WAKE UP Obama, This Spill Can Make You a One Term Prez

[Kalun D]

(Esquire Politics Blog)

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.

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.

Read more: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/gulf-oil-spill-supertankers-051310#ixzz0q7SSWF1J

[midnight]

1. I like that this technique has a track record. I wonder what the apprehension is?

[ProSense]

3. Scam

According to Hofmeister, oil supertankers could be used to suck up massive amounts of oil--possibly millions of barrels at a time.

In an interview with FastCompany.com, Hofmeister explained that a little-known Saudi oil spill from an offshore platform in the early 1990s dumped more crude into the sea than any spill in U.S. history (think hundreds of millions of gallons). But the government and local press kept it quiet. And that's why one of the big fixes in the Saudi oil spill--the oil-skimming supertanker--hasn't been publicized.

"(They) figured out how to deploy supertankers that had the ability to both intake and discharge liquids in vast quantities with huge pumps," Hofmeister explained. "The supertankers could simply suck in seawater and oil simultaneously--they can hold millions of barrels--and when full, they could discharge oil at a port into tanks where they could separate oil from water. The idea is novel in that you can get massive of oil amounts quickly." Once the supertankers make it to to the port, water can be treated and discharged, and oil can either be used or destroyed.

Pozzi saw the technique used in the Middle East, where it recovered 85% of the oil from the Saudi spill. And he thinks it could work in the Gulf of Mexico. "The only downside is that you tie up oil tankers. That's why we think that BP won't listen to us. They don't want to spend that extra money."

After learning about the supertanker technique a few weeks ago, Hofmeister decided to bring it to the government's attention. "I've been trying to connect engineers with decision-makers at the Coast Guard and in the interior department," he said.

Pozzi and his business partner Jon King have also tried to contact officials, with no luck. "I called the President of BP, got his secretary and then got a call from a lady inside the building we were standing outside of. We never really heard back from her. Nick also knew some people and got one of the men in charge of the spill. He threatened to sue Nick for not going through channels," King said.

But even if BP and the government both approve the technique, it will take a while before it can be implemented. "A lot of these supertankers are sitting on the ocean full of oil. How do you get them empty? It may take some time to organize," Hofmeister explained. And, of course, organizers will have to make sure that the supertankers don't crash into each other. All the more reason to get started now.

link

[Kalun D]

5. No Credible Source?

Do you have a credible source that says it's a scam?

I'll tell you what the scam is, the dispersants. That and the boom that's not even being used correctly.

There's 500 plus supertankers in existence, only 50 of them are being used to store oil right now.

[ProSense]

9. "There's 500 plus supertankers in existence,"

Supertankers aren't vacuums. The would need to be modified.

There is a reason the person making the claim said it would be "novel." In fact, Pozzi's Saudi claim seems highly suspect.

From the OP article:

"Pozzi saw the technique used in the Middle East, where it recovered 85% of the oil from the Saudi spill. And he thinks it could work in the Gulf of Mexico. "The only downside is that you tie up oil tankers. That's why we think that BP won't listen to us. They don't want to spend that extra money....Pozzi and his business partner Jon King have also tried to contact officials, with no luck. "

Sounds like someone trying to drum up business for a technique that they're not even sure about.

Also from the OP article:

Right now there are probably 25 supertankers, waiting for orders, full of oil. So all they got to do is come to Texas, in the Gulf, unload the oil, and then turn around and suck up all this other stuff and pump it onto shore into on-shore storage. It's not rocket science. It's so simple. It's a Robinson Crusoe fix, but it works.

So accordingly the tankers aren't even empty.

[Kalun D]

13. The Stooge Admiral's Word?

He's an oil expert? Oh wait, he's too busy eating dinner with Tony Hayward.

there's 50 tankers ready and waiting

it's been over a month, they could have emptied all 500 more than once and fixed pumps

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/bp-oil-spill-cleanup-costs-060410

[ProSense]

17. Why are you ignoring the quotes for the very article you posted? n/t

[Kalun D]

19. I'm ignoring

how you are twisting them

there's 500 tankers in existence in the world, there's 50 tankers being used for storage, IOW they are out of the loop, the other 450 are available, you would expect that 50 or so could be rounded up off the Gulf Coast after all it's oil capital of the world.

[ProSense]

20. "Right now there are probably 25 supertankers, waiting for orders, full of oil. "

And they are still not vacuums.

[Kalun D]

24. How Long Does it take???????????

The first article about this is dated May 13, they were already talking about it then

3 weeks they could have those tankers already emptied fitted and on location.

[ProSense]

28. "it will take a while before it can be implemented"

But even if BP and the government both approve the technique, it will take a while before it can be implemented. "A lot of these supertankers are sitting on the ocean full of oil. How do you get them empty? It may take some time to organize," Hofmeister explained. And, of course, organizers will have to make sure that the supertankers don't crash into each other. All the more reason to get started now.

The whole thing sounds like a couple of people talking out loud about stuff they think might work, but have no clue as to how it would be implemented.

[Kalun D]

30. Talking About Stuff

that they've already done before, these are oil people

[jeanpalmer]

47. Of these 500 tankers

some apparently are transporting oil and some are storing unneeded oil at sea. The ones storing oil are not needed to transport oil. Therefore, have them unload their cargo and use them in this cleanup effort. That way, instead of having say 450 transporting oil and 50 storing oil, you'd have 450 transporting oil and 50 cleaning up oil. Unloading their oil is how you make them empty so they can be used in the cleanup effort. :shrug:

[HughMoran]

18. There's lots of skimmers there already AND most oil is NOT in slicks

So you're right - this idea is so stupid nobody with any sense would take it seriously any more. 2 minutes of searching is all it took me.

[Kalun D]

21. Stop the Dispersants

and it will form slicks

If it's on the surface it could be suctioned up into tankers, that's how they did it in the Arabian Gulf.

how come the WH asked BP to stop the dispersants? How come BP didn't stop? How come the WH didn't FORCE them to stop.

The Ixtoc spill went for 8 months and the ocean floor was only 200 ft. That's how long it can take to hit a relief well.

this spill could go for another 6 months. 6 more months of oil, stop the dispersants and start taking it into tankers. Instead of just spreading it out where it ends up on the bottom and the beach.

[HughMoran]

23. Kind of late for that now

...but suggesting it now (a month after this was published) when there is still little oil in slicks is not very helpful. If you can guarantee where the oil will come up and could skim it immediately, then it could be useful. Note that there are many skimmers there already - these things are not a new concept - used in cleaning up the Charles river 40 years ago.

[amborin]

41. it COULD have been skimmed right at the outset by Dutch skimming ships; but US EPA said NO

Edited on Mon May-10-10 04:47 AM by amborin
http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/dutch-oil-spill-respo...


Dutch oil spill response team on standby for US oil disaster

"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.

What do the Dutch have that the Americans don’t when it comes to tackling oil spills at sea? “Skimmers,” answers Wierd Koops, chairman of the Dutch organisation for combating oil spills, Spill Response Group Holland.

The Americans don’t 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.”

US regulations are contradictory, Mr Knoops stresses. Pumping water back into the sea with oil residue is not allowed. But you are allowed to combat the spill with chemicals so that the oil dissolves in the seawater. In both cases, the dissolved oil is naturally broken down quite quickly.
It is possible the Americans will opt for the Dutch method as the damage the oil spill could cause to the mud flats and salt marshes along the coast is much worse, warns Wetland expert Hans Revier
“You have to make sure you clear up the oil at sea. As soon as the oil reaches the mud flats and salt marshes, it is too late. The only thing you can do then is dig it up. But then the solution is worse than the problem.”

snip

[jeanpalmer]

46. The government people running this operation

seem to be clueless. If a recovery vessel sucks up oil and water and returns water with a small amount of oil to the sea, it seems like a wothwhie operation that gradually removes the oil from the sea. Only a govt imbecile would call that polluting the water.

The one thing you see in all the photos from the beaches in Louisiana is there are no ships on the water cleaning up anything. I'd like to hear Obama's explanation of that. I agtee with Carville at this point. The government is doing almost nothing.

