far as the seabed goes, I'd have liked to see a test performed elsewhere to see if, as I suspect, the detonation of a bomb on the seafloor would superheat the rock sufficiently to liquefy it and fuse it back into a single mass--without the hole.

"It is more likely they would have blown up a chunk of the seabed and produced fallout from that."

Once again... underwater detonation does not produce fallout. It can't, by definition. Fallout is radioactive microparticles being carried on the heat plume into the upper atmosphere, then falling out--hence the name. No atmosphere, no heat plume, no fallout.

[northernlights]

64. well Dr. Chu had his chance for your "experiment"

and apparently chose to pass it up, even though they had months to put it together.

Again -- the explosion would NOT BE JUST UNDERWATER. IT HAD TO BE IN OR UNDER THE SEABED. AND IN THAT SITUATION, IF YOUR EXPERIMENT FAILED, THERE WOULD BE RADIOACTIVE MICROPARTICLES. AND THERE IS AN ATMOSPHERE. AND THERE WOULD BE A HEAT PLUME.

Personally, I would prefer not to see such an experiment and am glad that the people in charge chose to ignore Matt Simmons (and apparently you, as well).

[greiner3]

24. As for your asertion that the claims of other leaks;

Might very well be true. What is the name of your ROV? The entire gulf has been killed. It will take millennia to repair what happened in only days.

As for a possible collapse, I wish you could live for 200 or more years.

[northernlights]

32. the other leaks from miles away

were already known, and known to be from other sources than this well. Which reminds me of yet another reason why Simpson's insistance that only nuking the well would shut it down was so stupid -- like that size explosion wouldn't impact nearby wells and cracks in the seabed...

The entire gulf has not been killed. Damaged -- yes. A swath of it rendered a dead zone -- yes. Several hundred miles of marsh killed -- yes. But the entire gulf? bbut no, it has not been killed.


As to your "wish, I don't wish to live another 200 years, and happily I'm more likely to get my wish that you are to get yours.

And in another 200 years, probably much of life as we know it on earth will be dead and/or extinct, due to runaway climate change. So I truly don't get your point...

[jobycom]

35. Are you kidding? You think asking if someone is kidding is a valid argument

that actually strengthens your point? You must be joking.

He was wrong when he claimed that the Gulf was 40% dead and beyond recovery. He was wrong when he said there was a rupture leaking oil besides the pipe. He was dead and dangerously wrong when he said the only solution would be to set off a nuke underground to plug the well.

For that matter he's been wrong every time he's made a specific claim or prediction. He lost high profile bets by predicting oil shortages, oil prices, and just about everything else he ever said. Sure, if you take the view that we will one day run out of oil, and that even if that is 200 years from now it still vindicates his peak oil claims, you can argue that he's not wrong about that. But his timetable was wrong, over and over again.

I'm saddened by his death, and hope he rests in peace. His claims were never malicious, nor were they meant to harm anyone. He probably believed what he said, and even if his claims were off, his goals of a cleaner environment and less dependence on foreign oil were noble. But don't generalize his claims so much that they appear true. Sure, dumping oils and chemicals into the Gulf is going to have negative affects, just like you and I typing these words into our computers adds to the pollution of the environment. But most of his specific claims were wrong.

I hope he rests in peace, and condolences to his family and friends.

[OnyxCollie]

6. So there shouldn't be any more studies

of undersea damage from the oil spill because, according to your magical thinking, everything is all OK.

Oil gushes into the Gulf for three months- Presto! There is no damage.

Toxic dispersant is used by BP to cover up the amount of oil spilled- Abracadabra! There is no damage.

You should take that act on the road.

[zipplewrath]

7. There is a wide "gulf"

Excuse the pun, but there is a wide gulf between the two options of "we killed the gulf" and "everything is okay".

I suspect the gulf has been permanently altered, for the worse really. That's a long way from having "killed" it. The gulf will continue to exist and support life. The long term damage from general human activity is probably greater than the effect of this disasterous and horrific spill.

[NickB79]

8. We already killed large portions of the Gulf of Mexico with fertilizer-created dead zones

We were already in the process of permanently altering the Gulf before the oil spill. The spill simply added a new facet to the process.

[zipplewrath]

27. Yup

Alone, it might have been a "temporary" effect. We've already done so much damage before the spill that it isn't even clear anymore what a "natural" gulf would look like, much less what we should be striving for in the "clean up". We're going to end up just trying to build something that is self sustaining, pretty much regardless of whether it ever existed "before".

[naaman fletcher]

17. Interesting post

Your post is interesting for how completely illogical it is.

Example 1:

so there shouldn't be any more stuidies...

No where did the poster say that there should not be any more studies.

Example 2:

according to your magical thinking, everything is all OK.

Nowhere did the poster say everything is ok. The poster said that the statement "we killed it" was false, which it obviously is as despite all the damage there is still plenty of wildlife and sealife.

Example 3:

Toxic dispersant is used by BP to cover up the amount of oil spilled- Abracadabra! There is no damage.

Nowhere did the poster say that there was no damage.

Is it possible that you meant to send this reply to another thread where somebody said the gulf experienced no damage, everything is ok, and there shouldn't be anymore studies?

[OnyxCollie]

21. You are correct for pointing out my argumentative fallacies.

It was a cheap shot and I deserved to be called on it.

