40% Of Remaining US Coastal Wetlands Concentrated In S. Louisiana - In Path Of Advancing Oil

SHELL BEACH, La. (AP) -- Battered by hurricanes, weakened by erosion and flood-control projects, the sprawling wetlands that nurture Gulf of Mexico marine life and buffer coastal cites from storm surges now face another stern test as a monster oil slick creeps ever closer.

About 40 percent of the nation's coastal wetlands are clumped along southern Louisiana, directly in the path of oil that was still gushing Monday from a ruptured underwater well. Roughly 3.5 million gallons has escaped in the three weeks since an oil rig explosion, and some is bearing down on the marshes as workers rush to lay protective boom. ''No question we will see some widespread impacts,'' Garret Graves, chairman of the Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority of Louisiana, said after an observation flight. ''If we allow this oil to get into our coastal areas and fundamentally change the ecosystem, the consequences are profound.''

Removing oil from wetlands is a huge challenge. Bulldozers can't simply scrape away contaminated soil, as they do on beaches. Cutting and removing oil-soaked vegetation could further weaken the fragile vegetation that holds the marshes together. Absorbent materials and detergents have limited effectiveness, Graves said. If a thick enough layer of oil coats hardy swamp grasses and shrubs, scientists say it could shut down their equivalent of breathing -- absorbing carbon dioxide and releasing oxygen.

''You could literally suffocate the marsh,'' said Alex Kolker, a coastal systems specialist with the Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium. Even worse, the oil could soak into the ground and poison roots, killing entire plants. With nothing to anchor it, the soil would wash away, accelerating a process that has cost Louisiana about 2,300 square miles of coastal marshes and barrier islands the last 80 years -- an area bigger than Delaware.

EDIT

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/05/10/us/AP-US-Gulf-Oil-Spill-Wetlands.html

well goodbye wetlands.

they think of their brilliant cost savings now of not having installed the $500K acoustical valves which could have prevented all of this. Greed has its paybacks, but how they are taking us all down with them. Damn BP fools.

> not having installed the $500K acoustical valves which could have
> prevented all of this.

Bullshit (albeit consistent for the average dumb US couch potato).

:eyes:

Have I offended you by making a comment? Do I not have enough degrees? Are other countries incorrect! I'm sorry I did not meet your standards. I humbly apologize.

Why don't you respond in a civil manner and provide constructive information relative to your comment than inflammatory jerky comments?

This is my source for information below.

"Industry consultants and petroleum engineers said that an acoustic remote-control may have been able to stop the well, but too much is still unknown about the accident to say that with certainty.

Rigs in Norway and Brazil are equipped with the remote-control devices, which can trigger the blowout preventers from a lifeboat in the event the electric cables connecting the valves to the drilling rig are damaged.

While U.S. regulators have called the acoustic switches unreliable and prone, in the past, to cause unnecessary shut-downs, Inger Anda, a spokeswoman for Norway's Petroleum Safety Authority, said the switches have a good track record in the North Sea. "It's been seen as the most successful and effective option," she said.

The manufacturers of the equipment, including Kongsberg Maritime AS, Sonardyne Ltd. and Nautronix PLC, say their equipment has improved significantly over the past decade."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704423504575212031417936798.html

Three failsafes didn't. Three. To expect a fourth one to have helped is a bit optimistic. The failure occurred because the rig exploded and decided to take the wellhead with it.

I shouldn't have snapped at you but you were simply the last in
a succession of irritating repeats of mangled memes. I apologise.

The line that set me off was this:
>> not having installed the $500K acoustical valves which could have
>> prevented all of this.

FWIW, your later post corrected part of the original mistake: the
"missing $500k" was the acoustic trigger (remote control sensor)
that was the "third string" of the safety process - the first being
the switch from the deck, the second being the deadman switch and
the third being the acoustic trigger from a boat/submersible.

The second part that annoyed me was that it was the VALVE that
failed - even when triggered directly by the submersibles, it would not
totally seal the pipe. Those things are huge pieces of machinery that
have totally f*ck-off hydraulic rams whose only purpose (when activated)
is to rapidly crush the pipe so that it is sealed. They can be triggered
by a positive action (the rig option above), a negative action (the loss
of connecting signal = deadman's handle) or an external action (via the
acoustic sensor or a physical switch on the valve). This failed.

This means that all of the fuss & blather about whether the "$500k acoustic
trigger" was a "wasted cost-cutting measure" is simply bullshit: even if it
was fitted, it would be totally useless when the valve that it controlled
does not work.

People who fixate on that "missing equipment" piss me off as they are
overlooking all of the other issues (e.g., Halliburton cementing failures,
Transocean safety failures, BP failures in so many other areas, "regulatory
authority" corruption, politician hypocrisy, presidential betrayal).
The more sheep that follow the mass media, the less chance for the future.

Like I said RKP, I shouldn't have taken it out on you and I apologise.

helpful. Now I understand the situation and I certainly agree with you.

Information today is so often distorted, propagandized and then endlessly echoed.

Thanks for the followup and all apologies and certainly accepted! :hi: