this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2024
164 points (100.0% liked)

World News

38970 readers
2385 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] tal@lemmy.today 16 points 3 months ago (1 children)

If it doesn't leak and it's close enough to Manila and thus shallow, I wonder if the oil can be economically-salvaged? Like, probably would be preferable not to have it just waiting there until it does start leaking.

[–] dudeami0@lemmy.dudeami.win 26 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Most oil is not economically salvaged due to the low cost of extraction from wells. At best they'll try to burn it off, at worst they just won't give a shit.

[–] tal@lemmy.today 20 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

goes looking

It sounds like the US does pay attention to sunken ships with substantial amounts onboard near US shores, and has removed oil before, but also, sounds like this is the government being concerned about the spill potential rather than companies with interest in valuable salvage:

https://response.restoration.noaa.gov/oil-be-removed-sunken-wwii-tanker-near-long-island

Oil to be Removed from Sunken WWII Tanker near Long Island

The Coimbra is one of 87 wrecks prioritized for oil pollution risk in a 2010 NOAA study — a continuation of the Remediation of Underwater Legacy Environmental Threats (RULET) project, a joint effort with the Coast Guard to address threats from vessels sunk off U.S. shores that contain significant volumes of oil. After looking into about 20,000 known shipwrecks, the two agencies identified the 87 high level risk wrecks. Those sites are routinely monitored by the NOAA Satellite and Information Service Satellite Analysis Branch.

I suppose that dealing with sunken vessels without salvage potential probably isn't super-high on anyone's priority list.

Periodically on British and European forums, I've seen discussion about a sunken WW2 ammunition ship at the mouth of the Thames; an explosion would cause a lot of damage to buildings near the shore. The Brits have a fair amount of money, the thing is not in a great place, and the wreck is in shallow water, with the ships masts above water, so accessible, and they still haven't removed it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Richard_Montgomery

I suppose that if they aren't going to try to remove those explosives, removing oil from a potentially-deeper wreck probably is even less-likely.