The Urgency Of Pursuing A Renewable Energy Agenda For Barbados

darcy boyce

Minister of State in the Ministry of Finance Darcy Boyce

Maybe BU missed it and if we did we are willing to apologize to the government. It is approaching two years since the Democratic Labour Party (DLP) took-up the reigns of government and we are still to sense the urgency of its renewable policy. So far all we have read about is the wind farm program being piloted by the Barbados Light & Power Company which if we understand correctly is locked down in the bureaucracy of Town Planning and by extension government.

Is there more Barbadians should know about our RE policy and if so why not have a national discourse to ensure top of mind awareness? Is there a role for the Fourth Estate of Barbados? Hell yes!!!

Barbadians remember the urgency to discover renewable energy sources and the public fear which was fuelled when the price of a barrel of oil jumped to USD147 just over a year ago. In the post-global financial meltdown there has been a significant reduction in the oil price which at last closing indicated USD78.30. Although BU concedes most governments around the globe have had to allocate unplanned resources to survival and not growth initiatives, it does not explain why our government supported by traditional media would not articulate, distil and or communicate to Barbadians some urgency about our renewable energy program.

The logic used over one year ago to shift Barbados’ dependence from fossil fuel is the same today is it not?

In a call-in program yesterday (November 8, 2009) on VOB there was consensus it seems that our media houses are hamstrung by the lack of resources to follow-up on stories. This admission alone paints a worrying picture for the state of health of the Fourth Estate in Barbados. It is significant that in the month of November when Barbados will celebrate 43 years of Independence our thoughts as a nation should be about energy dependence. Energy cost is the key input which drive prices in Barbados and a significant slice of the import bill which requires foreign exchange support. How can Barbados claim to be a progressive country in this part of the world when we continue to build our economic success on legacy models which are quickly becoming redundant and unstable given the reality of the non-renewability of fossil fuels.

At the recently held Caribbean Renewable Energy Forum which took place in October 2009 as reported in the T&T press we learned:

The IDB has developed Sustainable Energy Frameworks and Programmes for both Barbados and the Bahamas. In Barbados, funding has been allocated for a Sustainable Energy (SE) Framework, a SE Pilot Programme funded by the Global Environment Facility, a SE Investment Loan, and an Energy Policy Based Loan.

The programme focusses on developing solar and wind energy, and it is expected to lead to significant savings in terms of megawatt hours of electricity on an annual basis.

According to the  agenda Barbados attended the conference.

BU remains concerned that the local media has not followed the story of a Barbados Renewable Program. It is important and our Fourth Estate has a duty to inform Barbadians on the matter. The sad reality remains, the average intelligent Barbadian continues to live life oblivious to the danger posed by our over-dependence on fossil based energy. The laziness with which our last government during times of plenty did nothing to develop an RE program will surely stain its legacy and speaks to whether Barbadians are as literate as the hype suggest.. Despite the current financial hardship, it remains an important priority for our government to aggressively pursue an RE policy.

The T&T article quoted above reflects an irony that Trinidad which is a significant oil producing country in our region is being encouraged by its Fourth Estate to develop a Renewable Energy policy.

27 thoughts on “The Urgency Of Pursuing A Renewable Energy Agenda For Barbados

  1. Our Fourth Estate is harping about lack of resources. How much would it take to explain what the pilot program which is being funded by the IDB is all about?

    How much would it take to do some articles showing a comparative position where Barbados is vis a vis our Caribbean neighbours?

    How much would it take to focus on the Lamberts Plantation application before Town Planning and keep it top of mind?

    How much would it take to ask Professor Headley’s son to an interview?

    How much would it take to do a feature on the work of the late Professor Headley?

    The list goes on…

  2. 18 months ago you were blogging about private RE and PV that individuals and/or companies could invest in such a way that after some years there would be a return.

    No interconnectivity to grid + no fair pricing to private RE sources = no progress to the private entrepreneur = stagnation of Barbados in shallows and miseries where RE is concerned.

    Now there’s a chance of a grant and you hyping.

    Very hyp.

    Hypo(the grant makes it)critical.

  3. The Worst Government Since Independence Brings Barbados to its Knees:

    The DLP’s rule is so traumatic that the International Monetary Fund has predicted that unemployment will likely increase; that foreign reserves are likely to decline to two months of imports thereby putting even greater pressure on the exchange rate.

    That public finances will be under threat, while the outlook for the offshore financial sector is uncertain.

    But of even greater significance, is the fact that the DLP’s failure to resolve the problems of CLICO Barbados will result in massive losses from the public purse with negative impacts on the already high public debt.

    Despite promising ‘freedom of information;’ good governance and that it will let the people of Barbados know what their Government is doing on their behalf – the DLP is keeping the details of the MOU between Clico and the Government of Barbados a closely guarded secret.

    It also remains a mystery – what guarantees the DLP has given OECS governments, as regards Clico operations in those territories.

    But, with the collapsed of British American, Barbadians are now hearing from a source other than the DLP – that the Government of Barbados, the Government of Trinidad & Tobago; the Eastern Caribbean Currency Union and one or more strategic investors – will put-in money to finance a new Insurance Company, which will have its headquarters in the Eastern Caribbean.

    As I understand it, that new company will assume the traditional life insurance, medical insurance and annuity business of British American branches.

    Yet another bail-out of Clico by stealth.

    I say stealth because, neither the people of Barbados nor their Parliament – have had a say in this DLP decision or its other decision to write-off $19 million for the Barbados Turf Club or to give Clico a $20 million sweetheart gift.

  4. It is known government is notorious for poor implementation. Senator Orlando Marville said as much recently on talk radio. Given the multiple priorities government has the voice of the people must be heard to keep key priorities on the frontburner.

  5. David I have a question.

    Is the key priority of Government the discovery of Oil for revenue or is it developing Barbados into a Green destination?

    To some people they are mutually exclusive. I think they are fighting for the same scarce resources.

    What do others think?

  6. @Keith

    You have a point. Governments tend to do what is popular. In this case the ignorance of our population because of a lack of education means our governments will hardly have the will or will power to embrace a comprehensive RE policy.

    BU continues to be very disappointed in two key stakeholders, the media for not beating this subject and the UWI Cave Hill for not building on your father’s work.

  7. it’s rubbish to say the voice of the masses must be heard.

    The manifesto said a smart energy policy where 50% of installation for investors in RE would be made some kind of incentive.

    So far there is no policy, except one of procrastination.

    Do your jobs, not for the sake of hearing pleading voices looking up to you in the heavens of parliamanet, but for the good of the country and the all.

    Wake up!

  8. Has the IEA (International Energy Agency) been cooking its books to overestimate the amount of recoverable oil reserves? An IEA whistleblower says yes they have.

    Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure, says whistleblower

    Exclusive: Watchdog’s estimates of reserves inflated says top official

    The world is much closer to running out of oil than official estimates admit, according to a whistleblower at the International Energy Agency who claims it has been deliberately underplaying a looming shortage for fear of triggering panic buying.

    The senior official claims the US has played an influential role in encouraging the watchdog to underplay the rate of decline from existing oil fields while overplaying the chances of finding new reserves.

    The allegations raise serious questions about the accuracy of the organisation’s latest World Energy Outlook on oil demand and supply to be published tomorrow – which is used by the British and many other governments to help guide their wider energy and climate change policies.

    In particular they question the prediction in the last World Economic Outlook, believed to be repeated again this year, that oil production can be raised from its current level of 83m barrels a day to 105m barrels. External critics have frequently argued that this cannot be substantiated by firm evidence and say the world has already passed its peak in oil production.

    • Are we as Barbadians happy the government is doing enough to change our dependence on fossil energy to safeguard a decent standard of living for our future children?

  9. Water will be the next oil and at the moment I believe we must never let our water be privatized! You won’t believe the technology they have that is affordable for each mankind family for both water and solar power! Wind power isn’t neccessary for us in Barbados when you see this tech! I’ll just say you won’t need BL&P and BWA! That’s all I’ll say for now. Sorry to keep you guys hanging again! The time isn’t right for me to give such expose details! Just save as much money as you can in gold! Dump any US$ you have! (one of the reasons we have a new central bank governor!?) You’re safer with Euros! And, start stocking up on supplies now!

  10. Geologists Vote that Peak Oil is a Concern
    by Gail Tverberg

    This year’s Petroleum Geology Conference in London included the following item on the agenda:

    Peak Oil: Advancing the topical debate over the timing of peak oil & gas

    The aim of the Geological Society’s Peak Oil evening meeting is to further discuss and debate the timing and impact of Peak Oil & Gas. Have we become so efficient at exploring and producing petroleum resources that we are we already there as Colin Campbell ASPO) would argue? Or will technology solutions and a move to more unconventional deposits save the day as Mike Daly (BP) and Glen Cayley (Shell) would suggest? And let’s not forget gas. Malcolm Brown (BG Group) sees a longer future for gas but will the progressive use of gas as a substitute for oil hasten its decline? Lots of questions, but do we really have the answers? Come along to the Geological Society on the evening of Tuesday 15th April and join in the debate. Our four invited speakers will present their case, to be followed by a panel discussion.

    The debate took place as planned, but with a change in speakers from the original announcement. BP chief geologist David Jenkins argued for the motion that peak oil is “no longer a concern,” and Jeremy Leggett argued against, incorporating the UK Industry Taskforce on Peak Oil and Energy Security conclusions into his case. At the end of the debate, approximately five hundred oil-industry geologists voted. Only about a third voted in favor of the motion “Peak oil is no longer a concern.” The debate has been written up in November’s issue of Petroleum Review.

    Continued at:

  11. Just Tell Us The Truth
    by Richard Heinberg

    At last we know…sort of. An article in the UK newspaper The Guardian for November 9, titled “Key Oil Figures Were Distorted by US Pressure, Says Whistleblower,” reveals what hundreds of analysts have been trying to convey to world leaders for years: The global oil supply situation is critical and getting worse, and vested interests are playing key roles in covering up this devastatingly inconvenient truth.

    Over a decade ago, when I began following the Peak Oil story, the main sources were a few highly-placed petroleum geologists with experience in oilfields around the globe. At that time, these brave scientists were saying that world oil production would peak sometime around 2010, and that the global economy would be hammered as a result. Since it will take decades to develop alternative energy sources to replace petroleum (if adequate replacements are even available), the consequences for transport, trade, and agriculture will be almost too awful to contemplate.

    In the past few years these lone voices of warning have garnered the backing of a million-voice chorus: investment banks, oil analytics firms, and investigative journalists have joined the geologists in pointing out that oil production limits are within sight, and in calling for more transparency in official data reporting and forecasting.

    But the International Energy Agency has stubbornly refused to come clean. And this is important: while financial analysts and investors are free to draw their own conclusions about Peak Oil (and a great many of them have seen the writing on the wall—hence recent run-ups in oil futures prices), national and local governments must rely on officially sanctioned fuel supply and price projections for all their planning. Energy policy, transport planning, agriculture policy, economic forecasting, and much more depend upon the august pronouncements of the Paris-based IEA.

    Continued at:

  12. A Gesture from the Invisible Hand

    It’s been a long road, but we’ve finally reached the point in these essays at which it’s possible to start talking about some of the consequences of the primary economic fact of our time, the arrival of geological limits to increasing fossil fuel production. That’s as challenging a topic to discuss as it will be to live through, because it cannot be understood effectively from within the presuppositions that structure most of today’s economic thinking.