[amborin]

42. independent scientists were sidelined from the get-go; their advice ignored and data suppressed

[jeanpalmer]

48. Dispersants -- if the oil is out of sight

it's out of mind and not a political problem.

If there are large numbers of tankers patrolling the Gulf sucking up oil, they are very visible and are a constant reminder of the disaster.

Also, I think some of the government's inactivity can be attributed to the fact that the controlling consideration in all this is: don't do anything that makes it appear the government is assuming control of the cleanup. Keep the monkey on BP's back at all costs.

[SkyDaddy7]

49. This is the problem...

Cheered on by poor reporting people have no clue what it takes to do things like this article claims. Plus, emotions are so raw people and trying to explain things is almost impossible.

My anger is totally on BP and Transocean for the deaths & injuries they are both responsible for and BP for lying & saying they could handle a much worse spill.

I know President Obama is doing all that is possible...There is no way he is just sitting around ignoring this spill. Basically there is nothing Obama could have done or can do that will ease the blame being put on him. Obama will probably be a one term President but I am very proud he is my President!

This spill is simply too big to prevent landfall and the logistics of the clean are far beyond most of our ability to comprehend!

[jeanpalmer]

51. I think many people are wondering

why the oil is still floating in the water and why it isn't being cleaned up, why is it accumulating in the ocean and on the beaches. That's a reasonable question. People would simply like an explanation, whatever it is: what's possible, what's not posiible, what's being done. But I have yet to hear any explanation from any government official explaining that, and BP itself doesn't seem to be focused on cleanup. That's why people are angry and why people speculate about it -- because they're not getting an explanation. They see oil floating onto their beaches and they want to know what's being done to stop it.

BP may have the responsibility for plugging the hole, but the government has a general responsibility to protect our environment and oceans and shores. And that means responsibility to keep this oil contained to the extent possible. The government can't escape its responsibility by pointing the finger at BP.

[SkyDaddy7]

52. I agree...

Let us be honest...There is nothing Obama can do or could have done that would prevent the blame he is getting. Obama knows this and has accepted responsibility. He can't come out and say this spill is way beyond our ability to deal with it but we will do everything we can to minimize the damage...We the People can't hear that kind of blunt truth and the media would just spin it as Obama is not a strong President. Seriously, the right wing would eat him up for saying such a thing. The sad truth is we should all be coming together in time of tragedy but that is only patriotic when the Republicans are in office.

The government is clearly to blame for lack of regulation on all industry. However, will the American People once again side with the Republicans when it comes to stronger regulation in the future?

I am not so sure they won't end up supporting the Republican plan for "toothless" new regulation when it comes time...The Republicans will use the time tested and very successful FEAR that any legislation the Democrats propose is a government takeover of industry that will cost jobs. It has worked for 30 years and took just 3 or 4 months to start working once Obama took office. The ultimate blame is the American People!

Seriously, if facts were important to the American People then Liberals would be running this country with massive margins in both Houses and across the country...This is a right wing country that is more interested in preventing gays from marrying, woman from controlling their own bodies & preventing Evolution from being taught in school. SAD!!!

[ProSense]

2. .

Pozzi, an American engineer then in charge of Saudi Aramco's east-west pipeline in the technical support and maintenance services division, was part of a team given cart blanche to control the blowout. Pozzi had dealt with numerous spills over the years without using chemicals, and had tried dumping flour into the oil, then scooping the resulting tar balls from the surface. "You ever cooked with flour? Absorbent, right?" Pozzi says. Next, he'd dumped straw into the spills; also highly absorbent, but then you've got a lot of straw to clean up. This spill was going to require a much larger, more sustained solution. And fast.

That's when Pozzi and his team came up with the idea of having empty ships park near the Saudi spill and pull the oil off the water. This part of the operation went on for six months, with the mop-up operations lasting for several years more. Pozzi says that 85 percent of the spilled oil was recovered, and it is precisely this strategy that he wants to see deployed in the Gulf of Mexico.

Oh brother.

