Why doesn't the U.S. own submersibles appropriate for the situation?

[ProSense]

EARLE: ... to be able to calculate the effects and what‘s the fate of the oil itself, plus-, what do we need to do to bring it to closure?

MATTHEWS: Well, that‘s what I‘m asking about. Is the problem getting a submarine to get—can we use our fleet of submarines to go down there and get men, frogmen, down there with torches and begin to close up that—that hole in that pipe? What is the problem, getting there? Is it the transportation to the bottom of the sea, a mile down, or is it the technology of closing that hole?

EARLE: I think it‘s a combination. We don‘t have submersibles that can go to 5,000 feet, except for the Alvin, a few systems that exist in the whole world. There are only four submersibles that can go to half the ocean‘s depth. And this country doesn‘t have any of those. It‘s Japan, China, France. We‘re not—and Russia—we‘re not in the game to go really deep with manned systems.

MATTHEWS: Well—well, how did we dig this hole? EARLE: And... (CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: How did we drill—how did we drill this pipeline? How did we create this oil well down there, if we couldn‘t get down there?

EARLE: We have got the technology to actually accomplish that kind of work in the deep sea, even essentially nearly twice as deep, and the robots that are developed to be able to go down for maintenance, inspection and repair.

But that‘s under normal circumstances. To deal with something of this sort is a major challenge that I think nobody anticipated that we would ever have to do this. There are some unique problems with dealing in deep water and dealing with the oil that comes out of such an area, as compared to what is released at the surface.

For one thing, of course, it‘s cold. And then there‘s the pressure. These are factors that we‘re just not prepared to have to— to deal with. And we have to get up to speed fast. The technologies arguably do exist. I mean, the capability is there.

MATTHEWS: Yes.

EARLE: But we haven‘t made the investment to have a garage filled with submarines, a garage filled with remotely-operated systems, and the talent to be able to go down independently of industry and respond.

link

The Bush administration approved more than 41,000 drilling permits.

America's ability to respond to this catastrophe was determined long ago when this country decided that drilling was more important than solutions to potential disasters.

[donco6]

1. Why should we be stuck with that capital investment?

It should be part of the lease application. "Do you have a plan for capping a deep-water well that includes the use of deep water submersibles?"

[mopinko]

4. i believe they claimed they did.

granted people at mms should be looking at criminal charges. but they did swear that they were prepared to deal with this.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

8. A plan is not good enough - future drilling should stop

any rig that doesn't have the necessary failsafe mechanisms for shutting it off should be closed down.

If we apply this to nuclear reactors an explosion could be catastrophic - how much equipment does the government have to deal with something like a Chenobyl. The electricity industry will tell you that they can't go wrong.

[Trillo]

2. It's interesting to contrast this with nuclear technologies.

It seems the government says we are the ultimate controller, and you may not have this technology.

With oil, the positions seem swapped, where the companies are the ultimate controller and the government doesn't have the technology.

It's enough to make one believe nearly everyone is lying their asses off.

[jtrockville]

3. "nobody anticipated that we would ever have to do this"

So everyone assumed there'd never be an accident?
Everyone just believed "it's safe"?

Mighty naive.

[saracat]

6. Gee didn't Condi say "No one anticipated 9-11' ?That wasn't true either.

The Exxon Valdez should have been warning enough. Apparently Costner thought it was.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

9. Valdez should have been a warning

however oil has run through the veins of Washington for years.

[depakid]

13. The Montara spill in 2009 was the warning-

The GAO report in 2009 re: illegal waivers was the warning....

Had they been heeded, we might not be in this position- and even if we still were, the administration wouldn't be staring at nearly so much political damage.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

15. how did they plug the leak did the Australians do it?

[liberal N proud]

5. The government probably developed them then gave the technology

to some rich CEO of a private company.

Isn't that how it usually goes?

[mahatmakanejeeves]

7. "For one thing, of course, it‘s cold. And then there‘s the pressure."

Just as an aside:

A cubic foot of water weighs 62.4 pounds. So let's say I take a box that's 12 inches by 12 inches by 12 inches and fill it with water. That's 62.4 pounds. It's sitting on a base of 12 by 12 inches, or 144 square inches. The pressure on the bottom of the box due to the water is 62.4 pounds divided by 144 square inches, or 0.43 pounds per square inch. That means that at a depth of one foot, water pressure is 0.43 psi. The pressure goes up 0.43 psi for every foot of depth you have.

Where the oil is coming out, the ocean floor is a mile deep. Multiply 0.43 psi per foot of depth times 5,280 feet, and you get a water pressure where the oil out is leaking of 2,290 psi.

That is just one thing that makes this job so difficult.

"The Hunt for Red October" was fiction. Unmanned devices can operate down there, but not people.

[Better Today]

10. USA shouldn't have to, but it should have guaranteed that BP did before authorizing drilling.

[moondust]

11. If it's something that doesn't lead directly to big profits...

don't expect the corporate moneygrubbers to show much interest or make much of a commitment.

[damntexdem]

12. Hmm, had the U.S. started developing them 29 years ago, they might have something.

But, then, Ronnie Ray-gun said that government is the problem, not the solution -- and somehow, that line has been policy ever since.

[amborin]

14. Obama has been in power 18 months; plenty of time to make some "changes"

[ProSense]

16. Plenty of time to commission and build a submersible?

Ridiculous.

[saracat]

17. Plenty of time to have gotten interior under control and investigated before declaring

drilling "safe", and as for the sub? Who knows? Perhaps if we had had ongoing development but we will never know because no one was prepared, and no one even started to be. It was NOT a priority.

[freddie mertz]

19. We HAVE one! The Alvin. See below!!!!!!!!!!

YEESH!

[freddie mertz]

18. The submersible Alvin is still officially active and based at Woods Hole, Mass.

http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=8422

Does anyone know if it is out of service.

If so, why not borrow one?

:wtf:

[ljm2002]

20. "nobody anticipated that we would ever have to do this"...

...I am ready to scream!

They developed specialized robots because they knew about the pressures and temperature at that depth. They developed BOP technology to deal with all the things that happen at that pressures and temperature.

But they did not address the worst-case scenario, a BOP failure. Because, dontcha know, the BOP "couldn't fail".

Except that it did.

Captain of the Titanic: "We don't need enough lifeboats, it's unsinkable I tells ya!" ... Later: "No one could have foreseen that iceberg!"

Hubris. Nemesis.

If we can't deal with plugging a blowout in that environment, then we cannot allow drilling in that environment.