Joined: Sept 2009 Gender: Male Posts: 3,102 Location: Stany Zjednoczone
Re: Gulf Coast Oil Spill CATASTROPHE « Reply #30 on Jun 3, 2010, 2:22am »
Nuclear Option on Gulf Oil Spill? No Way, U.S. Says
By WILLIAM J. BROAD June 2, 2010
The chatter began weeks ago as armchair engineers brainstormed for ways to stop the torrent of oil spilling into the Gulf of Mexico: What about nuking the well?
Decades ago, the Soviet Union reportedly used nuclear blasts to successfully seal off runaway gas wells, inserting a bomb deep underground and letting its fiery heat melt the surrounding rock to shut off the flow. Why not try it here?
The idea has gained fans with each failed attempt to stem the leak and each new setback — on Wednesday, the latest rescue effort stalled when a wire saw being used to slice through the riser pipe got stuck.
“Probably the only thing we can do is create a weapon system and send it down 18,000 feet and detonate it, hopefully encasing the oil,” Matt Simmons, a Houston energy expert and investment banker, told Bloomberg News on Friday, attributing the nuclear idea to “all the best scientists.”
Or as the CNN reporter John Roberts suggested last week, “Drill a hole, drop a nuke in and seal up the well.”
This week, with the failure of the “top kill” attempt, the buzz had grown loud enough that federal officials felt compelled to respond.
Stephanie Mueller, a spokeswoman for the Energy Department, said that neither Energy Secretary Steven Chu nor anyone else was thinking about a nuclear blast under the gulf. The nuclear option was not — and never had been — on the table, federal officials said.
“It’s crazy,” one senior official said.
Government and private nuclear experts agreed that using a nuclear bomb would be not only risky technically, with unknown and possibly disastrous consequences from radiation, but also unwise geopolitically — it would violate arms treaties that the United States has signed and championed over the decades and do so at a time when President Obama is pushing for global nuclear disarmament.
The atomic option is perhaps the wildest among a flood of ideas proposed by bloggers, scientists and other creative types who have deluged government agencies and BP, the company that drilled the well, with phone calls and e-mail messages. The Unified Command overseeing the Deepwater Horizon disaster features a “suggestions” button on its official Web site and more than 7,800 people have already responded, according to the site.
Among the suggestions: lowering giant plastic pillows to the seafloor and filling them with oil, dropping a huge block of concrete to squeeze off the flow and using magnetic clamps to attach pipes that would siphon off the leaking oil.
Some have also suggested conventional explosives, claiming that oil prospectors on land have used such blasts to put out fires and seal boreholes. But oil engineers say that dynamite or other conventional explosives risk destroying the wellhead so that the flow could never be plugged from the top.
Along with the kibbitzers, the government has also brought in experts from around the world — including scores of scientists from the Los Alamos National Laboratory and other government labs — to assist in the effort to cap the well.
In theory, the nuclear option seems attractive because the extreme heat might create a tough seal. An exploding atom bomb generates temperatures hotter than the surface of the sun and, detonated underground, can turn acres of porous rock into a glassy plug, much like a huge stopper in a leaky bottle.
Michael E. Webber, a mechanical engineer at the University of Texas, Austin, wrote to Dot Earth, a New York Times blog, in early May that he had surprised himself by considering what once seemed unthinkable. “Seafloor nuclear detonation,” he wrote, “is starting to sound surprisingly feasible and appropriate.”
Much of the enthusiasm for an atomic approach is based on reports that the Soviet Union succeeded in using nuclear blasts to seal off gas wells. Milo D. Nordyke, in a 2000 technical paper for the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, Calif., described five Soviet blasts from 1966 to 1981.
All but the last blast were successful. The 1966 explosion put out a gas well fire that had raged uncontrolled for three years. But the last blast of the series, Mr. Nordyke wrote, “did not seal the well,” perhaps because the nuclear engineers had poor geological data on the exact location of the borehole.
Robert S. Norris, author of “Racing for the Bomb” and an atomic historian, noted that all the Soviet blasts were on land and never involved oil.
Whatever the technical merits of using nuclear explosions for constructive purposes, the end of the cold war brought wide agreement among nations to give up the conduct of all nuclear blasts, even for peaceful purposes. The United States, after conducting more than 1,000 nuclear test explosions, detonated the last one in 1992, shaking the ground at the Nevada test site.
In 1996, the United States championed the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty, a global accord meant to end the development of new kinds of nuclear arms. President Obama is pushing for new global rules, treaties and alliances that he insists can go much further to produce a nuclear-free world. For his administration to seize on a nuclear solution for the gulf crisis, officials say, would abandon its international agenda and responsibilities and give rogue states an excuse to seek nuclear strides.
Kevin Roark, a spokesman for Los Alamos in New Mexico, the birthplace of the atomic bomb, said that despite rumors to the contrary, none of the laboratory’s thousands of experts was devising nuclear options for the gulf.
“Nothing of the sort is going on here,” he said in an interview. “In fact, we’re not working on any intervention ideas at all. We’re providing diagnostics and other support but nothing on the intervention side.”
A senior Los Alamos scientist, speaking on the condition of anonymity because his comments were unauthorized, ridiculed the idea of using a nuclear blast to solve the crisis in the gulf.
“It’s not going to happen,” he said. “Technically, it would be exploring new ground in the midst of a disaster — and you might make it worse.”
Not everyone on the Internet is calling for nuking the well. Some are making jokes. “What’s worse than an oil spill?” asked a blogger on Full Comment, a blog of The National Post in Toronto. “A radioactive oil spill.”
Joined: Sept 2009 Gender: Male Posts: 3,102 Location: Stany Zjednoczone
Re: Gulf Coast Oil Spill CATASTROPHE « Reply #31 on Jun 4, 2010, 6:14pm »
Expert: If cap fails, oil in Gulf will triple
By David Edwards Friday, June 4th, 2010 -- 10:58 am
The worst fears of one conservationist may be coming true.
Admiral Thad Allen said Friday that the cap placed over the leaking well was only collecting oil at a rate of 42,000 gallons a day. Recent estimates put the leak's flow at 500,000 to a million gallons a day.
That figure may have increased by 20 percent after the pipe at the top of the blowout preventer was cut off during BP's latest attempt to staunch the flow.
"If the cap doesn't work, we're going to have three times the amount of oil in the Gulf of Mexico," conservationist Rick Steiner told MSNBC's Keith Olbermann Thursday.
As much as 46 million gallons have already leaked into the Gulf. If the "cut and cap" operation fails there could be more than 138 million gallons of oil spilled before a relief well is finished in August.
Even that estimate may be conservative. Some have said that worst case scenario is that the leak could last until Christmas.
Steiner complained that it's hard to know the true scope of the leak and the effectiveness of the cap since BP is not allowing independent experts to monitor their progress. "The only people in the ROV operating room for this project are BP, and their contractors for the federal agencies," he said.
"Honestly we can't believe a thing BP says and a lot of people are starting to question what they're hearing out of the administration simply because both have their own vested interests here," said Steiner.
The marine conservationist has requested to be present in the ROV operating room to observe the procedures. "I've asked Admiral Allen and the EPA administrator to put me in the room," Steiner told Olbermann.
This video is from MSNBC's Countdown, broadcast June 3, 2010.
The oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico finally has a face. Or, rather, faces — at once primordially familiar and yet utterly strange under their new bronze patinas. As close-up photographs begin to appear that document the insult and injury done to coastal wildlife by the Deepwater Horizon leak, public pressure on the Obama administration and BP to stop the leak — stoked by an emotional response to such troubling images — will surely grow. These are the faces that government officials and oil executives may see in their nightmares.
Joined: Sept 2009 Gender: Male Posts: 3,102 Location: Stany Zjednoczone
Re: Gulf Coast Oil Spill CATASTROPHE « Reply #32 on Jun 6, 2010, 4:32pm »
Twelve (Imperfect) Ways to Clean the Gulf
By DAGMAR SCHMIDT ETKIN, JON HAN and MAYE WEBB
Published: June 5, 2010
It’s been nearly seven weeks since oil from BP’s deep-ocean Macondo well began gushing into the Gulf of Mexico. Over that time, the public has, understandably, become increasingly frustrated with industry and government efforts to prevent damage to wildlife and wetlands. There is the growing sense — reflected in last week’s discussion of using nuclear weapons to stop the leak and a viral video about using hay to sop up the mess — that somehow, somewhere there are more innovative and effective measures for containing and cleaning up the oil.
But I can tell you, based on 21 years’ experience analyzing and observing oil spills, that the best minds in the business are already doing all they can. No special techniques that would work well to clean up the oil in this situation aren’t being tried or planned. There simply are no foolproof solutions.
Once oil spills into water, responders must race against time and the forces of physics, chemistry and biology to minimize the harm to life in the sea and on land. Oil spreads quickly into a hair-thin sheen and begins to evaporate, dissolve and travel with the winds and currents. Strategies to chemically disperse the oil, vacuum it away, sponge it up, burn it or divert it from especially sensitive areas all have their benefits — and their drawbacks.
So decisions about how to respond to a disaster of this magnitude involve evaluating the tradeoffs and the net long-term benefits to the environment. Efforts to spare marsh birds may hurt fish; a wetland may be protected, but only by diverting oil to a sandy beach; attempts to clean up the oil may involve trampling marshes or polluting the air.
The best strategy, of course, is to prevent spills in the first place. The second best strategy is to do everything possible to clean them up. And that seems to be what is happening.
The chart below summarizes the various cleanup efforts being undertaken or proposed in the gulf and along the coast.
— DAGMAR SCHMIDT ETKIN, an environmental risk consultant, who is advising the State of Louisiana and Mobile County, Ala., on the BP spill
1. Dispersants on water surface
Chemical dispersants sprayed from airplanes or boats break up 50 percent to 98 percent of oil on the water surface into smaller droplets so it’s easier for microbes to metabolize into harmless components.
Benefits: Chemically dispersed oil is one-tenth to one-hundredth as toxic as fresh oil to birds and other wildlife in wetlands, and results in less shore cleanup. Challenges: Dispersants work best within a couple of days after oil enters the water. Drawbacks: Dispersants drive oil down into the water, where it is toxic to fish and invertebrates and their larvae and eggs. Near-shore use is difficult because the oil has less area to disperse and dilute. Dispersants are too toxic to use near coral reefs and mangrove swamps.
2. Dispersants below the surface
This is an untested approach — used for the first time in the BP spill — in which dispersant chemicals are applied at the source of the leak.
Benefits: Theoretically can minimize the amount of oil that reaches the surface and ends up on the shore. Challenges: Dispersants must be applied by remotely operated vehicles a mile deep, and it is difficult to measure how well they work at that depth. Drawbacks: It is possible that breaking up the oil at this depth allows its more toxic components to dissolve into the water, harming the eggs and larvae of fish and invertebrates.
3. Burning
A fireproof boom is used to collect the oil into a relatively thick layer that is ignited with gels dropped from helicopters. Works best for freshly spilled oil far offshore.
Benefits: As much as 98 percent of the oil can be burned (leaving some residue on the surface) so that it is kept off the coastline and out of sensitive near-shore areas. Challenges: It can be difficult to collect the oil in a thickness that is conducive to ignition, especially if currents make booms ineffective. Drawbacks: Burning oil creates black plumes of smoke and particulates, and it cannot be done near populated areas.
4. Booms and skimmers
Thick layers of surface oil are herded into floating booms, where skimming devices vacuum the oil into storage barges or tanks.
Benefits: Oil is recovered with little or no damage to the environment. Challenges: Getting the equipment in place before winds and currents spread the oil, especially in places where there are fast currents and the booms are ineffective. Drawbacks: A labor-intensive strategy that rarely recovers more than 5 percent to 10 percent of the oil. (As much as 25 percent can be recovered in sheltered areas with very calm water.) Large volumes of skimmed water often contain little oil. The collected oily water must be stored, cleaned as much as possible and ultimately disposed of.
5. Sorbent materials
Mats and pads that act like sponges are applied to the water surface in calm areas with low concentrations of oil. Near the shore, sausage-like booms filled with sorbent materials are placed in the water to soak up surface oil.
Benefits: A non-invasive approach that requires no large machinery and can keep small amounts of oil out of sensitive areas. Challenges: Effective placement of materials can be difficult. Drawbacks: Oil-soaked pads and mats must be replaced (at least every few days), and disposed of as hazardous waste. The large number of people needed to place the materials can harm marshes through trampling.
6. Protective/deflective booming
Booms are placed to deflect oil from wetlands, bird nesting habitats and other sensitive shoreline or near-shore areas.
Benefits: Can be effective in places where tidal currents are not too fast. Challenges: Booms often need to be shifted with the tides, and proper placement and installation can be tricky. Drawbacks: Oil is diverted to other areas where it can do damage.
7. Marsh flushing
Seawater is pumped through the marsh to dilute the oil sticking to grasses, enhancing tidal movements to promote natural recovery.
Benefits: Can dilute and remove high concentrations of oil. Challenges: Placing pumps and hoses in dense marshes can be difficult. Drawbacks: The flushing action may take weeks to months.
8. Marsh grass cutting
Marsh grasses in heavily oiled areas are cut and removed.
Benefits: May prevent oil from migrating to other sensitive areas nearby. Challenges: Bringing people and equipment into a marsh often causes more harm than the oil itself. And the oiled grasses and debris must be disposed of. Drawbacks: Areas where grasses are cut often take much longer to recover than oiled areas that are not cut.
9. Mechanical removal
Bulldozers and other heavy machinery are brought in to remove oiled sediment, grasses, and debris. Appropriate for heavily oiled sandy beaches. In marshes, it makes sense only if all other methods have failed.
Benefits: May prevent the oiling of sensitive areas nearby. Challenges: The risk of damaging marshes is great, and oiled grasses, sand, and debris must be disposed of. Drawbacks: Marshes can take a long time to recover from damage caused by heavy equipment.
10. Natural recovery
Tides and waves break down oil on the water surface, or on the shoreline in marsh areas that can otherwise be damaged by aggressive cleaning.
Benefits: No environmental side effects, and it’s always possible to try alternatives later. Challenges: It can be difficult to convince the public that it’s wise to do nothing, and the effectiveness of the strategy may not be known for months or years. Drawbacks: May not be completely effective, especially if the wave action is not robust or the oil is especially heavy.
11. Manual Shoreline Cleanup
On moderately oiled sandy or pebbly shorelines, people use shovels, rakes and gloved hands to pick up tar balls, oily patches and debris.
Benefits: No heavy equipment is needed, and unskilled workers can participate. Challenges: Workers must be trained to recognize oil and reduce personal exposure. The collected oily debris must be disposed of. Drawbacks: The work is labor-intensive and time-consuming.
12. High-pressure washing
High-pressure hoses are used to spray oil off seawalls, piers, boats and other hard surfaces, and the oil is then collected with skimmers, vacuum pumps, or spongy materials.
Benefits: An effective way to clean off lighter oils. Drawbacks: On shorelines that support marine life, the damage from high-pressure washing would be greater than that from the oil itself.
Joined: Sept 2009 Gender: Male Posts: 3,102 Location: Stany Zjednoczone
Re: Gulf Coast Oil Spill CATASTROPHE « Reply #33 on Jun 13, 2010, 4:17pm »
Where are all those poor people down there going to go ?
MARTIAL LAW ALERT: Gulf Coast Evacuation
Scenario Summer/Fall 2010 - Kim M Posted Jun 13, 2010 12:00 AM
SoCal Martial Law Alerts (SCMLA) has been in existence for a year and a half and this is our first MARTIAL LAW ALERT.
We have withheld putting out information on the Gulf oil spill for a variety of reasons, but there is now enough evidence for us to put together a fairly clear picture of what really happened, what may result and to warn people who live in the area.
THE SITUATION:
Due to toxic gases from the fractured oil well in the Gulf of Mexico, the possible off-gassing of the highly-toxic Corexit 9500 (the chemical dispersant used by BP in the oil spill clean-up), acid rain and various as-yet-unknown forms of environmental damage, we believe that the government will have no choice but to relocate millions of people away from the Gulf Coast. Those living in Florida are presently at the highest risk, but the danger also appears likely to spread to all Gulf Coast states east of Louisiana and possibly even to the entire Eastern half of the United States once hurricane season begins.
Greg Evensen, a retired Kansas Highway Patrolman, estimates that 30-40 million people would need to be evacuated away from the Gulf’s coastline (i.e. at least 200 miles inland). In order to accomplish this gargantuan feat, the federal government (through FEMA and other agencies) would most likely seek first to control and manage the transportation system and then operate relocation centers to manage evacuees. Toward this end, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has already declared the airspace over the oil spill site to be a no-fly zone until further notice. Various sources have indicated that local police, highway patrol, National Guard, US military and foreign troops may be involved in an operation to evacuate the Gulf Coast. In fact, the Governor of Louisiana has already requested evacuation assistance (i.e. National Guard) for his state from the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Those living inland may also be at risk, since the movement of vast numbers of evacuees would cause a significant strain on local resources. In other words, inlanders should not expect life to continue “as normal,” since, under a martial law scenario, the government would have the power and the motivation to seize everyday necessities, such as: food, water, fuel, housing, etc. Some have also suggested that if a hurricane were to occur over the oil spill area itself, lightning might possibly ignite volatile organic compounds, not to mention the acid rain clouds that could form and be carried inland (i.e. acid rain could pollute the water table, destroy crops, kill wildlife and pose significant health risks to humans in the southern and eastern states.)
Lastly, Lindsay Williams, a former Alaskan pipeline chaplain with high-level oil industry connections, has suggested that BP, in conjunction with the federal government, might try to cap the well by using a nuclear explosion – the environmental consequences of which are currently unknown.
OUR RECOMMENDATION:
If you live, or if you know people who live on, or within 200 miles of the Gulf Coast area, we recommend that they immediately relocate to at least 200 miles inland (i.e. the farther away, the better). If people living within this 200-mile zone do not relocate voluntarily (i.e. on their own initiative), it appears likely that a forced evacuation through a martial-law scenario may occur within the coming weeks and (possibly) months.
Our country has been in a state of national emergency since September 11, 2001, which means that martial law (i.e. military rule) can be declared by the President at any time, for any reason – large, or small. If martial law is implemented, evacuees will lose their ability to determine when and where they will move and for how long, since the normal protections of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights will have been suspended. To put it bluntly, a scenario in which evacuees are forced to live in relocation centers for an unspecified length of time is not unlikely.
Joined: Sept 2009 Gender: Male Posts: 3,102 Location: Stany Zjednoczone
Re: Gulf Coast Oil Spill CATASTROPHE « Reply #34 on Jun 15, 2010, 11:16am »
Oil cleanup crews work on an oil-stained stretch of sand in Orange Beach, Ala., Monday, June 14, 2010. (AP Photo/Dave Martin)
Dutch say They Could Speed Gulf Oil Recovery with US Permission
Greg Flakus | Houston14 June 2010
In Louisiana and other states on the Gulf of Mexico there is frustration over what many residents see as a slow response by the U.S. government to protecting coastal areas. Some critics of the Obama administration cite offers by the Netherlands in April to supply sophisticated skimmers and dredging devices, and the administration's failure to accept the offer. The issue is as murky as the oil slick now threatening regional beaches.
A Houston-based company is now cleaning oil off surface water in the Gulf of Mexico using sweeping arms that attach to a boat and help gather large amounts of oil. These sophisticated devices were provided by a Dutch company with years of experience in such operations, but instead of using the Dutch ships and crews immediately, when The Netherlands offered help in April, the operation was delayed until U.S. crews could be trained.
