Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

FLEET of GIANT OIL SKIMMERS SAILS TOWARD VALDEZ HOME PORT - Why don't I see this headline?!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
ShamelessHussy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-23-10 10:15 PM
Original message
FLEET of GIANT OIL SKIMMERS SAILS TOWARD VALDEZ HOME PORT - Why don't I see this headline?!

INTERNATIONAL FLEET of GIANT OIL SKIMMERS SAILS TOWARD the GULF of MEXICO





GIANT OIL SKIMMER SAILS TOWARD VALDEZ HOME PORT
JBF Scientific Co., based in Winchester, Mass., has said the three vessels could collect about 2,500 barrels of oil per hour. At 55 gallons per barrel, that rate would amount to about 140,000 gallons an hour, or 3.3 million gallons gathered in 24 hours.

source...
http://www.adn.com/evos/stories/EV323.html


Why are we not seeing this kinda response?

Can someone explain why I don't see any of our international partners ships out there, Japan, China, Germany, France, at least the UK?

I would expect to see a FLEET of ships in the Gulf, in multiple locations.

Why don't I see this kinda headline?!!!!!!!!!!!

Could we not use a hand in this historical ongoing wmd like disaster?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Webster Green Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-23-10 10:40 PM
Response to Original message
1. Crickets
I asked the same question.

At least I got some replies that offered links. Of course when I went to the links there was no mention of the large skimmers in action in the gulf.

The Coast Guard did say they would bring in more resources if BP doesn't, so it's all good. No hurry or anything. These things take time, you know. :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
charlesg Donating Member (311 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-23-10 10:43 PM
Response to Original message
2. They also need a giant fleet to catch the giant underwater plumes
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
csziggy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-23-10 10:48 PM
Response to Original message
3. Shell Oil did this for the Saudis
Edited on Sun May-23-10 10:55 PM by csziggy
They offered to do it for BP but the EPA or some other government agency stopped them. They can removed something like 90% of the oil from the water, but they have to purge the water.

Edited to add link:
The Secret, 700-Million-Gallon Oil Fix That Worked and Might Save the Gulf
May 13, 2010 at 6:46AM by Mark Warren
There's a potential solution to the Gulf oil spill that neither BP, nor the federal government, nor anyone save a couple intuitive engineers seems willing to try. As The Politics Blog reported on Tuesday in an interview with former Shell Oil president John Hofmeister, the untapped solution involves using empty supertankers to suck the spill off the surface, treat and discharge the contaminated water, and either salvage or destroy the slick.
1,234diggsdigg

Hofmeister had been briefed on the strategy by a Houston-based environmental disaster expert named Nick Pozzi, who has used the same solution on several large spills during almost two decades of experience in the Middle East who says that it could be deployed easily and should be, immediately, to protect the Gulf Coast. That it hasn't even been considered yet is, Pozzi thinks, owing to cost considerations, or because there's no clear chain of authority by which to get valuable ideas in the right hands. But with BP's latest four-pronged plan remaining unproven, and estimates of company liability already reaching the tens of billions of dollars (and counting), supertankers start to look like a bargain.

The suck-and-salvage technique was developed in desperation across the Arabian Gulf following a spill of mammoth proportions 700 million gallons that has until now gone unreported, as Saudi Arabia is a closed society, and its oil company, Saudi Aramco, remains owned by the House of Saud. But in 1993 and into '94, with four leaking tankers and two gushing wells, the royal family had an environmental disaster nearly sixty-five times the size of Exxon Valdez on its hands, and it desperately needed a solution.
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/gulf-oil-spill-supertankers-051310#ixzz0nyRlJjLv


Combined with Costner's devices, this could get a hell of a lot of oil out of the Gulf, though the stuff that has been mixed with dispersants is probably not recoverable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyskye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-10 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #3
21. I heard about this. Why the hell isn't it being done NOW?

:grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
csziggy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-10 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. Because the water returned to the Gulf would have a little bit of oil in it
Yeah, for real - that is the excuse.

If they had allowed Shell and whoever else had the technology to get out there from week one and remove as much oil as possible from the surface, it might have helped some. With the volume of oil that it seems is coming out, that probably would not have been enough to stop ecological disaster, but it would have gotten some of the oil out of the way.

I just keep getting more and more depressed about this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Autumn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-10 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #22
25. That has to be a fucking joke
right???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
csziggy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-10 09:49 PM
Response to Reply #25
27.  I can't find the link to that claim now, but here is the original source
In the first paragraph, they have links back to other articles about using the supertankers: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/bp-top-kill-alternative-052410

I was certain that one of those articles had the claim that the Coast Guard or EPA turned it down because of contaminated water being released. Now it just says that the people trying to push this idea could not get to the right people in the chain of command.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
csziggy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-10 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #25
29. Someone posted this link in a different thread - it has more info
Dutch oil spill response team on standby for US oil disaster
Published on : 4 May 2010 - 12:44pm | By Johan Huizinga (photo: ANP)

<Snip>
Two Dutch companies are on stand-by to help the Americans tackle an oil slick in the Gulf of Mexico. The two companies use huge booms to sweep and suck the oil from the surface of the sea. The US authorities, however, have difficulties with the method they use.

<snip>

The Americans dont have spill response vessels with skimmers because their environment regulations do not allow it. With the Dutch method seawater is sucked up with the oil by the skimmer. The oil is stored in the tanker and the superfluous water is pumped overboard. But the water does contain some oil residue, and that is too much according to US environment regulations.

US regulations contradictory
Wierd Koops thinks the US approach is nonsense, because otherwise you would have to store the surplus seawater in the tanks as well. We say no, you have to get as much oil as possible into the storage tanks and as little water as possible. So we pump the water, which contains drops of oil, back overboard.
http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/dutch-oil-spill-response-team-standby-us-oil-disaster

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-23-10 10:49 PM
Response to Original message
4. good question!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-23-10 10:51 PM
Response to Original message
5. Has the Obama administration put out an appeal for international help?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-23-10 10:51 PM
Response to Original message
6. I think it's cause BP is trying to do this on the cheap. After all, they don't live there. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-23-10 10:58 PM
Response to Original message
7. Picture of skimmer boats
Happy now?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-23-10 11:02 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Greenpeace Flickr stream of the spill
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShamelessHussy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-10 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #7
26. 2 - thanks for illustrating my point
woefully inadequate, there needs to be an ARMADA, it should look like an invasion force, damn it!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Webster Green Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-10 09:40 AM
Response to Reply #7
28. No
Because that's not what they are. One is obviously a coast Guard Cutter. They're putting out booms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lagomorph Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-23-10 11:00 PM
Response to Original message
8. Because it's not in the headlines...
...there are about 500 boats out there trying to contain the spill, so far, according to BP. I'm betting that most of the assets are privately owned and assigned to specific geographical locations already. I seriously doubt there is such a thing as an oil disaster rapid response task force.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-23-10 11:03 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. According to what I saw on local news today, BP is not utilizing many privately owned boats
They have been sitting still all weekend long while BP decide whether we will live or die.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lagomorph Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-23-10 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. They have to qualify first.
Coast guard inspections, crew requirements, safety classes, equipment training classes, etc...

I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't enough boom equipment for all the vessels of opportunity that are available, but I don't know that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-23-10 11:34 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. I believe most if not all have qualified.
Classes have been going on for weeks here, but everyone I know here is on standby. BP is simply refusing to utilize local manpower.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-23-10 11:47 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. But
Boom boats are not skimmers that suck water and oil into the ships.
Boom boats drag up oil in a 'catch like' boom and then dump it into a mothership.

I read a while back that some Dutch skimmers asked to be allowed to go to work and were told "No Thanks".

Precisely what is needed are large ships that plow through the oil and suck water and oil into and onboard. The filter out as much oil as possible -- @ 99%, and deposit the water back into the gulf.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShamelessHussy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-10 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #11
18. rules are meant to be broken in times of emergency
another example of where an executive order would come in handy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chulanowa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-10 03:22 AM
Response to Original message
14. Environmental regulations
See, these things suck up lots of seawater with the oil. They separate the oil, and spit the seawater back out. of course, the process isn't perfect - a fair amount of dissolved oil goes back out with the seawater (granted, a hell of a lot less than came in)

However, it is more than current regulations allow ships to eject.

Yeah. Think about that and see if you don't want to beat your head against a rock.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShamelessHussy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-10 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #14
17. sounds like just the kind of exception an executive order could put in place
thanks for the info :toast:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maraya1969 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-10 03:36 AM
Response to Original message
15. Here is the coast guard number to call and ask WHY they aren't
in the gulf

sara.g.francis@uscg.mil

Coast Guard Modernization Banner

17th District Public Affairs

U.S. Coast Guard
Department of Homeland Security Coast Guard logo

News Release

Date: March 12, 2010

Contact: Petty Officer 1st Class Sara Francis

(907) 321-450
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShamelessHussy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-10 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #15
19. Take it straight to the top: The White House (202) 395-2020
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest
Washington, DC 20500
(202) 395-2020
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Duppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-10 05:45 AM
Response to Original message
16. K & R
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomm2thumbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-10 01:31 PM
Response to Original message
20. ...bbbut Gibbs says they are 'doing everything humanly possible' - don't you see?

there is not one more thing that we can do as humans to clean this up - it is literally ALL being done - 100% of what is possible is being done

Gibbs said so, and he speaks for the White House

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-10 03:08 PM
Response to Original message
23. Great Question !!! - K & R !!!
:kick:

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShamelessHussy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-10 03:53 PM
Response to Original message
24. To the snarky 'replace them with what' official reply to criticism of the response thus far
send them this link, for starters...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 30th 2020, 01:37 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC