Gulf coast

[dakotamouse]

The article says its been done before by the soviets, decades ago. Interesting. There should be some data somewhere on how well this worked and the enviornmental effects.

[madjack]

I've heard of the nuclear option but I don't think anyone in charge has considered it a real option...that would truly be an option of absolute last resort as in, a hurricane totally disrupts all recovery efforts at the same time the well totally collapses on itself(a real possibility) and both relief wells fail and no one can up with any other idea.....
madjack

[Billy K]

Not sure I'm willing to trust the former Soviet Unions info.....but, we are currently listening to and following the lead our own inept bureacratic system.

Not a blue vs red thing, just that any government beyond the ones that are on the scene; is not capable of the motivation or "across the aisle"; shoulder to shoulder, nose to the grindstone that is requierd in the Gulf.

Take for example: the Coast Guard shut down several cleanup barges because they lacked the correct amount and/or type of fire extinguisher and life jackets. The barge Captains asked to be allowed to send smaller vessels to acquire the proper things and were told, NO!

They had to stop the cleanup operation; return ALL vessels to port, re-stock and wait for CG inspection before they could continue with their cleanup mission. Make sense???

Not blaming the Coasties: just the inane rules and regulations placed on the crews who are enforcing them.

The Jones Act should have already been set aside. Service vessels could have gone to port and returned with the proper equipment. States could have protected the shorelines with sand berms. Skimmers and booms setting in warehouses could/should have already been pressed into service.

No, I don't think that trusting a government bureacrat of any stripe or party is a good thing. Fascist,Socialist,Marxist, or Capitalist...seems that those with political positions will tell you whatever it takes to maintain their chosen religion and their power structure; while calling the other side out for doing the same.

Like Mike said, do a search on Hiroshima. Or check out Chernobyl. Like MJ says; it would have to be a LAST resort.

p.s. the Dutch booms are stilll available and could have captured most of the oil since what ....day 3??

[mikeschn]

Or check out Chernobyl. Like MJ says; it would have to be a LAST resort.

The Chernobyl area, 24 years later...

http://www.kiddofspeed.com/

Mike...

[Cliffmeister2000]

I've read and forwarded Elena's Chernobyl blog many times. Great stuff.

"We Have Met The Enemy and He Is Us", Walt Kelly (Pogo comic strip), Earth Day poster, 1970.

[mk10108]

Its interesting how some claim is my fault for fulling up my SUV which of course is nonsense. The blame is squarely on the oil rig folks and BP management.

The rig employees had reservations about the procedures BP management was using to set the well, but no one said NO...why....because everyone was concern for their employment over safety of the procedure. If one said no, management cold bump them off the rig. If they all said NO and flew off the rig, picked up a phone and called LOCAL, STATE, & FEDERAL officials, and then the media, they may have lost their jobs but would of saved 11 lives and stopped an environmental disaster.

It happened at NASA (two shuttles destroyed). The verdict...management given the chance will kill you.

[caseydog]

In my part of the world it just doesn't seem like there is a lot of clear information out there or it is possible I could have missed it. My general view is how can good decisions be made if you don't know what reality is.

Of course in this world everything seems to become political as well which isn't needed in disasters IMHO.

I'm very sorry about the situation in the gulf, but a big thanks to those who are explaining things to us who don't know anything about the oil industry.

One reason that the government did not act as aggressively as they should have at first is that they were receiving very inaccurate information early on. Whether BP was fudging, or they didn't have good information either is a big question that needs to be answered. Hopefully, a thorough investigation will reveal the truth on that matter.

And, yes, everything is political.


CD

[caseydog]

COOL hope they get a video of that

Here's an example of an underwater nuclear explosion...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcKX4wCcU5k

I'd havvta see some hard science onit...it seems all you would do is make a larger hole for the oil to come out of...not to mention what the radiation would do to the sea floor and surrounding areas...

Yea, I wondered about the side effects too. All one has to do is review a video from Hiroshima to be reminded how much energy we are talking about...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NF4LQaWJRDg

Mike...

It's a mile deep, but only 80 miles from the coast. So, I'm not sure about the side effects.

I do wonder whether it would work, or just make a bigger leak that can't be capped off. Seems pretty risky.

BTW, the Soviets did a lot of risky things. They sometimes got lucky, but had some big failures, too. "The Soviets did it" doesn't fill me with confidence.

CD

[caseydog]

Not sure I'm willing to trust the former Soviet Unions info.....but, we are currently listening to and following the lead our own inept bureacratic system.

Not a blue vs red thing, just that any government beyond the ones that are on the scene; is not capable of the motivation or "across the aisle"; shoulder to shoulder, nose to the grindstone that is requierd in the Gulf.

Take for example: the Coast Guard shut down several cleanup barges because they lacked the correct amount and/or type of fire extinguisher and life jackets. The barge Captains asked to be allowed to send smaller vessels to acquire the proper things and were told, NO!

They had to stop the cleanup operation; return ALL vessels to port, re-stock and wait for CG inspection before they could continue with their cleanup mission. Make sense???

Not blaming the Coasties: just the inane rules and regulations placed on the crews who are enforcing them.

The Jones Act should have already been set aside. Service vessels could have gone to port and returned with the proper equipment. States could have protected the shorelines with sand berms. Skimmers and booms setting in warehouses could/should have already been pressed into service.

No, I don't think that trusting a government bureacrat of any stripe or party is a good thing. Fascist,Socialist,Marxist, or Capitalist...seems that those with political positions will tell you whatever it takes to maintain their chosen religion and their power structure; while calling the other side out for doing the same.

Like Mike said, do a search on Hiroshima. Or check out Chernobyl. Like MJ says; it would have to be a LAST resort.

p.s. the Dutch booms are stilll available and could have captured most of the oil since what ....day 3??

The CG temporarily grounded 16 oil cleanup barges for safety issues.

Thursday morning, the ships were inspected and grounded because they did not have the proper fire-fighting and life-saving equipment. There were also concerns about the stability of the barges. During the day Thursday, the problems were fixed, and the barges are back out on the water (Friday).

I agree with that decision.

Keep in mind, this whole disaster was caused by "cutting corners" on safety. What if you send those barges out, and there's a fire, and not enough fire equipment and life jackets. People die. Then, the nation is outraged that the government didn't do enough to prevent this tragedy.

Governor Jindal was angry about the barges being grounded, but he would have been calling for heads to roll if even a single crewmen were to die on one of those barges due to safety lapses.

Once again, it's damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

And, there's a second dimension to those Jones Act delays. In addition to the bureaucratic issues, there are private companies that want to be the ones to do the skimming and berm building -- and make money from it. The Dutch have a plan and equipment, but these companies want to be the ones who do the actual work.

So, it's not just government. There's a little green involved, too.

CD

[caseydog]

Its interesting how some claim is my fault for fulling up my SUV which of course is nonsense. The blame is squarely on the oil rig folks and BP management.

The rig employees had reservations about the procedures BP management was using to set the well, but no one said NO...why....because everyone was concern for their employment over safety of the procedure. If one said no, management cold bump them off the rig. If they all said NO and flew off the rig, picked up a phone and called LOCAL, STATE, & FEDERAL officials, and then the media, they may have lost their jobs but would of saved 11 lives and stopped an environmental disaster.

It happened at NASA (two shuttles destroyed). The verdict...management given the chance will kill you.

It's not "your fault." The people who made the bad decisions are the ones at fault.

However, this disaster should remind us that there are costs associated with oil exploration that many Americans (who do not live in the oil towns along the coast) never gave any thought to.

If we want to drive big, fuel thirsty vehicles, with one person to a SUV going to work and back day in and day out, then we will need to accept the very real possibility that this kind of disaster is going to happen from time to time.

IMO, big SUVs are not, in and of themselves, the problem. They are just a symbol of the problem. Whether it is SUVs, or bottled water or leaving lights on all over the house, we are a pretty wasteful nation. My town just went into stage one water restrictions. That's not because we take too many long showers, it's because even on the dry prairies where Dallas sits, people still insist on having pretty green lawns -- irrigated with VERY wasteful automatic sprinkler systems.

I'm slowly removing my lawn, and putting in native plants that require a fraction of the water that a lawn does. I can now water my yard with a handheld hose and nozzle that I can aim. The water goes on the plants, not the driveway, street and sidewalks. The yard looks fine, is easy to maintain, and I save money -- and water. That's just one small, painless step in the direction of living more efficiently.

Even a full size SUV owner can live greener, by merely making a list, and combining three or four trips to the store, mall and kid's soccer game into one trip. Even the biggest gas guzzler is green when it's parked in the garage.

We can choose to be less wasteful, or learn to accept more deep water oil wells, which means more possibilities for spills.

CD

[Billy K]

Why do we have to accept deep water exploration?

Is there no oil in shallow water; none underground?

Why do we have to accept Cafe Standards that stretch our fuel supply?
Why do we have to believe what an environmental group, or government sponsored enterprise (GSE) says?

Who put the idea out there about a chicken in every pot? A car in every driveway?

If, deep water exploration is so bad; why is the federal government giving Billions to a George Sorros backed Brazillian effort to do it?

Why the need to call a vehicle, fuel thirsty? It could just as easily be called, 'occupant safer'.

The reasons may not be fully apparent to those of us who are not inside but, EPA,CAFE,BATFE,DOE....are allowed to write the rules that ensure their own existence. Perhaps we should not allow the bureaucrat to save his/her own skin at our expense.

I haul large machinery into coal mines, natural gas fields, oil rigs, wind farms, and deliver the same to ports for use around the world. Without trucks the world would stop, and yet....I believe in buy,build and grow what you can locally.

[hiker chick]

If b.s. were a biofuel, Washington, D.C. could power the entire continent.


I'll talk to some of my buds at DOE about it.

[caseydog]

Why do we have to accept deep water exploration?

Is there no oil in shallow water; none underground?

Why do we have to accept Cafe Standards that stretch our fuel supply?
Why do we have to believe what an environmental group, or government sponsored enterprise (GSE) says?

Who put the idea out there about a chicken in every pot? A car in every driveway?

If, deep water exploration is so bad; why is the federal government giving Billions to a George Sorros backed Brazillian effort to do it?

Why the need to call a vehicle, fuel thirsty? It could just as easily be called, 'occupant safer'.

The reasons may not be fully apparent to those of us who are not inside but, EPA,CAFE,BATFE,DOE....are allowed to write the rules that ensure their own existence. Perhaps we should not allow the bureaucrat to save his/her own skin at our expense.

I haul large machinery into coal mines, natural gas fields, oil rigs, wind farms, and deliver the same to ports for use around the world. Without trucks the world would stop, and yet....I believe in buy,build and grow what you can locally.

1. The easy oil in the USA has already been tapped, so if we want to find more oil here, we'll have to work harder for it, and it will cost more to develop. Oil companies that do exploration make money by drilling where they believe a large amount of oil is, and only drill when and where they are pretty sure they can get that oil to market profitably.

2. The Soros comment is a political cheap shot, so to avoid an argument on here, I'll just let Snopes.com handle it. http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/braziloil.asp

3. Bigger isn't necessarily safer, but that's beside the point. No matter what a person drives, they can be more efficient in their day-to-day practices. That was my point. I thought I was pretty clear about that.

CD

[madjack]

...mah tungd id bweedin...bahdly..............................................................

[Kevin A]

...mah tungd id bweedin...bahdly..............................................................

Mine is too, Jack. Mine is too!!!!!!