Twelve (Imperfect) Ways to Clean the Gulf

The New York Times ^ | June 5, 2010 | By DAGMAR SCHMIDT ETKIN, JON HAN and MAYE WEBB

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

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 ....

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

The chart at the web site summarizes the various cleanup efforts being undertaken or proposed in the gulf and along the coast.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Related thread:

3rd UPDATE: BP: 10,500 Barrels Of Oil Collected From US Gulf Leak Sat

[do the dhue]

[DrC]

Nice article. The money quote:
“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.”

So sad the federal bureaucracy in charge was caught so flat-footed that this approach never got tried. If the oil spill had been reduced by 98%, I doubt we’d even be discussing it, as the residual 2% would be barely different than what occurs naturally every day.

[Carry_Okie]

If the oil spill had been reduced by 98%, I doubt we’d even be discussing it, as the residual 2% would be barely different than what occurs naturally every day.

I would presume this only works in relatively calm waters, but your point re the lack of rapid response and the efforts of the greens to preclude it are "well taken" (so to speak).

[black_diamond]

Use the Shamwow!

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

LOL!

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Not sure but I think I read that our Fire burning booms were sent to Brazil....

[csmusaret]

And I blame the failure to burn it on Admiral Allen. He was the incident commander from day one. Existing law said it was his job. Existing policy said he was supposed to burn it. Apparently he listened to BP and allowed them to try anti dispersants instead. We can all see how well that worked out.

[syriacus]

OILGATE: It’s not about BP’s costly leak. It’s about Obama’s stingy cleanup.

At the same time that the Feds decided they should take charge of regulating drilling in the Gulf, they shouldered the responsibility to protect American homes and livelihoods that bordered that area.

BP should ultimately pay for the cleanup, but the Feds should have acted as quickly as possible to minimize the effects of the leak.

Bush released Federal funds to Louisiana TWO DAYS before Katrina struck.

When did Obama release Federal funds to Louisiana?

[Carry_Okie]

Not sure but I think I read that our Fire burning booms were sent to Brazil....

I'd sure like to know more about that, especially the timing.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

It was on one of the early threads....

Another conspiracy thread going:

Bombshell expose'. The real reason the oil still flows into the Gulf of Mexico.

There is this one stating we didn't have them...:

Despite plan, not a single fire boom on hand on Gulf Coast at time of oil spill

Now I wonder ...what I did see.

[Carry_Okie]

I was unable to find any explanation as to why there was no fire boom available, nor any reference that any had been moved to Brazil. I did find a reference indicating that they are required for offshore drilling down there.

The lack of them here appears to be one of those stories to which people awake only when they realize it has been spiked. One thing set of facts appear certain:

1. There was an approved plan for the use of fire booms.
2. There was a requirement that they be available that was not heeded.
3. The existence of an approved plan would have eliminated
4. need for environmental review.
5. The greenies demanded a restraining order anyway on grounds of air pollution.
6. The judge had grounds to throw it out immediately and apparently did not.

The most egregious problem is the physical lack of the legally required equipment. As of now, I am firmly in the "possible conspiracy" camp, simply because there were too many systematic failures.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

The greenies demanded a restraining order anyway on grounds of air pollution.

So the greenies preferred beach pollution...right?

[Carry_Okie]

So the greenies preferred beach pollution...right?

Correct. Makes you wonder what the plan really was.

The shutdown of oil production from the Gulf and a war in Iran would be a perfect storm.

Imagine the profits, mostly to Islamic and socialist countries.