I am not sure that this belongs here, but since it will probably turn into a political diatribe, it might as well start here.
Frank, I am addressing this to you because I am sure you are familiar with laws that would affect this. I heard on the news that a skimmer has been brought to the Gulf that is longer than 3 football fields. Then this evening I hear that they aren't going to be allowed to try it. Now why couldn't they just go ahead and do whatever they want with their boat? Why do they have to get permission from anyone to try to clean up the spilled oil? What is going on here?
Wilma, the last I knew the owners and Capitan of the "A Whale" were waiting word as to whether it would be allowed to operate in the Gulf. I am sure it is due to the Jones Act, which was designed to protect the US Maritime Union and US Shipping. Under the Jones Act the only vessels that can go from a US Port to a US Port are American flag vessels which have all US Seamen and are all Union. Foreign Flag Vessels can go from a Foreign Port to a US port and from a US Port to a Foreign Port. My guess is the service of skimming in the Gulf is considered all US Port to US Port activity and they are waiting on a Waiver. We have turned down other Skimmers because they were Foreign. Very disturbing how badly this whole mess has been handled. I am sure that Politics has delayed the cleanup considerably.
Although, this post is not connected with clean up, the Russians suggested early on that the oil leak in the Gulf be stopped with a nuclear explosion.
The attached video shows how the USSR put out an uncontrolled gas leak with a nuclear blast. They apparently used nuclear explosions to extinguish at least five monstrous oil or gas leaks.
Wilma, the "A Whale" is rated to skim 500,000 barrels of oil a day, that is 21Million gallons a day.
Wilma the "A Whale" is under the Taiwanese Flag. It is a monster in size . It is designed as an "OBO" to carry Oil and Iron Ore. When I first started in the Marine Department for Phillips they had several Ore/Oil carriers. The A Whale has been redesigned or modified to be a skimmer.
Thank you, Guys. I understand the situation a little better but it still doesn't make sense that the vessel that could do the job has to just sit there and watch the oil go by. I am of the opinion that everything and anything should be done to get it cleaned up. As to stopping the leak, the thought of nuclear explosion gives me pause. Still if the Russians have done it without problems, why shouldn't it be tried or do we have to wait for the politicians to decide on that, too.
well being that its 5000 feet down, a small small tactical nuke could seal it. It wouldn't cause a radiation problem since water does shield it. The only problem i can forsee is that it is right off the continental shelf. that in itself could cause some serious tectonic plate shifts. When we talk using nukes for that, its a complete unknown. I think it would and should be last resort!
I Do however think that obama and co could have had this problem with the jones act cleared up days after the 30+ other countries offered assistance, but he is afraid of pissing off unions. Personally, piss em off and get r done.
Does a skimmer get to keep the oil it sucks up?
OK, so where are the unions on this? Why haven't there been several press conferences by now confirming or denying the accusation of interference? They have jobs at risk too. It seems like everybody is talking and having opinions except the people who actually have the ability to do something. No nukes please. We have plenty of boom power without that. Bigger doesn't always mean better. It would take precision and B/P's record to date doesn't give me confidence in that. Keep doing what they are doing,until it works in a few weeks or it doesn't.
Quote from: Diane Amberg on July 01, 2010, 07:09:19 PM
OK, so where are the unions on this? Why haven't there been several press conferences by now confirming or denying the accusation of interference? They have jobs at risk too. It seems like everybody is talking and having opinions except the people who actually have the ability to do something. No nukes please. We have plenty of boom power without that. Bigger doesn't always mean better. It would take precision and B/P's record to date doesn't give me confidence in that. Keep doing what they are doing,until it works in a few weeks or it doesn't.
What do ya think where unions are on this, they don't give a crap. It doesn't matter if they have anything at stake. They cannot do the job because they don't have the equipment to do the job. So if they can't do the job because of lack of equipment, then they have no say in this.
Nukes are a last option. It can be done, but not unless there is no other option.
Quote from: frawin on July 01, 2010, 05:50:59 PM
Wilma, the "A Whale" is rated to skim 500,000 barrels of oil a day, that is 21Million gallons a day.
Wilma, I should have probably said it is rated to process 500,000 barrels of fluid a day.
Quote from: Diane Amberg on July 01, 2010, 07:09:19 PM
OK, so where are the unions on this? Why haven't there been several press conferences by now confirming or denying the accusation of interference? They have jobs at risk too. It seems like everybody is talking and having opinions except the people who actually have the ability to do something. No nukes please. We have plenty of boom power without that. Bigger doesn't always mean better. It would take precision and B/P's record to date doesn't give me confidence in that. Keep doing what they are doing,until it works in a few weeks or it doesn't.
Diane, who said the Unions themselves were interferring in anything?????????????????????????????????????????
Uh, you'll have to ask Steve. He's the one who said the Pres was afraid of "pissing off the unions." He must have information I don't have to have made that statement.
Quote from: Diane Amberg on July 01, 2010, 08:04:51 PM
Uh, you'll have to ask Steve. He's the one who said the Pres was afraid of "pissing off the unions." He must have information I don't have to have made that statement.
Either he is afraid of the unions or he wanted this oil spill to get worse.
You pick.
Quote from: Diane Amberg on July 01, 2010, 08:04:51 PM
Uh, you'll have to ask Steve. He's the one who said the Pres was afraid of "pissing off the unions." He must have information I don't have to have made that statement.
Diane, I can't imagine anyone having any information that you don't have.
Quote from: sixdogsmom on July 01, 2010, 06:53:55 PM
Does a skimmer get to keep the oil it sucks up?
SDM, the skimmers don't want it. It goes to the nearest reclaiming facility. It is a long way from being refinery ready when the skimmers gather it. They will have to get the BS&W levels down to refinery standards.
Wilma, another thought on approval for the "A Whale" is that it is totally unproven as to being in Skimmer service, it was just recently converted to skimmer service. My guess is the Coast Guard wants to inspect the ship and it's system and see if it will skim and clean the water it discharges back. While it seems that the Coast Guard is heavily Bureacratic, they do a very good job of keeping the Inland Waterways and Coastal waters clean. The US has more oil shipped in than any other Nation and the Coast Guard does a good job of policing all of the Tanker Activity.
Hey Frank, I have no idea what relationship the unions and the Pres. have, nor do I know how to set up a small nuke charge to stop the oil without draining the gulf, yet Steve thinks he can. Personally, I've never been to a nuke parts store to pick up the pieces I'd need. Steve knows much more than I about everything, just ask him. ;D) poke,poke. I can't imagine why anyone would want to make the spill worse. It's our tax money that will go to bailout the folks who have lost their jobs and if it goes to court it will be tied up for many years just like the Exxon Valdez was and the lawyers will take the biggest cut. No more time now. Have fun.
Quote from: Diane Amberg on July 02, 2010, 08:02:25 AM
Hey Frank, I have no idea what relationship the unions and the Pres. have, nor do I know how to set up a small nuke charge to stop the oil without draining the gulf, yet Steve thinks he can. Personally, I've never been to a nuke parts store to pick up the pieces I'd need. Steve knows much more than I about everything, just ask him. ;D) poke,poke. I can't imagine why anyone would want to make the spill worse. It's our tax money that will go to bailout the folks who have lost their jobs and if it goes to court it will be tied up for many years just like the Exxon Valdez was and the lawyers will take the biggest cut. No more time now. Have fun.
Havent you hear obama has taken the matter out of the courts hands by siezing 20 billion from bp. That is the judicial branches job not the executive branch.
Quote from: srkruzich on July 02, 2010, 08:52:43 AM
Havent you hear obama has taken the matter out of the courts hands by siezing 20 billion from bp. That is the judicial branches job not the executive branch.
why would they need the courts when they agreed on a settlement?
Quote from: Anmar on July 03, 2010, 12:40:16 PM
why would they need the courts when they agreed on a settlement?
Damn how dumb can ya be! They agreed cause they were forced into it by the Executive branch. AND if you don't know why that is wrong, then you really need to go back and learn and understand our Government system of rules and laws.
The executive branch does not set up penalties and execute them. Setting up fines and penalties is based on law. THe administration of law is done through the judicial system. The executive branch has NO AUTHORITY to do that.
I thought the judicial system was for settling disputes. Law Enforcement is the branch that makes the arrests and complaints. Until the complaint has been made and the accused has been brought to trial the judicial system doesn't have anything to do with it. In the case of an International Incident such as this, there must be another procedure, but I am sure that the judicial system doesn't get into it unless it goes to court.
Quote from: Wilma on July 03, 2010, 04:18:55 PM
I thought the judicial system was for settling disputes. Law Enforcement is the branch that makes the arrests and complaints. Until the complaint has been made and the accused has been brought to trial the judicial system doesn't have anything to do with it. In the case of an International Incident such as this, there must be another procedure, but I am sure that the judicial system doesn't get into it unless it goes to court.
Your right. Obama bypassed the process. He acted as judge jury and executioner without a trial. And no there isn't another proceedure to handle international companies.
Hey Steve, you be sure and call Washington and tell them they've got it all wrong. ;D 1- 202-456-1414 or 1-202-456-1111
Steve, of course I am right. This case has not gone to court so why would the judicial system be involved in it. And how does one country go about accusing another country of misconduct and taking them to court? This was a case of negotiation, with both parties agreeing on a settlement. Nothing to do with judicial. It happens all the time to avoid the lenghty, costly process of court proceedings. Negotiation is the fastest way to settle a situation. Now if one party fails to live up to the agreement, perhaps court proceedings will be necessary. In this case nobody, not even Obama, did anything that wasn't legal or above board. The United States asked for reparation and BP agreed. Case settled.
Why do you think it should have gone to court? Why do you think that the Judicial system should have been the one to take action? The Judicial system doesn't handle anything except things that are in dispute. There has been no dispute in this case. As far as I can tell, BP has agreed to everything that has been asked of them.
Steve,
Before you start calling people dumb, take a look in the mirror. Here's how the process works. Party A (BP in this case) takes actions that infringe upon Party B (the government) and party C (The people). Before a lawsuit is even filed, Party A admits liability, claims responsibility, and publicly promises to pay all legitimate claims. This was stated May 3. (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0319032520100503)
More than a month later, On June 13, Congress sends a letter to BP asking for the creation of a 20 billion fund to pay for the damages that BP HAS ALREADY ADMITTED RESPONSIBILITY FOR. (http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/06/dems-want-20-billion-bp-fund)
A few days later, BP agrees to set up the fund. (http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7062966)
If BP were to dispute the claim of either party B or party C, then said parties can take BP to Civil court. Usually, a class action lawsuit is filed by people who are damaged, but they also have the option to sue individually. However, if an agreement is made before the lawsuit takes place, there is no need for civil court. This is what some people call, a settlement. (http://www.yourdictionary.com/law/settlement)
You are bringing up law, and law breaking. This isn't an issue of the penal code, this is Civil. Learn the difference. The people that were affected by the oil spill have rights under the civil law to collect damages from BP. The 20 billion is not going to the government, Obama will send a bill for cleanup and will collect fines and punitive damages in addition to the 20 billion later. This money is to SETTLE claims of individuals and small business that were damaged by the Oil spill.
For those of you intelligent enough to determine the difference between civil and penal codes, this article may be interesting. If you still believe the government is stealing money from BP (because you can't read?) then don't bother clicking the link
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/21/is-the-20-billion-fund-actually-a-victory-for-bp/
When do you reckon they might get around to shuttin this thing down? Some time this century maybe?
Yeah one so-called "expert" trotted out the nuke idea about a month ago................couldn't believe anybody would be that stupid when I heard it the first time...much less that it's still being considered as a viable option, last resort or not.
You go, Anmar!!!!!!! ;D ;D I'd give all that research an A+++...!!!!!!
I second that Cat.
Quote from: pamagain on July 05, 2010, 01:19:13 PM
When do you reckon they might get around to shuttin this thing down? Some time this century maybe?
Yeah one so-called "expert" trotted out the nuke idea about a month ago................couldn't believe anybody would be that stupid when I heard it the first time...much less that it's still being considered as a viable option, last resort or not.
The nuke idea really isn't that bad of one.
Quote from: Varmit on July 05, 2010, 07:08:45 PM
The nuke idea really isn't that bad of one.
yeah.......no consequences or repercussions there............what about the fault line goin thru there? oh hell f-it it's just louisiana,texas,mississippi,alabama,florida and part of mexico that might get damaged....who the hell cares.......go for it.
A Tactical nuke won't do anything to damage the fault line. We're not talking about a nuclear warhead MinuteMan missle here.
Nuke is a nuke is a nuke.
I have to admit that I am fairly ignorant about nuclear bombs or whatever it is that has been suggested. I will admit that I am very nervous about the idea.
Varmit, since you seem to think that it might not be as bad as some of us feel it would be, would you explain what you know about it. I would welcome anything that would ease my mind.
His face wracked by age and his voice rasping after decades of chain-smoking coarse tobacco, former nuclear power minister and veteran Soviet physicist Viktor Mikhailov knows just how to fix BP's oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico.
"A nuclear explosion over the leak," he said, nonchalantly puffing a cigarette as he sat in a conference room at the Institute of Strategic Stability, where he is a director.
"I don't know what BP is waiting for. They are wasting their time. Only about 10 kilotons of nuclear explosion capacity and the problem is solved," he said.
And it's not just Soviet scientists. Milo Nordyke, one of the masterminds behind U.S. research into peaceful nuclear energy in the 1960s and 70s said a nuclear explosion is a logical last-resort solution for BP and the government. Matthew Simmons, a former energy adviser to U.S. President George W. Bush and the founder of energy investment-banking firm Simmons & Company International, is another calling for the nuclear option.
Nordyke too believes that the nuclear option should be on the table. After seeing nine U.S. nuclear explosions and standing behind the control board of one, he estimates that a nuclear bomb would have roughly an 80 percent to 90 percent chance of successfully blocking the oil. According to his estimates, it would have to be an explosion of about 30 kilotons, equivalent to roughly two Hiroshima bombs or three times as big as Mikhailov's estimate. The explosion would also need to remain at least 5 kilometers away from other offshore wells in the area.
The bomb, Nordyke said, would be dropped in a secondary well about 20 meters away from the leaking shaft. There it would create a large cavity filled with gas. The gas would melt the surrounding rock, crush it and press it into the leaking well to close it shut.
Although the BP well is hundreds of meters deeper than those closed in the Soviet Union, Nordyke said the extra depth shouldn't make a difference. He also said that so far below the ground, not much difference exists in onshore or underwater explosions — even though explosions have never been tried.
Nordyke said fears that radiation could escape after the explosion are unfounded. The hole would be about 20 centimeters in diameter and, despite the shockwave, the radiation should remain captured. Even in the case of radiation escape, he said, its dispersed effect would be less than that of floating oil patches
But don't expect an explosion under the Gulf of Mexico anytime soon. Even a conventional blast could backfire and cause more problems. There is a chance that any blast could fracture the seabed and cause an underground blowout, said Andy Radford, petroleum engineer and American Petroleum Institute senior policy adviser on offshore issues.
The U.S. Department of Energy has no plans to use explosives "due to the obvious risks involved," said a department spokeswoman.
Wilma, the big scare is that a nuke would damage the fault line. That is not really logical when you think about the pressure needed to alter the fault line. The pressure from the tectonic plates is millions of times greater than a small nuke would be. When people talk of nuclear bombs most people think of types of bombs we would use in a nuclear missle strike. The fact is that there are numerous type of nuclear bombs and weapons. Hell, a lot of the torpedoes our subs use are basically baby nukes, yet we don't use these to destroy cities.
Well, if the fault line isn't a worry, then would the half life of the radiation let loose by such an instrument qualify as a concern? And...Given the oceanic currents that encircle the US/Mexico, how would that radiation be dispersed? Does that qualify as a concern? There is more to look at here than just the fault line.
Quote from: Catwoman on July 06, 2010, 06:03:06 AM
Well, if the fault line isn't a worry, then would the half life of the radiation let loose by such an instrument qualify as a concern? And...Given the oceanic currents that encircle the US/Mexico, how would that radiation be dispersed? Does that qualify as a concern? There is more to look at here than just the fault line.
Water is the best shield available for shielding from radiation. Just look at how the clouds and atmosphere shield us from radiation from the sun.
When they shut down nuclear reactors permanantly, they flood the reactor core with water to seal it.
Not only are the shielding properties of water very good, but the amount of radiation released from such a small nuke is not that much. Not only that but it wuld be dispersed over such a wide area that it would have little to no impact.
Sorry, but none of the above has eased my mind a bit.
I hate to admit it, but as far as shielding, those two are pretty much correct. (But if you are expecting the clouds to shield you from the sun's radiation you are asking for a bad sun burn, which is indeed a radiation burn.) Still don't want to jump to bombing the sea floor with anything too soon, too many unknowns and variables in very deep water.
There are several types of radiation. Some are easier to shield than others. Some aren't a problem unless a person is exposed many times, hence the lead apron shield in the dentist office etc. (I used to teach a whole block on that in EMT class.) Your shirt is protection from the minute amount in smoke detectors and a life time's exposure won't hurt you. Same with irradiating foods for shelf storage.The radiation goes through, it doesn't stay on the food, so there is no exposure to the purchaser.
You throw a quarter stick of TNT in the river, you get a boat load of fish. You blow a nuke in the ocean and------------------------gotta go----ol Sarge and me are taking our filet knives and heading to the Gulf !!!!
HA! Just check for pollution before ya eat 'em. ;D ;D ;D ;D That stuff out there isn't cooking oil!
Not a problem Diane. Ol Sarge and me both like "blackened fish ".
The action on handling this whole thing has been slow all around. They say the relief well will be finished in a few weeks. I bet that by the time they prepared the area for a tactical nuke, it wouldn't make a difference.
Now it seems the oil has broken through to Lake Pontchartrain.That's really tough to take.The lake was off limits for so long after Katrina and now this? Oh, my.
Another question. Crude oil is measured in barrels, right? Why, then, are the reports we get on how much has been spilled in the Gulf given in gallons?
Wilma they measure in gallons to make the publicity more dramatic. Noone measures Crude oil in Gallons, crude oil is measured in 42 gallon barrels or in Metric tons.
That is just what I thought. So many barrels doesn't sound as bad as 42 times that in gallons does. So we are still being manipulated by the media into thinking that things seem to be the way they want us to see it. What should we believe, who should we believe?
Quote from: Wilma on July 20, 2010, 04:59:16 PM
Another question. Crude oil is measured in barrels, right? Why, then, are the reports we get on how much has been spilled in the Gulf given in gallons?
to make it seem worse. Its all about perception. It sounds a whole lot worse to hear 4,000,000 gallons than 1,000,000 barrels.
Quote from: srkruzich on July 20, 2010, 06:05:17 PM
to make it seem worse. Its all about perception. It sounds a whole lot worse to hear 4,000,000 gallons than 1,000,000 barrels.
Steve the comparison would be 42,000,000 Gallons verses 1,000,000 Barrels.
That makes it two million gallons worse.
Quote from: Wilma on July 20, 2010, 07:00:30 PM
That makes it two million gallons worse.
Wilma, I think it makes it 38Million Gallons worse, if my math is correct, in other words almost 10 times worse.
if one barrel = 42 gallons
then 1,000,000 barrels would = 42,000,000 gallons
srkruzich used 1,000,000 barrels = 40,000,000. Wouldn't 42,000,000 gallons be 2,000,000 gallons more? or worse than the 40,000,000.
I am so mixed up now that I am going to call it a day. No, not yet. What I am going to do is break it down to quantities that don't boggle my brain. Just suppose, now don't quote me on this as being the truth. It is just an example using figures that I can understand.
1 barrel = 42 gallons
10 barrels = 420 gallons
100 barrels = 4,200 gallons
1,000 barrels= 42,000 gallons
1,000,000 barrels = 42,000,000 gallons
using the 10 barrels we will say that 10 barrels = 400 gallons
actually 10 barrels = 420 gallons which is 20 gallons more and in the case of an oil spill would be worse
Do I have you all mixed up yet?
Steve used 4,000,000 to 1,000,000 not 1,000,000 to 40,000,000
Finally I get it.
according to the Maritime News ,BPs OWN guesstimate is over the course of the last 90 days approx. 1,750,000 BARRELS leaked so far. They approximate 19,000 barrels a day before they got it partially contained.
They say approx 15,000 barrels a day is being siphoned off now..........that is a pretty fairsize glob of oil floatin around out there whether you use barrels or gallons. It REALLY doesn't NEED to be made to sound worse than it is........
Quote from: frawin on July 20, 2010, 06:50:02 PM
Steve the comparison would be 42,000,000 Gallons verses 1,000,000 Barrels.
Yeah sorry, i was exhausted last night when i was doing my math. ;(
I have an excuse, too. The part of my eyes that read zeros wasn't working last night.