The Obama administration declined the Dutch offer partly because of the Jones Act, which restricts foreign ships from certain activities in U.S. waters. During the Hurricane Katrina crisis five years ago, the Bush administration waived the Jones Act in order to facilitate some foreign assistance, but such a waiver was not given in this case.
The Dutch also offered assistance with building sand berms (barriers) along the coast of Louisiana to protect sensitive marshlands, but that offer was also rejected, even though Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal had been requesting such protective barriers.
A spokesman for the Dutch embassy in Washington, Floris Van Hovell, tells VOA his country stands ready to help in the Gulf.
"We see the oil coming in, we see that there is Dutch capacity," said Floris Van Hovell. "We do not want to change the rules here. We do not want to come in and tell everybody how to do it, but we do see that we have something that is very helpful. We have been saying this for a number of weeks, but the process seems to be rather slow."
Louisiana and The Netherlands have developed strong ties since Hurricane Katrina flooded New Orleans five years ago. The European nation has developed special expertise in protecting its lower than sea-level land for centuries with a system of dikes. The country, home to the Royal Dutch Shell oil company, also has experience with mitigating oil spills in the North Sea and elsewhere.
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs last week rejected the idea that the Jones Act has caused any problem in regard to the Gulf cleanup, but he said the president would provide a waiver if one is needed.
"We are using equipment and vessels from countries like Norway, Canada, The Netherlands," said Robert Gibbs. "There has not been any problem with this. If there is the need for any type of waiver that would obviously be granted, but we have not had that problem."
But critics say delays in accepting foreign assistance may have caused unnecessary damage to some coastal areas. They also fault BP for not having its own emergency plan and for not reaching out to foreign companies with special expertise early on.
Floris Van Hovell says Dutch dredging ships could complete the sand berms in Louisiana twice as fast as the local companies contracted for the work, if allowed to do so.
"Basically, within the United States, as far as I have been given to understand, there is fairly limited capacity to execute this plan quickly," he said. "Of course, given the oil spill, given the fact that there is so much oil on a daily basis coming in, you do not have that much time to protect the marshlands."
U.S. policy has favored the use of American companies and employees in dealing with the oil spill, even though that may have caused delays in protecting sensitive shoreline.
Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has expressed gratitude for federal approval of part of his plan to build barriers, but he has stressed the need for quick action.
"We have really only got two options," said Bobby Jindal. "We can either fight this oil off of our coast and protect Louisiana or we are going to be spending months and years removing oil along thousands of miles of fragmented wetlands that serve as a critical nursery for marine wildlife for the Gulf and for our country."
But the effectiveness of the sand berm defense has been questioned by some marine experts and officials with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the agency that must approve such plans. The barriers, built with sand dredged up near the shore, could have negative long-term effects by impeding natural water flows. But many people in Louisiana are more worried about the short term, as they see the environmental impact washing up on their shores every day.
Joined: Sept 2009 Gender: Male Posts: 3,102 Location: Stany Zjednoczone
Re: Gulf Coast Oil Spill CATASTROPHE « Reply #35 on Jun 21, 2010, 10:20am »
Now this is worth listening to:
Quote:
Think Mount St. Helens -- underwater. Depth recorders have detected a gas bubble growing under the ocean floor, around the well head. If this potential bubble does not get controlled ASAP before it explodes, impending disaster could be awaiting millions of residents in the gulf states.
Joined: Nov 2005 Gender: Male Posts: 2,013 Location: Norfolk VA
Re: Gulf Coast Oil Spill CATASTROPHE « Reply #36 on Jun 23, 2010, 2:07pm »
Aha! I see the start of a conspirecy theory taking shape. Why did the Obama Administration turn away the offered help of 13 countries? Why are rules and regulations making it difficult to get to the business of "clean-up"? Why did it take Obama such a long time to say anything about the "accident?" accident?
Joined: Sept 2009 Gender: Male Posts: 3,102 Location: Stany Zjednoczone
Re: Gulf Coast Oil Spill CATASTROPHE « Reply #37 on Jun 23, 2010, 8:53pm »
The subversive culture in this country, just STINKS
American Chernobyl
Sunday 20 June 2010
by: Hervé Kempf | Reporterre.ne | Op-Ed
An uncontrollable industrial catastrophe, a worm-eaten system controlled by a rigid nomenklatura, a dynamic leader who wants to change things: doesn't that remind you of something? Yes, of course: Chernobyl, the Soviet Communist Party, Gorbachev.
Let's recall the 1980s: during that era, people knew that the USSR was doing poorly, but who would have bet a franc or a dollar on its rapid collapse? Still less so, given that the country had found an appealing and modern leader. From the outset, Gorbachev committed to vigorous reforms (glasnost and perestroika) even as he changed the USSR's foreign policy through detente with Ronald Reagan.
And then Chernobyl exploded. The catastrophe revealed the system's fragility. In 1989, the Berlin Wall crumbled; in 1991, the USSR was dissolved. Russia entered a decade of hard economic recession.
People today know that the United States isn't doing well, but who would bet a Euro or a Yuan on that country's rapid collapse? Still less so, given that the country has elected an appealing and modern leader. From the outset, he committed to vigorous reforms (the stimulus and the healthcare law) even as he acknowledged that the United States could no longer run everything in the world.
And then Deepwater Horizon exploded... The unstoppable gushing of oil provoked is proving to be a historic environmental catastrophe. It simultaneously demonstrates the incompetence of big private companies and (after a first failure during Hurricane Katrina, in 2005) the state's inability to master the situation.
Like Chernobyl, Deepwater Horizon derives its meaning from its context - that of a society dominated by a capitalist oligarchy that rejects any in-depth change in spite of the financial disaster for which it is responsible. Wall Street remains as solidly attached to its privileges, as were Soviet dignitaries.
Moreover, politicians, advertising and media maintain the fiction that the American dream can endure without disruption. But a pillar of American power has been shaken: that of cheap energy. Mr. Obama tries to make his fellow citizens understand: "What we can predict is that the availability of fossil fuel is going to be diminishing; that it's going to get more expensive to recover; that there are going to be environmental costs that our children, our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren are going to have to bear," he said in a June 13 Politico.com interview.
The end of cheap oil is the end of the "American way of life." Will the United States stand up to the challenge? One may think they will. Or not.
Re: Gulf Coast Oil Spill CATASTROPHE « Reply #41 on Jun 26, 2010, 4:10am »
Guys,
We Dutch are a watermanagement, dredging, water and environment disaster fighting country, because that is our traditional field of experiance and on of our most important professions. Our survival and existance is based upon it. If we were not able to control the water and environmental dangers from our North sea coastline or our rivers who come in from the South and East, we would not exist today. Our land would have been swollowed by the waters.
Dutch Watermanagement companies
Royal Boskalis Westminster
Royal Boskalis Westminster N.V. (Euronext: BOKA) is a Netherlands-based company that provides services relating to the construction and maintenance of maritime infrastructure on an international basis. The company is claimed to have the world's largest dredging fleet. In 2007 the company was engaged in two major contracts in Australia - a €300 million contract to deepen the shipping channels of Port Phillip in Melbourne utilising its dredge the Queen of the Netherlands, and a €50 million contact to expand the harbour at Newcastle. The company is also involved in a €1.1 billion contract to develop a new port in Abu Dhabi.
Dredging ship Queen of the Netherlands
On 15 September 2008 Boskalis offered €1.11 billion for fellow Dutch maritime company Smit International. Despite the offer being promptly rejected by Smit's board, Boskalis subsequently built a stake of over 25% in the firm and expressed a continuing desire to buy a number of its business units. A revised offer of €1.35 billion was accepted by Smit in January 2010, with Boskalis declaring its offer unconditional that March.
Smit Internationale N.V. (or Smit International) is a Dutch company operating in the maritime sector. The company was founded by Fop Smit as a towage company with a single steampowered tug in 1842. After a merger with Internationale Sleepdienst the name was changed to the present name. Formerly listed at the NYSE Euronext stock exchange in Amsterdam, the company was fully acquired by Royal Boskalis Westminster in 2010.
Corporate structure
The company consist of 4 divisions, in order of revenue:
* Transport & Heavy Lift (33.5% of total revenues) * Salvage (23.9%) * Harbour Towage (22.8%) * Terminals (19.8%)
High profile operations
Its marine salvage division was involved in several high-profile salvage operations such as:
* The Herald of Free Enterprise (1987) * The Russian submarine Kursk (2000) * The Ehime Maru (2001) * The Prestige (2001) * The Tricolor (2002) * The Mighty Servant 3 (2006) * The M/S UND Adriyatik (2008)
Internationally, Smit International is known mostly for its expertise in salvage operations.
Often unrealized is the environmental importance of oil removal in many salvage operations. Smit International has dedicated much research into their modern equipment used to extract remaining oil of sunken vessels. They have also partnered with the French firm JLMD System to support preinstalled Fast Oil Recovery systems which assure quick reliable oil removal in the event of a shipping accident.
Re: Gulf Coast Oil Spill CATASTROPHE « Reply #42 on Jun 26, 2010, 8:07am »
Pieter
It is a mystery is it not? For why not to have in-listed the help from the people knowing best with experience un-paralleled with sea management..
It was/is not unusual to sight a Dutch dredger in the harbour and water ways of Cuxhaven and Hamburg. For it is a constant maintenance issue with combination of tidal currants and propeller wash to keep these shipping areas free of bottom build up.
The following url, will show a photo of one such dredger of Nederland register. {please to scroll down to ship "Geopotes}.
Re: Gulf Coast Oil Spill CATASTROPHE « Reply #43 on Jun 26, 2010, 8:45am »
Pieter and Karl, A great opportunity was missed in this event to abate the destruction of wildlife and commerce. For reasons unknown to me the government chose to not burn off the oil as is its own protocol, and refused to suspend the "Jones act" that would allow foreign aid in this disaster.
Re: Gulf Coast Oil Spill CATASTROPHE « Reply #44 on Jun 26, 2010, 1:12pm »
All just remember under who's watch this oil spill happen. And they can't even with trying to blame it on Bush. It took a very long time for him to start action againts BP, could it be because all the money that BP gave him for his election?
![[Home]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif "[Home]")
![[New Topics]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/topics.png "[New Topics]")
![[Help]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif "[Help]")
![[Search]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif "[Search]")
![[Calendar]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/calendar.gif "[Calendar]")
![[Login]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif "[Login]")
![[Register]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/register.gif "[Register]")
![[Search This Thread]](http://images.proboards.com/search2.gif "[Search This Thread]")
![[Share Topic]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/share.png "[Share Topic]")
![[Print]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif "[Print]")
Author
![[avatar]](http://www.any-image.com/images/21660527172892646788.jpg "[avatar]")
Logged![[image]](http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/06/06/opinion/06opcharttest/06opcharttest-custom1-v2.png "[image]")
![[image]](http://media.voanews.com/images/480*300/Oil-480.jpg "[image]")
![[avatar]](http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y7/wb4rff/ad0a9cf3_277664-1.jpg "[avatar]")
Aha! I see the start of a conspirecy theory taking shape. Why did the Obama Administration turn away the offered help of 13 countries? Why are rules and regulations making it difficult to get to the business of "clean-up"? Why did it take Obama such a long time to say anything about the "accident?" accident?
![[image]](http://www.rnw.nl/data/files/imagecache/must_carry/images/lead/boskalis_rainbowing_1.jpg "[image]")
![[image]](http://www.seeklogo.com/images/S/Smit_International_B_V_-logo-697D13DFE9-seeklogo.com.gif "[image]"){kind=logo}
![[image]](http://www.zeesleepvaart.com/smitrotterdam.jpg "[image]")
