Norway & Sweden have offered to aid in the Gulf gusher. What expertise do they have?

[Are_grits_groceries]

One of the statements sometimes seen about aid from other countries is what experience do they have. It is a valid question. I looked at what these 2 countries are doing and have in their own responses.. Both have offered aid to us early on.

Sweden:
May 9, 2010
<snip>
Sweden is offering to send three ships with the ability to skim 50 tons of oil per hour from the water’s surface with a capacity of 1000 tons. It could take several weeks for the ships to get here. Swedish officials say the offer has been made and they’re just waiting for a request from Washington.
<snip>
http://workingreporter.com/wordpress/?p=361

Sweden's Spill response vessels & plans

At this link are also detailed descriptions of the vessels they have on hand for oil spills:
http://www.coastguard.se/ra/cis/vessel/vessels.htm

Norway
Norway has offered to send nearly a third of its oil-spill response equipment

Scientists Fault Lack of Studies Over Gulf Oil Spill
By JUSTIN GILLIS
Published: May 19, 2010
<snip>
Rick Steiner, a marine biologist and a veteran of the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster, assailed NOAA in an interview, declaring that it had been derelict in analyzing conditions beneath the sea.
Mr. Steiner said the likelihood of extensive undersea plumes of oil droplets should have been anticipated from the moment the spill began, given that such an effect from deepwater blowouts had been predicted in the scientific literature for more than a decade, and confirmed in a test off the coast of Norway. An extensive sampling program to map and characterize those plumes should have been put in place from the first days of the spill, he said.
<snip>
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/20/science/earth/20noaa.html

The Norwegian Approach to a Fully Integrated Oil Spill Response
PDF document:
http://www.oljevernportalen.no/nofo/Papers/NEIA_TMB.pdf

Toxic Chemicals Used on Gulf Oil Spill While Alternative Goes Unused
<snip>
According to Mr. Sjur W. Knudsen, the managing director of the Norwegian Clean Seas Association for Operating Companies (NOFO, the organization tasked with responding to oil spills in Norway’s waters), the order placed on May 3 by BP Exploration and Production out of Tulsa, Oklahoma for approximately 150 metric tons of the dispersant Dasic Slickgone has been held up due to “bureaucratic red tape” in the United States.

Dasic Slickgone does not appear on the EPA’s list of twelve “pre-approved” oil dispersants in the National Contingency Plan Product Schedule and to be used in the United States would require special approval from the EPA.

The day before BP placed the order with NOFO, on May 2, CNBC reported that BP had bought the “entire inventory” of the oil dispersant product Corexit 9500™, which represents 95 percent of the U.S. market for oil dispersants.

The milder, soap-water-like Dasic Slickgone, made by Dasic International Ltd., in the United Kingdom, is the main oil dispersant approved for use in the North Sea, due to its lower toxicity. It has been tested, studied, and used during NOFO’s unique annual drill: “We conduct an outdoor laboratory, in which we pump oil into the sea to simulate a real oil spill,” Mr. Knudsen explained.

Norway is also one of the few places in the world to warehouse such a large quantity of oil dispersants available to be shipped at a moment’s notice.

The dispersant Corexit 9500 that BP has been spraying over the Gulf spill and injecting one mile deep into the blowout vent, is banned by the UK and Norway, due to its high toxicity. “ 9500 is forbidden to use in the North Sea offshore oil industry,” Mr. Knudsen explained.
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/37005/

Oil Spill Dispersants Policy in Norway
28.02.02 Dispersants are valuable tools in marine oil spill response. Dispersants can prevent and reduce acute oil pollution. Used properly, modern dispersants reduce the impact on the environment, and are particularly well suited to protection of sea birds and reduction of shoreline oiling.
New regulations entered into force on 1. January 2002. The regulations state that dispersants should be used when their use will result in the least environmental damage.
Use of dispersants must be documented in contingency plan
The use of dispersants - which in many ways can be compared to dishwashing liquids, but which are adjusted to different types of oil – must be documented in a contingency plan. Specific requirements for testing of acute toxicity and efficiency must be met.
Net Environmental Benefit
The dispersants will only be used when the response in overall terms will benefit the environment. They will not be used on spawning grounds. The Norwegian Pollution Control Authority, SFT, will carefully assess whether they can be used in areas with poor water exchange and in shallow, coastal waters.
Acute oil spills can cause great damage on the marine environment. The potential for damage will largely depend on the natural resources that are exposed to the oil spill, the type of oil and the volume of oil spilled. The potential for damage does not always coincide with the size of the spill.
<snip>
http://www.klif.no/english/english/Whats-new/Oil-Spill-Dispersants-Policy-in-Norway/?cid=30041


NOSCA: the Norwegian Oil Spill Control Association
Accidental discharges are the nightmare of the oil industry. To the vulnerable marine environment, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, as even a few lost hours in response time could mean the difference between a minor mishap or a major disaster.

Founded in 1993, NOSCA – the Norwegian Oil Spill Control Association – is a non-profit cooperative of companies, R&D institutions and government pollution control authority the Norwegian Coastal Administration, established to develop equipment and contingency planning for oil spill emergencies. NOSCA members join forces to share their environmental technologies worldwide, assisting other nations, port authorities and private companies to build an effective contingency infrastructure for oil spill prevention and recovery.

International Cooperation
Nosca's efforts to share its collective environmental knowledge with other countries in the world have resulted in a comprehensive network of experts and resources. Nosca has also played a key role in the European version of the biannual International Oil Spill Conference and Exhibition held in the USA. NOSCA in co-operation with SYCOPOL and BOSCA has established Interspill, and the first conference and exhibition took place in Brighton/England in 2000.

Versatile New System for Oil Spill Contingency
(Apr. 28, 2010) — New oil recovery locations are spawning a need for new technology. To prepare the petroleum industry for oil spills, one small company in Northern Norway has made innovative strides in oil boom technology.
Funded partly by the PETROMAKS programmet at the Research Council of Norway the objective of NorLense AS has been to develop a versatile new system for oil spill contingency that can perform in coastal areas and farther out to sea -- as well as in rough weather and difficult currents.

Boom, separator and skimmer
NorLense's system consists of multiple components: a boom designed to function in concert with a separator and a skimmer for coping with oil partially submerged by breaking waves.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100426081248.htm

These are just a few of the articles about how both countries approach oil spills. There is a lot more.
Norway in particular is very involved in not only plans and equipment to handle oil spills, they are also active in developing new technologies.

These are just 2 countries that have knowledge about oil spills. Some mechanism should have been set up immediately to review their proposals and determine what could be of use. With the information that is available, they should have been able to access what would be needed and asked for it quickly.

The possible scope of this disaster was basically known at the outset. The means to deal with it using the worst case scenario should have been used. In light of the fact that it would take some time for some of the assets to arrive, a quick request was imperative. The worst that could have happened from that was that they would have been sent back quickly. That is a small price to pay.

I would think that a compilation of what is available would be made now using all sources, foreign and domestic. It may be too late to use it on this gusher, however, it might help in the future.

Our response has been late and reactive instead of proactive. I will never understand this approach.

[babylonsister]

1. fwiw, we are taking them up on some of their offers...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x338552

[Are_grits_groceries]

2. Anything will help.

However, this should have been done at the outset. A lot of irreversible damage has already been done. They are running out of boom, and Japan offered some weeks ago.

[babylonsister]

3. Did you read the article? They're getting boom.

And blame BP who had the responsibility. Granted, they didn't deserve it as we've since learned.

In the past week, the United States submitted its second request to the European Union for any specialized equipment to contain the oil now seeping onto the Gulf of Mexico's marshes and beaches, and it accepted Canada's offer of 9,842 feet of boom. The government is soliciting additional boom and skimmers from nearly two dozen countries and international organizations.

In late May, the administration accepted Mexico's offer of two skimmers and 13,779 feet of boom; a Dutch offer of three sets of Koseq sweeping arms, which attach to the sides of ships and gather oil; and eight skimming systems offered by Norway.

"As we understand what we need and identify domestic and foreign sources, we will act," said State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley, who said the United States has received 21 aid offers from 17 countries and four international groups. "We are maintaining contact with these countries, we are grateful for the offers, and we will take them up on these offers."

[Are_grits_groceries]

5. Yes, I read it.

Four weeks after the nation's worst environmental disaster, the Obama administration saw no need to accept offers of state-of-the-art skimmers, miles of boom or technical assistance from nations around the globe with experience fighting oil spills.

"We'll let BP decide on what expertise they do need," State Department spokesman Gordon Duguid told reporters on May 19. "We are keeping an eye on what supplies we do need. And as we see that our supplies are running low, it may be at that point in time to accept offers from particular governments."

Anything will help, but we waited TWO months to actually act?

The State Department spokesman said they were keeping an eye on it.

[xchrom]

4. Recommend

[Bitwit1234]

6. I thnk ALL offers should be accepted

some where, some how, some one might come up with a good solution.

[cwydro]

7. Very good, thank you.

Rec.