Giant oil skimmer ...on way to Gulf cleanup-"A Whale", the largest oil skimmer in the world?

[babylonsister]

BP oil spill: Giant oil skimmer makes stop in Norfolk on way to Gulf cleanup
"A Whale", the largest oil skimmer in the world?


The six opening's(Six on both sides of the vessel, 12 opening's in all) near the bow of the vessel that pulls in the oil"A Whale", is billed as the largest oil skimmer vessel in the world docked at Norfolk International Terminal for today before sailing to the Gulf area this afternoon. The A Whale is 1115 feet long and 196 feet wide and can hold 1 million barrels of recovered oil. (Joe Fudge, Daily Press / June 24, 2010)



NORFOLK — A giant tanker billed as the world's largest oil skimming vessel will sail Friday to the Gulf of Mexico after a brief stop at the Port of Hampton Roads, with no guarantee it will be allowed to assist in oil-cleanup efforts.

The Taiwanese-owned ship, dubbed the "A Whale," is one of the world's largest supertankers at 1,115 feet in length and a nearly 200 foot beam. It was converted last week at a Portuguese shipyard to skim oil off surface waters.

The six-month-old, Liberian-flagged A Whale is designed to work 20 to 50 miles offshore where other, smaller skimmers have trouble navigating and ingest oily water into 12, 16-foot-long intake vents on both sides of its bow.

Its owner, Taiwan-based TMT Group, said the ship has the capacity to capture up to 500,000 barrels of oil-contaminated water a day. The ship is designed to filter out most of the oil from the water in specialized tanks and transfer the oil to other tankers or shore-based facilities. The remaining water would be pumped back into the Gulf.

Company officials said the new skimming method has never been attempted by a vessel of its size.

"We can do in maybe in a day and a half what these other crews have done in 66 days," said Bob Grantham, a project officer for TMT Group based in London. "What we aim to do is to provide the first line of defense of the U.S. coastline. We see the A Whale as adding another layer to the recovery effort."

But, TMT officials said it does not yet have government approval to assist in the cleanup or a contract with BP to perform the work.

more...

http://www.dailypress.com/news/oil-spill/dp-nws-oil-skimmer-20100625,0,3072230.story

[Skink]

1. we had this the whole time?

[babylonsister]

3. No, it was in Portugal til last week. nt

[tabatha]

4. Can you read ?????

"It was converted last week at a Portuguese shipyard to skim oil off surface waters."

[MidwestTransplant]

7. Why read when you can just react. OBAMA WAS HIDING THIS. WTF. OBAMA HATES WHALES.

[tabatha]

15. There are at least three posts

that show that the article was not read. Geez.

[CreekDog]

65. There's nothing in the rules that says we have to read the articles

:rofl:

[dionysus]

24. ROFL

:spray:

[urgk]

45. Hahahahaha...hrmmm. :) (n/t)

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

64. LOL

:spray:

I dunno, to me it looks like it's designed to eat whales. It makes sense considering Obama and the whaling ban. Coincidence?

[rzemanfl]

5. I think it says converted last week. n/t

[HysteryDiagnosis]

2. Makes you wonder why such a beast exists... n/t

[Lone_Star_Dem]

9. Because our gulf disaster isn't the worlds first.

Sadly, it won't be the last either. :(

[tabatha]

12. This ship has only recently

--- last week --- been converted to an oil skimmer.

Prior to that it could not perform that operation.

Reading comprehension!!!

[babylonsister]

20. tabatha, thanks for your TIRELESS efforts to set the record

straight. Sincerely, moi.

I mean it; I'm guilty of not reading a whole article at times, but there's lots of assumptions in this thread, so thanks. :hug:

[tabatha]

21. Thanks - I guess I am a truth seeker.

The problem was that there were implied accusations of wrong-doing in those that did not read it, and that is unfair when it is not warranted.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

22. You may want to reread my post

Because your reply has nothing to do with what I said.

On edit: Hell, even the one before mine had nothing in it that would have fit your reply. :shrug:

[tabatha]

26. It was not a clear sentence.

And my interpretation was that it had been converted because of previous disasters.

It appears that it has been recently converted just for this disaster.

Although, I am sure it will be used in the future.

But, its existence is a direct consequence of THIS disaster.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

62. It was perfectly clear in context to the the person I was replying to

I didn't ask a thing about the ship nor were they. We were sad that we live in a world where things like this have to exist. Get it?

Chill, I think your just ticked because you got all self-righteous about people not reading what was posted (implying me) when you'd misread and misjudged my post in the first place. Slow down and don't be looking for monsters in every closet. If you want to be a "truth seeker" fine, but don't be so overzealous that you don't take time to stop and think.

[awoke_in_2003]

55. reading comprehension...

requires having actually read.

[cutlassmama]

6. "TMT officials said it does not yet have government approval to assist

WHY THE FUCK NOT???!!!!

[tabatha]

8. Because it is in the process of doing so.

The conversion has only been recently completed.

The owners of the "A Whale" said the new skimming approach has never been attempted on this scale.

"We really have to start showing people what we can do," said Bob Grantham, project coordinator for TMT Group, a Taiwan-based shipping company. "We're seriously looking at whether we can go on site and just try to do it ourselves. That's not a good solution. We need to work with everyone else."

The company is still negotiating with the Coast Guard to join the cleanup and does not have a contract with BP to perform the work. The company also needs environmental approval and waiver of a nearly century-old law aimed at protecting U.S. shipping interests.

Environmental Protection Agency approval is required because some of the seawater returned to the Gulf would have traces of oil.

The company said it also needs a waiver of the 1920 Jones Act, which limits the activities of foreign-flagged ships in coastal U.S. waters.

Grantham said TMT was hopeful it could secure the necessary approvals during the ship's three-day passage to the Gulf. The Liberian-flagged ship was to leave Norfolk later Friday.

http://www.wkrg.com/gulf_oil_spill/article/oil-skimming-ship-en-route-to-gulf-of-mexico/900033/Jun-25-2010_11-42-am/

[Cha]

23. Thanks for explaining the important

details.

[dionysus]

25. because they just fucking BUILT the thing! jesus christ it's been a skimmer for a week.

[doc03]

10. Cool n/t

[vaberella]

11. How many of these do we have in the world? We might need more. n/t

[tabatha]

13. This is the VERY FIRST of its kind in the world.

It has only been recently converted to perform this function.

Does anyone not READ the article?

See #8.

[vaberella]

33. I'm sorry sweetie..I read that and I knew it was converted.

I should have been clearly...how many more of this can we make? I had read your post before I had posted. Don't ask why I wrote that again.

[EJSTES2005]

58. Maybe 20+ more...thats how many supertankers BP owns...

How long did it take them to convert this ship ?

[HCE SuiGeneris]

36. I didn't not read it.

:9

[tabatha]

40. Yep, bad colloquialism on my part.

Need to watch that.

[sellitman]

14. Great news

The gulf could sure use some right about now.

I wonder how many more of these we could make?

Why just one?

[tabatha]

16. Read #8.

WE DID NOT make this boat.

A Taiwanese firm did.

It sails under a Lberian flag.

It is the first of its kind in the world.

[sellitman]

30. Go read my post again

Nowhere in it did I say we made the boat. I said I wondered why we couldn't make more of them.

[tabatha]

39. I did.

"Nowhere in it did I say we made the boat. I said I wondered why we couldn't make more of them".
You also said "Why just one?"

Excuse me, but "why we couldn't make more of them" implies that we have made one and should make more.

Because one cannot make more of something that one has not already made.

It is not the fault of the reader that you did not mean what you stated.

[sellitman]

42. You are so right.

I am so wrong.

I feel so ashamed.

Please accept my humble apologies

[tomm2thumbs]

43. I read your post in the way it was intended

ignore those that project into it - loved your response

[sellitman]

46. ;)

Peace! O8)

[tabatha]

51. I guess we take things to seriously.

But to me "we" meant "we". And I did not expect to get hauled over the coals for interpreting "we" as "we'.
I was also annoyed at the numerous misinterpretations, that I guess I thought yours was just one more.

It would be good to have more boats.

But these are huge boats - how long do they take to make? One year? two years?

[one_voice]

17. Rec'd

:kick:

[joe black]

18. Rock and Roll baby.

[boppers]

19. Interesting tech.

Maybe it'll work, and I totally know where to test it....

[amborin]

27. too bad the US EPA forbade the Dutch skimmer ships that were there 40 days ago

[tabatha]

28. Get your effing facts straight.

Q: Did Obama turn down foreign offers of assistance in cleaning up the Gulf oil spill? Did he refuse to waive Jones Act restrictions on foreign-flag vessels?

A: No to both questions. So far, five offers have been accepted and only one offer has been rejected. Fifteen foreign-flag vessels are working on the cleanup, and none required a waiver.

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/06/oil-spill-foreign-help-and-the-jones-act/

[Vattel]

44. A: Eventually Obama accepted foreign offers of assistance.

He didn't accept them as soon as he could have. Is that bad? I don't know.

[urgk]

47. "Eventually" is a pretty loaded, though imprecise word.

"Eventually" after his people determined the owners were legit?

"Eventually" after walking dow the hall to use the restroom?

"Eventually" after consulting various international treaties?

"Eventually" after determining the skimmers were both safe and effective?

"Eventually" after getting to the matter of skimmers in the mountain of paperwork in his inbox?

"Eventually" after dismissing it out of hand, without due consideration?

"Eventually" after 10 minutes?

"Eventually" after 10 days?

I'm not so sure, considering the breadth of possibilities, that "eventually" adds anything to the discussion at hand. Could you please elaborate with citations and/or facts?

Thanks.

[Vattel]

48. My how you do go on.

Yes, "eventually" is terribly vague. So let's say "several weeks after the offer was made" instead. According to the Houston Chronicle, seven weeks after the Dutch offer, Obama reconsidered and accepted the offer. (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/steffy/7043272.html)

[urgk]

49. There we go...

Much better :)

Now it's adding to the discussion. We have the time it took, now all we need is the "why?"

[Vattel]

54. The "why?" is the tough one. Or at least I don't know the answer.

That's why I said that I didn't know if the delay in accepting the offer was a bad thing or not.

[tabatha]

52. There may be alll sorts of reaons.

Such as BP lying about how bad the spill was and that their capping efforts would work.

Don't forget that the US is in bad shape financially, and the Dutch would have to be paid for their efforts.

I am sure, given the "facts" that he knew at the time, that Obama made the right decision. However, the facts were wrong and it was probably a bad decision that was later corrected.

[urgk]

56. I would definitely buy that as a valid set of reasons.

And I happen to think Obama is a pragmatic leader who tends to make a decision based on honest appraisal of the outcomes. I was just pointing out that the poster's use of "eventually" was both loaded and open-ended. :)

[Vattel]

57. I'll reserve judgment until I know why Obama

initially rejected the Dutch offer.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[vaberella]

35. Listening to the MSM & loving the lies, aren't you? You need to listen to the Coast Guard. n/t

[Dead_Parrot]

31. The A Whale?

My inner grammar nazi just declared war...

:hide:

[iamthebandfanman]

63. lets hope noone actually

refers to it that way ;)

personally id stick with 'omg look, there comes A Whale!'

[Politicalboi]

32. What Oil Spill?

LOL!

[Incitatus]

34. I actually know a farmer in Iowa who didn't know about 9/11 intil two weels after it happened

when a friend called him to tell him about it. I bet there are still a few people in rural areas in this country who have no idea what is going on.

[Politicalboi]

37. Wow!

Could be. I was just being a smart ass for those who didn't read the story first. I couldn't even imagine not knowing about 9/11 or the oil spill for weeks.

[Incitatus]

38. He lives in a very rural area, doesn't watch tv or have Internet and works very long days.

I trust very few people, and seriously doubt he would be making this up. I guess you get so used to running your own close circle of friends and lifestyle than when you notice how someone else see's the world or is aware of what things are going on, it can be quite shocking.

[madmom]

50. Just last week I was talking to a young lady (mid to late 20's) She asked me..

"what happened down there anyway?" I was speechless for a few seconds.

[flpoljunkie]

41. The Whale has its work cut out for it. Deep Horizon Oil Field estimated to hold 50 million barrels.

Hayward estimates size of oil field at 2B gallons
The Associated Press

Thursday, June 17, 2010; 6:29 PM

WASHINGTON -- BP CEO Tony Hayward says the reservoir that feeds the gushing well in the Gulf of Mexico probably still holds about 2 billion gallons of oil.

Appearing before a House subcommittee, Hayward estimated that the reservoir tapped by the out-of-control well holds at least 50 million barrels of oil. At 42 gallons per barrel, that's 2.1 billion gallons.

According to government estimates of daily flow figures, anywhere from 73.5 million to 126 million gallons gushed from the breached wellhead - whether into the water or captured.

That means the reservoir likely holds 94 to 97 percent of its oil. At the current flow rate, it would take from two to nearly four years for all the oil to leak from the field if it can't be stopped.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/17/AR2010061705110.html

[sad sally]

59. suppose after two to four years of leaking there will be any

life left in any body of water on the Earth?

[Incitatus]

61. Hopefuly

I'm not an engineer, but I would assume if the relief wells failed for some reason, one option would be to drill as many other wells as possible into this reserve to safely remove as much oil as possible.

[polichick]

53. Good news - gee, maybe we should spend money on these...

...instead of fighting fake wars.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

60. Send in the whales

[vaberella]

66. Sadly there's only one, this one. n/t

[rocktivity]

67. That's funny, I thought Obama spent the first month of this crisis doing nothing.

Sounds like he's punked the pundits again.

And about this no guarantee--just hire people to work on it, send it in, and BP the bill!

How tall is it?

:headbang:
rocktivity