reply to post by -Blackout-
From our US perspective, the US needs a marine oil disaster response scientific clearing house, perhaps behind the scenes and low profile, to help
develop and test clean up equipment and safety modifications needed to maintain our marine-based oil and energy fields. We can expect a major marine
disaster once every 10 to 20 years from the many thousands of well heads around the world. There are nearly 4000 such US based well heads along our
Gulf coast from Louisiana to the western edge of Florida.
" "The basic notion is you hold the responsible party accountable, with regime oversight", from the government with oversight by federal agencies.
Spills on land are overseen by the EPA, offshore spills by the Coast Guard. "
"After the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska, Congress dictated that oil companies be responsible for dealing with major accidents -- including
paying for all cleanup" " (Mark Magnier - LA Times).
We need to develop wartime-quick response technologies that work.
While the oil companies have focused on rig and platform safety there has been little incentive to focus on disaster containment and oil spill clean
up technologies. It's evident that the free market supply and demand for extraordinary maritime oil spill disaster response needs government
sponsored incentivizing through some politically manageable incentives --- perhaps “off the bottom line tax credits” to shift large amounts of
capital into the industry for rapid investment and development.
Equally important, we need a clearing house for the scientific development and testing of marine oil disasters clean-up protocols, equipment, and
resources. The US President needs a single clearing house which the President may rely upon for real disaster best-path guidance, while other agencies
do the actual in-field clean-up. Environmental sensitivity has finally come of age rising to unify our diverse political factions.
While the US Coast Guard has traditionally been assigned coastal and waterway environmental clean-up response, they should be working with a design
and testing clearing house within the US Naval Academy, Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering (NAOE). The mission to implement clean-up should
likely remain with the Coast Guard ( with on-land oil spills with the EPA) but the equipment testing and development is better vested in our nation's
parent service, the US Navy, as the level of priority assigned to US ecological marine disaster response works its way up the list of national
Fighting wars are messy affairs with enormous waste of resources, cleaning up oceans before spills reach the shores might at first seem too delicate a
task for the US Navy which harbors its own toxic skeletons. But times are rapidly changing and NAOE has many partners which lend NAOE a powerful say
in the final processes including the EPA, the US Coast Guard and many international governmental organizations and environmental agencies. NAOE is
already equipped with marine research facilities and staffed to organize Big-$cience and bring it to bear upon the global war front.
Relying on the under-funded Coast Guard to hold all the answers is an unreasonable expectation when they have no funding to operate a testing lab on
an ongoing basis. NAOE on the other hand was set up in part to do just that with a focus on naval design, rescue, research, and now marine disaster
response, water borne technologies of every sort, no doubt much of which remains classified. NAOE is also well equipped to project its rather
considerable knowledge base into design issues concerning oil platform construction, fire safety, and extreme emergency fires at sea, and an entire
range of out of the box marine engineering solutions that flow from this area of research and development.
[edit on 6-6-2010 by LateToTheTable]