:rofl:

[boppers]

4. You do know a similar effort is already underway, right?

It's not a quick fix, and there simply aren't enough ships suitably equipped in existence to cover the whole area.

[Kalun D]

6. Obama's Mistake

Obama's mistake is letting BP run the clean-up. Like a criminal at the scene of the crime.

Dispersants should be a crime, all they do is make it harder to clean up. WH told them to stop the dispersants, yet they continued. How come they weren't forced to stop?

[vaberella]

44. Everyone says it's a mistake. That's in hindsight you know that?!

When nuclear plants have a leak, or when private companies are spilling garbage into rivers making the water toxic, and when oil rigs explode we have who do the clean up? Not the federal government. We have normally had the oil company do all the clean up. Now because this mess is still going on, it's a mistake to have the company involved to clean up their disasters?! Give me a break here. If they were able to stop it, we'd have said the President did a good job to force the hands of BP. BP is a failure at this and unfortunately I don't think there's anything so far able to stop the leak. Cleaning up the oil is a breeze that is not used because of corporate interests. But stopping it, is really the problem.

[Kalun D]

7. Is It Similar To This Boom Pick?

Look how effective this boom is, it's all properly manned 24/7 and it's set up properly too, at an angle to the shore with catch spots, oh wait... wrong picture

[boppers]

8. Ick. Which beach is that?

That's gonna take years to clean.

[Kalun D]

25. There's Way More Pics

There's way more pics of failed unmanned improperly set up booms than there are of good ones.

there's many pics out there of oiled beaches.

[salguine]

10. This would have worked a lot better when the slick was still on the surface, before BP

and their chemicals dispersed it vertically through the whole water column. The only thing BP was trying to do was hide the extent of the disaster. I don't think this strategy would do much good now.

[Kalun D]

14. Stop Dispersants NOW

If they stop dispersants now they could still get a lot of it

The Ixtac spilled for 8 months before they got a relief well done, and that was in 200ft of water

it hasn't even been 2 months yet

[dionysus]

36. i agree. dispersants just make it worse.

[Kalun D]

15. Yes

I think that's the sole purpose of dispersants, after all they are as toxic as the oil, they just hide the amount because they are fined measured by the amount.

[izquierdista]

11. But, but, but

The Coast Guard admiral said that he couldn't find the keys to the supertanker. I think he's gone down the street to look for them under a street light - light's better there.

[golfguru]

12. The keys are hidden in

Hillary's Rose Law Firm records which are sitting
on her dining table. :rofl:

[Kalun D]

16. They fell behind the couch

While Hayward and the admiral were getting it on with the call girls.

[HughMoran]

22. Month old story long since discredited

There's lots of skimmers there already and since most of the oil is NOT in slicks (due to dispersant use), this idea would be of almost no help at all.

[Kalun D]

27. Stop the Dispersants

and the oil will be in slicks

this could go on for another 6 months

it was very successful in the Arabian Gulf spill

[Aramchek]

26. we know you'd like that. but, thankfully, Obama's not going anywhere until 2016

[Kalun D]

29. No, I Voted For Obama

go back and look at my posts around election time

he's merely the lesser of two evils at this point but I'd vote for him before any repug

he's setting himself up like Carter did, he's not taking care of the problem

allowing the criminals to clean up the crime scene is the worst mistake

he needs to seize their US assets like they do with drug dealers and pay for the clean up and damages out of that.

[craigmatic]

31. This spill doesn't really threaten Obama that much. I say that because

with the exception of Florida none of the states affected by the spill voted for him in the first place. So in reality what has he really lost? Another way of looking at things and this is going to sound cold blooded but it just might be true is that all these fishermen who the spill is going to put out of work are going to need more government assistance to survive. Who are they going to end up voting for to get assistance? It certainly won't be the republicans who are pro-big business and drilling. This disaster has the potential to cripple the repubs both ideologically and electorially because it's going to force them to have to deal with the reality of poor peoples' lives. In theory a good democrat ought to be able to exploit that by making oil companies' money seem unappealing to take by the repubs by making them seem like the ones who profit from this mess. Obama has the opportunity to make lemonade out of this huge lemon if he plays it right.

[Jennicut]

33. Only Jindal is "angry" at Obama as well.

None of the other Gulf State governors are willing to criticize him. Barbour said today he won't.
And you are correct, Obama will never win LA, Miss or Alabama.

[Politics_Guy27]

39. And all that punk Jindal cares about is his 2012 presidential campaign

Bobby Jindal can go to hell as far as I'm concerned.

[DatManFromNawlins]

34. You are clueless

there is absolutely ZERO way to spin this for gain down here. The vast majority of the fishermen down here are pro-drilling. What the fuck do you think their relatives do for a living? They either work support for fishing, or they either work on rigs or support for oil drilling, or they work at refineries. Yeah, go ahead, attack the oil industry. Put people out of work. See what that gets you. You know why Charlie Melancon balked at this deal? Because it's absolutely idiotic considering the makeup of his congressional district. The largest employers in his district probably go something like this: Shell, Monsanto, Motiva, Dow, Occidental Petroleum, Entergy, Bollinger, Abdon Callais. Those who aren't probably wouldn't BE here if it weren't for those industries.

People down here don't give a crap about whether you fly down here and tell them "I care." They want what they have not gotten from either the Bush administration or the Obama administration: results.

[ProSense]

35. "The vast majority of the fishermen down here are pro-drilling. "

Then it really doesn't matter does it? They're likely upset about the moratorium.

"Yeah, go ahead, attack the oil industry. Put people out of work. See what that gets you."

Screw the oil industry. It's time to begin moving away from jobs that have the potential to destroy the environment and livelihoods of the very people who support them.

"People down here don't give a crap about whether you fly down here and tell them "I care." They want what they have not gotten from either the Bush administration or the Obama administration: results. "

Does James Carville and media know this?

[impik]

32. And wouldn't you be happy.

[Skidmore]

37. Some on the left (including some DUers) have been trying to make

him a one term president from the beginning. Believe me, no oil, banking, automobile manufacturer, or war will do as much damage as those of the left can do to him. It's sickening how shortsighted some people can become.

[Kalun D]

38. Reasons

""oil, banking, automobile manufacturer, or war""

these are the reasons the left is pissed off at him

[vaberella]

45. Excuse you...

Why would the left be angry at him for automobile manufacturers?! Do you happen to know how many bloody jobs he saved because the US Gov went in and saved it. As for Banking----we can bloody see a lot of benefits and he's currently getting to regulating them. The left should be angry at the Bush admin for the deregulation. Slowly increasing the regulation again is causing a problem not because of Obama but because of Republicans and Dems in Congress....why is this hard for people to get a clue on.


As for Oil, I have no clue how anyone can blame the President. The only thing he is guilty of is not stopping the oil rigs from the beginning---but let's also be serious. We're an energy consuming country. Until we start taking a hold of our in over use of energy---we can't blame the President. The President can't shut off the unnecessary lights in our house. And while we have some of the technology out there---the American population needs to be fixing some of this on their own and we haven't. But we want the Government to do it. I hate off shore drilling with a passion and I hate this situation---but I will be the first one to say I understand why it's still in use when I see my University having all the lights on in 8 buildings when all there is one security guard.

As for the war...it is ending---all we do is sending in drones. That's not any better, but we are slowly making our way out. Most of the stuff I've heard of late are only rumors. I don't know how any President can send about 70,000 troops deployed secretly. Now he's Houdini.

[JCMach1]

40. They are mismanaging the political side of this for sure...

They should have had tankers and skimmers by the score, EVEN if the effects are minimal.

[besdayz]

43. a

""oil, banking, automobile manufacturer, or war""

these are the reasons the left is pissed off at him



you can add guantanamo, salazar mms, and whaling to that list....


guy is a huge waste of potential....


a douchebag really that he got our hopes up and dropped a huge deuce on america...

[treestar]

50. How ridiculous

People who like drama should stay away from problems and let reality based people solve them. There are movies and soap operas for that sort of thing. Angry, drama and show demanding people need to stay away from problems. They only hamper efforts to solve them.