I just find it a little premature to dismiss the impact whether one agrees with Matt Simmons or not.

[naaman fletcher]

22. my personal opinion..

Is that it is really, really, bad, but that it thankfully has not turned out to be what our worst fears were. Of course, we don't know the extent to which oil has evaporated, vs. its just lying on the bottom of the ocean because of the corexit.

[niyad]

29. the point is, we don't KNOW how bad it is, and will be. take a look at prince william sound

which has never recovered, and didn't suffer nearly the amount of oil or dispersant. the colony fails didn't happen in the first year, but in succeeding years.

yes, I hope simmons is wrong, but, given what we have seen in prince william sound, amoung others, I rather doubt it.

[naaman fletcher]

38. fair enough. nt

[No Elephants]

62. Admissions of that kind are almost non-existent on message boards. Respect.

:applause:

[glitch]

9. That point is certainly getting a lot of play in the businessinsider comments.

Bit too obvious, IMO.

[niyad]

15. you are joking, right? you think the gulf is in great shape? take a look at

prince william sound, 21 years later.

[naaman fletcher]

19. Where did the poster say that?

Was the post edited or something? People keep accusing him of saying "everything is ok", "there is no damage", and in this case "you think the gulf is in great shape?". nowhere did he say that. Did he perhaps say it earlier and then edit his post? Or are you guys all posting illogical responses to what he said?

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Divine Discontent]

45. uh... just because the water is still there (shock) doesn't mean that millions of aquatic life

weren't slaughtered. Have you WATCHED the reports of people going down under and finding piles of dead sea-life? BP put a huge hurting on the Gulf, and frankly, your post is much more ridiculously wrong than he was. The effects of Corexit and 100+ million gallons of oil will be ruining the Gulf for a long time.

[JDPriestly]

49. How can you be so certain, Imajika?

What expertise do you have on the subject of oil? Have you ever worked for an oil company? A chemical company? Why are you so certain?

Because I am not so certain. And I would like to know what the scientific evidence is that, considering the amount of oil spilled, the fragile ecosystem in the Gulf, the chemicals that were used to disperse the oil and suddenness of the release of the oil, that the reassuring reports we hear are true. The government lies to us about everything else, why not about this? And BP? They lied to us over and over. Why should they now suddenly tell the truth?

We are told not to worry since bacteria has developed that eats oil. But what I am wondering is what happens when there is so much oil released at once. Will the bacteria take over? Will it create new problems? How serious will they be?

And the chemicals that dispersed the oil. Do we know how much of them was placed in the water and oil mixture? Are we sure we know what will happen to the dispersant and the oil? Does the bacteria that supposedly will eat the oil also eat the dispersant? Will the dispersant break down into other chemicals, form new compounds in the Gulf? Just what is going on from a biological and chemical point of view down there? And, again, how can anyone really predict what will happen considering the size of the spill and the speed of the leak?

[zenj8]

51. He wasn't wrong at all...

We just don't the extent of the damage yet.

[valerief]

14. He didn't look that old. nt

[mainer]

28. I think he was in his late 60's. n/t

[TheWatcher]

34. Heart Attack or Drowning?

There seem to be conflicting Reports.

http://www.wlbz2.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=123586&catid=3

[truth2power]

40. Here's some discussion about him, on the Oil Drum,...

back in July.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6759#comment-684525

I knew I'd seen his name mentioned there, somewhere. Some discussion about whether he suffered from dementia.

Just sayin'. I have no technical expertise on any of his GOM theories.

[Doremus]

44. If he had dementia, I am acephalic.

I saw him interviewed shortly after the Gulf crisis began.

He was no more suffering from dementia than you or I.

[truth2power]

48. Just to be clear..I didn't say he did. I just remembered his name

from my lurking at The Oil Drum. At the time I didn't even know who he was.

JMHO, but the truly catastrophic consequences of the GOM disaster will be with us for many decades.

I'm still looking for more info on a pic someone posted on DU of an earth loader dumping a huge pile of bags, allegedly containing dead birds, dolphins etc. Supposedly BP dumped all the dead animals off-site and later took them to a landfill.

Methinks that's why they didn't want the public, with their annoying cameras, near the beaches.

Thugs! If they don't stop running that execrable PSA I'm gonna destroy my TV.

[Junkdrawer]

41. That'll learn him n/t

[femrap]

46. RIP....

hopefully, his ideas will continue. The Oil Boyz didn't like him much....he said the BP leak was continuing thru the seabed.

[mstinamotorcity]

47. I think there has been

quite a bit of damage to the eco system that we don't know and probably won't find out until later on down the years when people along the gulf coast come up with a syndrome or disease that they will trace its early signs back to this oil spill.As for Matt Simmons he is hardly a reputable source of truthful information and has no credibility. Not many bankers or investment bankers really do, look at wall street.I think the gulf suffering any damage is too much and our dependence on oil and other products made from it need to be drastically reduced to save our planet for our children and grandchildren and generations to come. My heart and faith based signals go out to the people of the region. Especially since republicans want to start back drilling as soon as possible without making sure all safety measures are in place with other oil rigs that are in the gulf so that this won't happen again.

[Mojorabbit]

52. Oh no......RIP Mr. Simmons. nt

[Odin2005]

53. Oh no!

:(

[katty]

56. bye Matt-thank you for telling the truth

[CLANG]

58. Hot dog!

RIP, Mathew Simmons...