Suck out the oil. Send in empty super tankers and keep pumping.

[The Wielding Truth]

"Supertankers" are generally defined as those greater than 250,000 tonnes deadweight (meaning the maximum weight they can carry when fully loaded). Today's supertankers, on average, can carry about 2 million barrels or 84 million gallons of crude oil and petroleum product. The largest supertanker in the world is the Norwegian-owned Knock Nevis which is 647,955 tonnes deadweight and can hold 4.1 million barrels of petroleum.
Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Saudi_Arabia/pdf.pdf

It seems removing the leaked oil until the leak is stopped should help. Right???

[The Wielding Truth]

1. Send the watered oil to refineries in the US to be cleaned and maybe used.

[The Wielding Truth]

2. At very least it would stop some of the oil from the shoreline.

[The Wielding Truth]

3. The fed gov could contract tankers and ask for volunteers.

[The Wielding Truth]

4. Private ships could stay next to the shores and drop absorbing materials.

[Individualist]

11. The CEO of Shell agrees with you

He was on NBC Nightly News tonight and said 5 or 6 tankers should be sent out to suction up the watered oil, then send it to refineries to separate the water from the oil.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

5. Since we are looking at possibly 3 more months --

of this gusher, I think we need to havea fleet working 24/7 skimming/pumping/booming.

[The Wielding Truth]

6. Yes, it is past time for major national action!

Who is coordinating this effort? Do you know if FEMA is running the project to protect the shore and marsh contact?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

7. I haven't heard squat about any long term plan --

beyond what we are seeing currently, which is woefully inadequate.

[The Wielding Truth]

8. It seems as if the are so afraid of making things worse that they are stymied.

[mikelgb]

9. how about BP execs with drinking straws?

[1776Forever]

10. Why Can't They Use Tankers from Daily Kos May 20 article: COST

Why Can't They Use Tankers
by scorpiorising Thu May 20, 2010

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/5/20/868145/-Why-Cant-They-Use-Tankers

....Now, I'll answer the question as to why this isn't being done: cost . With the federal government essentially giving full reign to BP to control the response to the spill, message and all, cost is and has become a mitigating factor in the response. Pozzi thinks so too.

Pozzi speculates that the reluctance on the part of those he's contacted comes down to one word: cash. When oil tankers are taken out of service for a special project like this, they stop earning money for their owners.

BP, Pozzi says, should "step up to the plate" and offer to pay anyone willing to lend a tanker whatever they would lose in profits by dispatching one of their ships to the gulf region.

BP on Thursday said the cost of battling the spill has reached nearly $450 million.

Calls to BP and Stanton were not immediately returned. The BP press line voice mail message asks anyone offering "technical solutions" to dial another number to "most efficiently" address the suggestion.

This has surged well beyond "Obama's Katrina" into the area of coverup, as far as the size of the spill, to collusion with BP to minimize criticism, restrict access to even pictures, and certainly video, to ineffective to nonexistent tracking of the huge plumes of oil that are being created as laid out in diaries here. Then there's the cost factor.

As we anxiously here look for rescue from the underwater oil threatening, and now in our marsh, who's going to step up to the plate and make sure all resources are indeed marshalled for this response?

............

It's all about the MONEY!
:grr: