Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Director James Cameron says BP turned down help offer

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
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-06-10 09:13 PM
Original message
Director James Cameron says BP turned down help offer
PALOS VERDES, Calif (Reuters) – Film director and deep-sea explorer James Cameron said on Wednesday that BP Plc turned down his offer to help combat the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

"Over the last few weeks I've watched, as we all have, with growing horror and heartache, watching what's happening in the Gulf and thinking those morons don't know what they're doing," Cameron said at the All Things Digital technology conference.
(snip)

I know really, really, really smart people that work typically at depths much greater than what that well is at," Cameron said.

The BP oil spill off the U.S. Gulf Coast is located a mile below the surface.

While acknowledging that his contacts in the deep-sea industry do not drill for oil, Cameron said that they are accustomed to operating various underwater vehicles and electronic optical fiber systems.

"Most importantly," he added, "they know the engineering that it requires to get something done at that depth."

Among the key issues that Cameron said he is interested in helping the government with are methods of monitoring the oil leak and investigating it.

"The government really needs to have its own independent ability to go down there and image the site, survey the site and do its own investigation," he said.

"Because if you're not monitoring it independently, you're asking the perpetrator to give you the video of the crime scene," Cameron added.

(snip)

More: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100603/en_nm/us_oil_spill_cameron

Yes, I know there will be plenty of attacks on the messenger here. "What does HE know? He's just a movie director with a big ego!" But he has the equipment and a team. I'd like to see someone other than BP given a chance at this for a change. The ocean doesn't belong solely to them, after all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Coyote_Bandit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-06-10 09:24 PM
Response to Original message
1. BP doesn't want any kind of independent oversight
or observation. Government oversight is completely acceptable because of the parasitic relationship that exists between the two entities.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nuclear Unicorn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-06-10 09:27 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. I'm not sure parasitic is the word you're looking for
try "incestuous".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TroglodyteScholar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-06-10 09:51 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. I think the word is actually...
..."symbiotic."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-06-10 09:32 PM
Response to Original message
3. I'm sick and tired of this administration giving full leeway to BP (and any other white collar
criminal that screws up royally).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-06-10 09:47 PM
Response to Original message
4. In fairness, with all of the ROVs down there...
it's already rather crowded. Two ROVs collided together during the RITT operation.

At this point I think it would be best if only ROVs involved with the containment operation were down there. I'm good as long the public has access to the feeds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-06-10 09:52 PM
Response to Original message
6. They want no one involved who might expose the problems.
Also interesting they've been failing to return the calls of the man who cleaned 800 million gallons in the Arabian Gulf.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CountAllVotes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-06-10 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. yeah what happened with that?
Edited on Sun Jun-06-10 10:06 PM by CountAllVotes
:wtf:

People are out there with answers. They must be. If they weren't why would Shell Oil be drilling at over 25,000 ft.? They must know the technology as well as I'd think they'd have some safety plans to go with their new huge find in the gulf. Shut down now yes, due to the moratorium.

We need the answers now!

:dem: :kick: recommend.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-10 12:11 AM
Response to Reply #6
10. I hadn't heard about that one. Do you have a link?
:banghead:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-10 12:40 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. I do:
Edited on Mon Jun-07-10 12:40 AM by laughingliberal
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. 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.

UPDATE (June 4): Nearly 50 Supertankers Are Waiting for BP (and On the Cheap)
UPDATE (June 1): BP Executives Skirt Around Supertanker Questions
UPDATE (May 27): Obama Glances Over Supertanker Question as BP, Coast Guard Fail to Respond
UPDATE (May 26): The Pragmatic Oil Spill Fix That BP's Still Waiting On
UPDATE (May 24): Sources Say BP Looking Beyond 'Top Kill' with Supertanker Fix
UPDATE (May 21): Why the Supertanker Fix Works at Depth... but the Government Won't Listen

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.


Read more: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/gulf-oil-spill-supertankers-051310#ixzz0q8v5yCLV

And:


(May 14) -- Even as proposals pour in for cleaning up the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, one veteran of a massive (and secret) crude spill in the Persian Gulf says he has a tried-and-true solution. Now if only the people who could make it happen would return his calls.

"No one's listening," says Nick Pozzi, who was an engineer with Saudi Aramco in the Middle East when he says an accident there in 1993 generated a spill far larger than anything the United States has ever seen.

Eric Gay, AP
A shrimp boat collects oil with booms in the waters of Chandeleur Sound, La., on May 5. An engineer who witnessed a crude spill in the Persian Gulf in 1993 says BP should use a fleet of empty supertankers to suck crude off the water's surface.

According to Pozzi, that mishap, kept under wraps for close to two decades and first reported by Esquire, dumped nearly 800 million gallons of oil into the Persian Gulf, which would make it more than 70 times the size of the Exxon Valdez spill.

But remarkably, by employing a fleet of empty supertankers to suck crude off the water's surface, Pozzi's team was not only able to clean up the spill, but also salvage 85 percent of the oil, he says.


http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/could-cleanup-fix-for-gulf-oil-spill-lie-in-secret-saudi-disaster/19476863
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
woo me with science Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-10 01:02 AM
Response to Reply #6
12. And Cameron may expose them with a blockbuster feature film
eventually.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
librechik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-06-10 09:54 PM
Response to Original message
7. I thought Cameron could help weeks ago
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-10 12:09 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. I don't know. I really don't. The whole thing is sickening, baffling and insane
He's not the only one being turned away, either.
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 04th 2024, 02:29 PM
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