Can We Do Anything w/Robots To Help w/the Gulf Cleanup?

Scope

I was just wondering if it's feasible, possible to help clean up the Gulf oil spill using robots

Does anyone have any ideas?

With the enormous amount of talent on these forums, I bet there are many ideas worthy of mention/consideration.

Who's first?

Mikerocontroller

Whatever work being performed at the point of release (5000+ feet) is probably already being done by robotic vehicles.· Its too deep and murky for salvage divers to operate.· If they can't ·physically plug the leak they could probably try installing caissons and·bring the outflow··to the surface where it can then be pumped, dissapated or·burned-off.·· They could then cap off the caissons at the surface.· The Parallax website mentions an underwater ·research vehicle that uses Basic Stamps for thruster and camera pan/tilt functions.· I'm all for drilling oil· (instead of importing it) ·but no company should ever get in over its head when it comes to contingency plans.· It looks like they're figuring this one out at the last minute

Post Edited (Mikerocontroller) : 5/2/2010 8:02:02 PM GMT

Unknown

"Teams working to contain the spill have had limited success using airplanes to drop chemical dispersants meant to break up the oil, and rough seas have prevented ships from skimming crude from the surface."-Associated Press

The article I read said that if they can't stop the leak, it could take up to three months to drill relief wells and their best plan is to drop 74·tons / 40 foot boxes (which could take 8 days for welders to assemble) on the leak to contain it for months.

I think the engineers are the best ones to handle this.

·

pacman

How about replace the people running the show in BHP with robots.

At least with robots, people would understand why it appears that BHP don't really seem to care about the pollution (an observation from a country outside of the US) .

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
=================
The future is in our hands.
Which way to the future?
=================

Unknown

They're typical of most companies which think that spending money on safety is a pain.· What they are really saying is that they don't make enough money so safety should suffer.· It was already reported in the news that they lacked disaster plans.· Why are we paying the government if they are really not effective?·They wouldn't pay for a $500,000 acoustic trigger and there is supposed to be a backup device called a "dead man" which is supposed to shut off the oil.· So now BP is going to pay more than necessary.

The damage is already done and the problem is containing oil when you have nine foot waves that can break over any equipment you can put in the water.· They are saying the gulf oil can travel to the Atlantic Ocean.

John R.

Back on the original topic, while it's nice (and good!) to think about what we could do, the scale of this disaster is such that we, as individuals, and most likely even as a group, do not have the resources to even make a token dent in the problem. Having a small robot trying to skim the oil would be akin to using a tweezers to take the sand out of the Sahara.

The majority of help we can provide would be in terms of volunteer efforts to help with clean up and animal rescue.

Clean up will ultimatley come down to people with paper towels wiping down rocks, and I assume we've all seen pictures/videos of people cleaning the crude off of critters. It will be "interesting" to see how we manage the wetlands, and how they (the wetlands) are able to cope.

For a preview of what's ahead, do a google on "Exxon Drunk Captian Alaska"...

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
John R.
Click here to see my Nomad Build Log

Unknown

Oil is one of the worst substances to try to remove and it may be very costly to try to develop a desalination process type plant for removing oil from water.· I suppose it would look like one of these sewage water treatment plants and they should probably get some engineers from the Exxon Valdez wreck to help people understand what to do.

I spilled a few drops of diesel fuel on my pants one year·and I put them in the washer and I ended up throwing my pants out because every time I washed them I could still smell the oil.

SRLM

said...
What shall we do with a drunk'n sailor?
What shall we do with a drunk'n sailor?
What shall we do with a drunk'n sailor er'ly in the morn'in?

Make 'im capt'in of the Exxon Valdez tanker!
Make 'im capt'in of the Exxon Valdez tanker!
Make 'im capt'in of the Exxon Valdez tanker er'ly in the morn'in!

One of my favorite sea shanty parodies...

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Powered by enthusiasm

Scope

Well, trying to get back on topic while totally avoiding a political rant, I used to work for a very large petro-chemical company and they used to allow water to drain from the bottom of their fuel storage tanks. Over time, when water would collect in their tanks, they would open a spigot and let the water run out. When the petro-chemicals (usually gasoline, diesel fuel, et cetera) would begin coming out, they would shut off the valve. Of course, this practice was outlawed years ago, but virtually all large storage tanks still have these spigots on them used for this purpose.

So, what's my point? Well, apparently, we all agree that water is heavier than the petrochemicals polluting it, so, I'm not sure what the potential value of this comment is other than perhaps it will spark someone to come up with something that could help out.

I'm very frustrated by all this - the scale of the problem is so enormous that it seems impossible to deal with - but people used to say it would be impossible to place man on the moon and return safely . . . so . . . let's crank out something useful and break the odds . . .