    It’s common, for example, to hear well-intentioned people insist that the market, as a matter of course, will respond to restricted fossil fuel production by channeling investment funds either in more effective means of producing fossil fuels, on the one hand, or new energy sources on the other. The logic seems impeccable at first glance: as the price of oil, for example, goes up, the profit to be made by bringing more oil or oil substitutes onto the market goes up as well; investors eager to maximize their profits will therefore pour money into ventures producing oil and oil substitutes, and production will rise accordingly until the price comes back down.

    That’s the logic of the invisible hand, first made famous by Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations more than two centuries ago, and still central to most mainstream ideas of market economics. That logic owes much of its influence to the fact that in many cases, markets do in fact behave this way. Like any rule governing complex systems, though, it is far from foolproof, and it needs to be balanced by an awareness of the places where it fails to work.

    Energy is one of those places: in some ways, the most important of all. Energy is not simply one commodity among others; it is the ur-commodity, the foundation for all economic activity. It follows laws of its own – the laws of thermodynamics, notably – which are not the same as the laws of economics, and when the two sets of laws come into conflict, the laws of thermodynamics win every time.

    Continued at:

    • It is sad Barbados sat through the recently concluded FTC/BL&P Hearings and the country was not goaded to debate our national energy policy. It is a very important subject which Barbadians seem to be brain dead about at the moment.

  13. The problems of production of energy, whether renewable or not, are political, not technological. For our purposes there is essentially limitless power just ninety miles away in the hot rocks of our volcanic neighbors. Fuel cost: zero. Pollutants to the environment: after construction of geothermal plants, zero. Technology needed: off-the-shelf. The problem: the need for inter-island cooperation. Prognosis: maybe in a century or two. Current status: Really depressing to see people arguing for ugly wind farms and expensive solar-direct electrical production (both of which require conventional back ups for windless days and dark) when the solution is so extremely simple. Solution: Swallow our pride and go get the cheap geothermal power.

  14. @BU Family… If I may please inject (again) for discussion a viable solution space for renewable energy here in Barbados: the Solar Power Tower (SPT).

    1. This is now *off the shelf* technology.

    2. Some configurations use molten salt as the heat transfer fluid, which can be stored underground in large tanks so that such a facility can produce electricity 24 hours a day (and, in fact, for several days with no sunlight).

    3. Rather than a wind-farm (which I personally find beautiful, although many don’t), there are only a few (very bright) static towers, rather than many dynamic ones.

    4. This is industrial scale technology. If BL&P doesn’t do it, perhaps a serious businessman will (Mr. Williams, are you listening?).

    Please see:


    …and let’s begin the discussion in the only forum where serious dialog and debate actually takes place….

  15. @All… As I put on record during the FTC Rate Hearing, I personally am fascinated by infrastructure.

    What I didn’t share is that I am known to displace mass when driving by a sub-station…


  16. There are some who believe alternative energy options are not possible but more importantly we seem loath to experiment. Singapore is often used as a model by countries looking to jump out of the box. The following story should help give insight:


    largest solar power installation in Southeast Asia

    by Low Ee Mien on 11/10/2009 01:31   1 comment , 474 views

    The inaugural Singapore Green Building week started with the launch of Singapore’s first "Zero Energy Building". The Zero Energy Building along Braddell Road, a three-storey office building, cost S$11 million [USD $7.9 million] to retrofit and is expected to generate as much electricity as it consumes. It has various green features which act as a test bed for clean energy technologies before being introduced into the industry. The visitor’s centre has plants on its walls which help reduce external wall temperatures by up to 12 degC while a solar chimney sucks out the warm air from the room. Panels help shade the building from the sun and bounce natural light into the interiors.

    A massive array of solar panels of 1,300 sq metres [14,000 square feet] – almost half a football field and the biggest such installation in Southeast Asia – covers the roof. The solar photovoltaic power panels can generate about 207,000 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity annually. Three hours of sunlight would be enough to supply the building’s energy requirement for a day. At night and when there is no available sunlight, the building can tap energy from the grid. While it might cost 5% more to retrofit existing buildings with green design and technologies, experts said the payback is not as long as some might expect. Cash incentives are already in place under the Green Mark certification scheme to encourage buildings to go green. The Singapore government aims to get 80% of all buildings on Green Mark certification by 2030.

    Another good eco/green initiative from the Singapore government, which, post-Kyoto, has been making quite a bit of progress in the area of renewable energy and other pro-environmental issues, from various tax incentives for green vehicles such as hybrid cars, to setting up a waste-to-energy power plant, water-recycling plants, and ongoing clean & green campaigns.

    The Zero Energy Building will be a landmark Singapore development, and will pave the way to building green homes and other office buildings in line with the government’s move towards Green Mark certification of all new buildings as green buildings and ongoing retrofitting of existing ones.

    In Asia, Singapore aims to be one of the pioneers in building green homes, with the development of the Treetops@Punggol public housing project being a prime example. Though there is not quite enough land in Singapore for a full-scale solar or wind power project to provide grid power, as alluded to in my earlier post, ongoing developments will still tackle the issues of energy efficiency, and for eco-homes, solar power would still feature prominently with the existing power grid providing supplemental power.

    Hopefully, the Singapore experience will show that the world needs a systems approach to tackling energy and environmental issues from many different angles, as opposed to slogans such as a "carbon zero building" or a "zero energy home". For homes, the cost of residential solar panels is still high though it has been coming down significantly, and of course it ought to be recognized that "eco-" or "green"-ness entails much more than putting up solar panels – we need a total systems solution that, as the peakoiler community is saying nowadays, necessarily includes "all of the above", whether it be energy efficiency, renewable/alternative energy sources, nuclear power, hybrid/electric cars, vehicle-to-grid (V2G), green building design, intelligent grids, cooling/heating system design, water and materials recycling, and more. The works, in short. The future of solar energy is bright, but what we really need, is truly "all of the above".

    See also :

    1. Singapore company converts Waste2Energy
    2. Energy security: a look at other fuel sources

    3. Singapore : Nuclear power not ruled out

    4. Singapore electric vehicles : Government agencies EMA and LTA to study EV introduction



  17. The following article from today’s Guardian may shed some light on the need to wean Barbados from our dependence on fossil fuel. Let us be proactive. We could start a green sector, we could create many new jobs, more importantly we could secure our children’s future.

    The one thing depleting faster than oil is the credibility of those measuring it

    The challenge of feeding billions of people as fuel supplies fall is staggering. And yet leaders’ heads remain stuck in the, Monday 16 November 2009 20.30 GMT

    I don’t know when global oil supplies will start to decline. I do know that another resource has already peaked and gone into free fall: the credibility of the body that’s meant to assess them. Last week two whistleblowers from the International Energy Agency alleged that it has deliberately upgraded its estimate of the world’s oil supplies in order not to frighten the markets. Three days later, a paper published by researchers at Uppsala University in Sweden showed that the IEA’s forecasts must be wrong, because it assumes a rate of extraction that appears to be impossible. The agency’s assessment of the state of global oil supplies is beginning to look as reliable as Alan Greenspan’s blandishments about the health of the financial markets.

    If the whistleblowers are right, we should be stockpiling ammunition. If we are taken by surprise, if we have failed to replace oil before the supply peaks then crashes, the global economy is stuffed. But nothing the whistle-blowers said has scared me as much as the conversation I had last week with a Pembrokeshire farmer.

    Wyn Evans, who runs a mixed farm of 170 acres, has been trying to reduce his dependency on fossil fuels since 1977. He has installed an anaerobic digester, a wind turbine, solar panels and a ground-sourced heat pump. He has sought wherever possible to replace diesel with his own electricity. Instead of using his tractor to spread slurry, he pumps it from the digester on to nearby fields. He’s replaced his tractor-driven irrigation system with an electric one, and set up a new system for drying hay indoors, which means he has to turn it in the field only once. Whatever else he does is likely to produce smaller savings. But these innovations have reduced his use of diesel by only around 25%.

    According to farm scientists at Cornell University, cultivating one hectare of maize in the United States requires 40 litres of petrol and 75 litres of diesel. The amazing productivity of modern farm labour has been purchased at the cost of a dependency on oil. Unless farmers can change the way it’s grown, a permanent oil shock would price food out of the mouths of many of the world’s people. Any responsible government would be asking urgent questions about how long we have got.

    Instead, most of them delegate this job to the International Energy Agency. I’ve been bellyaching about the British government’s refusal to make contingency plans for the possibility that oil might peak by 2020 for the past two years, and I’m beginning to feel like a madman with a sandwich board. Perhaps I am, but how lucky do you feel? The new World Energy Outlook published by the IEA last week expects the global demand for oil to rise from 85m barrels a day in 2008 to 105m in 2030. Oil production will rise to 103m barrels, it says, and biofuels will make up the shortfall. If we want the oil, it will materialise.

    The agency does caution that conventional oil is likely to "approach a plateau" towards the end of this period, but there’s no hint of the graver warning that the IEA’s chief economist issued when I interviewed him last year: "We still expect that it will come around 2020 to a plateau … I think time is not on our side here." Almost every year the agency has been forced to downgrade its forecast for the daily supply of oil in 2030: from 123m barrels in 2004, to 120m in 2005, 116m in 2007, 106m in 2008 and 103m this year. But according to one of the whistleblowers, "even today’s number is much higher than can be justified, and the International Energy Agency knows this".

    The Uppsala report, published in the journal Energy Policy, anticipates that maximum global production of all kinds of oil in 2030 will be 76m barrels per day. Analysing the IEA’s figures, it finds that to meet its forecasts for supply, the world’s new and undiscovered oilfields would have to be developed at a rate "never before seen in history". As many of them are in politically or physically difficult places, and as capital is short, this looks impossible. Assessing existing fields, the likely rate of discovery and the use of new techniques for extraction, the researchers find that "the peak of world oil production is probably occurring now".

    Are they right? Who knows? Last month the UK Energy Research Centre published a massive review of all the available evidence on global oil supplies. It found that the date of peak oil will be determined not by the total size of the global resource but by the rate at which it can be exploited. New discoveries would have to be implausibly large to make a significant difference: even if a field the size of all the oil reserves ever struck in the US were miraculously discovered, it would delay the date of peaking by only four years. As global discoveries peaked in the 1960s, a find like this doesn’t seem very likely.

    Regional oil supplies have peaked when about one third of the total resource has been extracted: this is because the rate of production falls as the remaining oil becomes harder to shift when the fields are depleted. So the assumption in the IEA’s new report, that oil production will hold steady when the global resource has fallen "to around one half by 2030" looks unsafe. The UK Energy Research Centre’s review finds that, just to keep oil supply at present levels, "more than two thirds of current crude oil production capacity may need to be replaced by 2030 … At best, this is likely to prove extremely challenging." There is, it says "a significant risk of a peak in conventional oil production before 2020". Unconventional oil won’t save us: even a crash programme to develop the Canadian tar sands could deliver only 5m barrels a day by 2030.

    As a report commissioned by the US Department of Energy shows, an emergency programme to replace current energy supplies or equipment to anticipate peak oil would need about 20 years to take effect. It seems unlikely that we have it. The world economy is probably knackered, whatever we might do now. But at least we could save farming. There are two possible options: either the mass replacement of farm machinery or the development of new farming systems that don’t need much labour or energy.

    There are no obvious barriers to the mass production of electric tractors and combine harvesters: the weight of the batteries and an electric vehicle’s low-end torque are both advantages for tractors. A switch to forest gardening and other forms of permaculture is trickier, especially for producing grain; but such is the scale of the creeping emergency that we can’t afford to rule anything out.

    The challenge of feeding seven or eight billion people while oil supplies are falling is stupefying. It’ll be even greater if governments keep pretending that it isn’t going to happen.

  18. David:
    Why regurgitate opinions which were widely discussed on your blogs prior to thre predicted financial meltdown?

    The sh$t has now hit the fan and those amongst us who were surprised are flailing around for scapegoats. ignorant of the fact that the system is designed for booms and busts, wealth redistribution (upwards)

    I reiterate there will be no global economic recovery whilst oil stays above $70 per barrel.
    Never has been, never will be.

    Expensive oil puts the world into recession.

    Cheap oil has always helped us recover.

    It ain’t gonna happen this time.

    • @ST

      Not regurgitating more like validating what has already been discussed on BU.
      No doubt traditional media will string the story now that it has appeared in the Guardian.

  19. CALLING MME!!!
    …come in MME!!!

    Bush Tea needs your take on the below comment on a CNN thread. It relates to the current oil spill by the collapsed BP deep sea oil rig.
    You need to show us how this commenter is wrong …….. PLEASE!!!

    The original estimate was about 5,000 gallons of oil a day spilling into the ocean. Now they’re saying 200,000 gallons a day. That’s over a million gallons of crude oil a week!

    I’m engineer with 25 years of experience. I’ve worked on some big projects with big machines. Maybe that’s why this mess is so clear to me.

    First, the BP platform was drilling for what they call deep oil. They go out where the ocean is about 5,000 feet deep and drill another 30,000 feet into the crust of the earth. This it right on the edge of what human technology can do. Well, this time they hit a pocket of oil at such high pressure that it burst all of their safety valves all the way up to the drilling rig and then caused the rig to explode and sink. Take a moment to grasp the import of that. The pressure behind this oil is so high that it destroyed the maximum effort of human science to contain it.

    When the rig sank it flipped over and landed on top of the drill hole some 5,000 feet under the ocean.

    Now they’ve got a hole in the ocean floor, 5,000 feet down with a wrecked oil drilling rig sitting on top of is spewing 200,000 barrels of oil a day into the ocean. Take a moment and consider that, will you!

    First they have to get the oil rig off the hole to get at it in order to try to cap it. Do you know the level of effort it will take to move that wrecked oil rig, sitting under 5,000 feet of water? That operation alone would take years and hundreds of millions to accomplish. Then, how do you cap that hole in the muddy ocean floor? There just is no way. No way.

    The only piece of human technology that might address this is a nuclear bomb. I’m not kidding. If they put a nuke down there in the right spot it might seal up the hole. Nothing short of that will work. [See Paul Noel’s ideas above.]

    If we can’t cap that hole that oil is going to destroy the oceans of the world. It only takes one quart of motor oil to make 250,000 gallons of ocean water toxic to wildlife. Are you starting to get the magnitude of this?

    We’re so used to our politicians creating false crises to forward their criminal agendas that we aren’t recognizing that we’re staring straight into possibly the greatest disaster mankind will ever see. Imagine what happens if that oil keeps flowing until it destroys all life in the oceans of this planet. Who knows how big of a reservoir of oil is down there.

    Not to mention that the oceans are critical to maintaining the proper oxygen level in the atmosphere for human life.

    We’re humped. Unless God steps in and fixes this. No human can. You can be sure of that
    ….comment on CNN.

  20. @ BushTea,
    “The original estimate was about 5,000 gallons of oil a day spilling into the ocean. Now they’re saying 200,000 gallons a day.”

    I think they meant 5000 Barrels x 40 equals 200,000 Gallons.

    They estimate millions of gallons leaked already.

  21. @BT,

    This is a major disaster. There is no quick fix if they can’t get the valve, or blowout preventer (which is still sitting on the wellhead) closed, but I don’t see any reason why dropping containment boxes over the wellhead and installing a surface funneling system shouldn’t work… this should keep the spill in check for the few months it will take to drill relief wells.

    As far as the comments from the CNN poster goes… I wouldn’t recommend using a nuke to close the hole as he has recommended… ROTFL… closing a 5’ hole by blowing a bigger one in the ocean floor seems a bit risky to me… LOL

    By the way, here is a video clip of one of the ROVs trying to close the blowout valve on the wellhead…

Leave a comment, join the discussion.