US to arbitrarily rape Canada to the tune of $250 million

[Flubber]

Oh Dans

I had seen the articles you quoted but used the older CBC one since it indicated independent plans for evacuation by different oil companies. Nothing in what you quoted said there had been any orders or directives for evacuation by the regulator-- I'm not stating it can't or won't happen but so far the decision appears to be one by the companies . . . a politician spouting off in a situation where he would be expected to spout off is not unusual. Of course the government got involved if the oil comapnies said they had to evacuate-- this industry is the most high profile in the province.

Edited for my bad typing

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DanS
Let's look at it another way. What would the distribution have to be in order for a 1 in a trillion risk to make sense?

Very tight.

Way too tight, given the possibility for guidance errors.

Which is why I've already said that risk analysis for rocketry is bunk beyond the hand-waving arguments we've done so far.

[DanS]

Guidance errors aren't a thing of the past, for sure. I note however that rocket-grade GPS systems are used for most launches (almost all launches?) and regularly insert objects into orbit meters from target.[1] Combined with an Air Force that is all too willing to destroy the rocket in flight, I can imagine some pretty damn tight tolerances.

[1] Presumably, stage burnout is complete before you drop your stage and therefore there isn't a lot of vibration to mess up your GPS readings.

[KrazyHorse]

Why would vibration mess up your GPS signal?

[DanS]

As I understand it, the available GPS equipment doesn't handle vibration very well. Perhaps a tractable problem. GPS is in its relative infancy.

[KrazyHorse]

Probably just the electronics. There will be some doppler wobble with vibration, but at a guess it would be too small to affect signal reception.

[Flubber]

I just looked up the BOards website and this is a little dated but is the press release from April 7th

Precautionary Plans for Offshore Demobilization



The U.S. Air Force plans to launch a Titan IV rocket early in the morning of Monday, April 11 from Cape Canaveral, Florida. Debris from the launch, a 10-tonne solid rocket booster, will land in a Launch Hazard Area, which contains the Hibernia platform.

The Canada Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board has met with the three operators of the installations and drilling rig. The production operators, HMDC and Petro-Canada, informed the Board of their plans to remove all personnel, offload crude inventory and shut-in production over the weekend as a precautionary measure as debris from a rocket launch may fall within 15 nautical miles of the Hibernia platform. The drilling rig GSF Grand Banks will be towed out of the potential hazard zone.

HMDC, Petro-Canada and Husky personnel are jointly planning the logistics for personnel movement. The operators have advised their personnel and removal will begin with non-essential workers today at the Hibernia GBS.

“These actions are precautionary,” explained acting Chair and CEO, Fred Way. “While actual contact with one of the installations has a low probability, it would have devastating consequences if it happened. The companies are acting prudently and working diligently to minimize the risk to people and the environment.”

In a letter to each of the operators, the Board today confirmed each company’s plans to minimize the risk to personnel and protect the environment. The Board’s Safety Department will continue to work closely with the operators and other relevant agencies to ensure all potential risks are kept to a minimum.

In the meantime, discussions between various levels of government continue in an effort to delay the launch or change the rocket’s planned trajectory.

This statement that Hibernia is in the "launch Hazard zone" perplexes me since other stories seemed to say that the platform was just outside the zone. Also this talks about "15 miles away"

Also this is a relatively busy patch of ocean since in the normal course each of Hibernia and Terra Nova would have a nearby supply vessel and a shuttle tanker in attendence.

[Flubber]

This is from todays local Newfoundland paper. I don't agree with the premier when he says that

" If there’s one chance that something could happen out there, certainly with regard to human lives and safety, that’s simply not acceptable."

There is ALWAYS a chance of death or injury, no matter what you do. The risk of staying at home in bed may be small but it is non-zero.

Premier Danny Williams conceded Sunday there’s little he or Ottawa can do to stop the U.S. from launching a rocket over the Grand Banks.
So, with less than a week before the scheduled liftoff, he’s seeking every detail available about the rocket’s massive fuel booster that some fear could crash into the busy shipping lanes and oilfields off Newfoundland.

“We were looking at that, as to whether Canada can physically

stop the Americans from doing

this,” Williams said during a mid-

day media briefing in the lobby

of Confederation Building in St. John’s.

“Of course, there’s an obvious answer to that: I don’t think we have the resources to do it. But, from an international diplomacy perspective, there’s some important issues here.”

“So, it’s incumbent on the American government to provide the information that’s needed. Maybe there’s a comfort level here. Maybe there are measures that can be taken (toward that).”

The launch of the Titan IV rocket from Cape Canaveral, Fla., carrying a sensitive Pentagon satellite, has already been postponed twice for unspecified ‘‘technical reasons,” and is now due for liftoff Sunday, April 17.

It’s caused much consternation for Williams and the offshore oil industry since the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board (CNOPB)

issued a warning Thursday that the estimated 10-tonne booster could land within 25 kilometres of Hibernia.

That was followed by initial evacuation orders for all 400-plus workers at Hibernia, aboard the Terra Nova floating platform, and a nearby oil rig.

The evacuation was postponed as the launch was put off, but could begin again Thursday if Sunday’s liftoff is a go and the trajectory remains the same.

“Our discomfort level has increased. We did not receive the answers that we were looking for,” said Williams, who compared the rocket’s booster to the 12-storey Fortis office building in downtown St. John’s.

“We wanted the calculations. We wanted to know how they know where the booster is going to land.”

U.S. officials insist the odds of debris actually hitting an oil rig or a ship are miniscule.

But that has done nothing to allay Williams’ concerns, despite technical briefings held during the weekend.

What are the odds?

“The odds have been all over the place,” he said.

“They’ve said one million to one, a hundred million to one, 10 trillion to one …

“It’s the ‘one’ that’s the important number. If there’s one chance that something could happen out there, certainly with regard to human lives and safety, that’s simply not acceptable.

“So, I don’t like what I see. I’m not happy.”

Williams said he’s prepared to “turn the heat up” today by firing off a list

of questions he wants answered to Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan.

The premier was also scheduled to meet with oil industry officials today.

“I won’t rest, as premier of this province, until I’ve done everything I can to get the information I want.

“I want guarantees from somebody.

I want … that security and comfort. And, ultimately, if I have to go through the Government of Canada, then I will have to have a guarantee from the Government of Canada.

“If there’s no risk here, and they can pin down what’s going to happen when a booster deploys … but it’s up to them to give us the answers.”

bcallahan@thetelegram.com

Just curious but does thing plummet to the earth at high speed or does it deploy chutes ???

[DanS]

I have seen calculations putting the edge of the hazard zone about 8 km from the platform.

There is ALWAYS a chance of death or injury, no matter what you do. The risk of staying at home in bed may be small but it is non-zero.

Unfortunately, that's the problem. The US cannot satisfy the guy and still launch. Nobody can provide him the guarantee he craves if they are honest, so the question is begged of why he is pushing the rhetoric in such a fashion.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by DanS


so the question is begged of why he is pushing the rhetoric in such a fashion.

The answer is simple. No politician in Newfoundland has ever gone wrong with railing against our own federal government and railing against the US government would be equally popular.

For the politician its a no-lose . . . The oil companies seem to have decided on their own to evacuate so by ramping up the rhetoric, he will either accomplish something (like a changed trajectory) or he won't (more likely). But either way he can say he "fought for the workers". The quote about any chance being too much is just political rhetoric to me.

I just don't see any political downside to what he is doing.

[DanS]

Just curious but does thing plummet to the earth at high speed or does it deploy chutes ???

It plummets to Earth, as far as I know. Some boosters are recovered, so they use chutes to minimize impact loads. You would have to do the math on the terminal velocity of an 8 metric ton tube with a radius of 1.5 meters and length of 26 meters.

Chutes spread out the risk because the dispersion area may be wider. It is often preferable to get the stage down to the ground as fast as possible.

[DanS]

By the way, I understand that our second-most active spaceport, Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, routinely overflies oil rigs. Titan 4Bs fly from Vandenberg. While I would not hold Canada to the same risk balances that the US makes, at least it shows that these launches need not make rigs crawl to a halt.

The answer is simple. No politician in Newfoundland has ever gone wrong with railing against our own federal government and railing against the US government would be equally popular.

I wonder whether there is more here than meets the eye. For instance, the Air Force may have put out the launch notice late or something and this is the Premier's way of exacting a price for that.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by DanS
By the way, I understand that our second-most active spaceport, Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, routinely overflies oil rigs. Titan 4Bs fly from Vandenberg. While I would not hold Canada to the same risk balances that the US makes, at least it shows that these launches need not make rigs crawl to a halt.

Overflying is not the issue I don't think. Going over the rigs would probably not be an issue if they didn't plan to dump ome stuff in proximity to the oil fields.

I'm not familiar with the missile involved but I wonder as to their experience with the booster's dropped in the past.

Originally posted by DanS
I wonder whether there is more here than meets the eye. For instance, the Air Force may have put out the launch notice late or something and this is the Premier's way of exacting a price for that.

Its possible

AS it stands, the premier looks good to everyone he cares about. On this issue he manages to be fighting for the oil companies and the common workers at the same time . That does not happen often

[Flubber]

Originally posted by DanS


It plummets to Earth, as far as I know. Some boosters are recovered, so they use chutes to minimize impact loads. You would have to do the math on the terminal velocity of an 8 metric ton tube with a radius of 1.5 meters and length of 26 meters.

Chutes spread out the risk because the dispersion area may be wider. It is often preferable to get the stage down to the ground as fast as possible.

Thats why I asked . Logic would dictate that a chute would greatly increase the size of the expected impact zone while decreasing the effects.

[DanS]

Well, here's the conclusion to this ridiculousness.

Ottawa Rules U.S. Rocket Risk Low, Oil Keeps Pumping

Thu April 14, 2005 3:01 PM GMT-04:00

By Jeffrey Jones

CALGARY, Alberta (Reuters) - Canada's largest offshore oil platform will not have to be shut down as a precaution against the risk of falling debris from a U.S. rocket, officials said on Thursday, ending a week of unusual diplomatic wrangling.

The Hibernia oil project off the Newfoundland coast had been on alert to halt production and be evacuated before the U.S. Air Force launches a Titan IV rocket on a trajectory that will take it over the region's oil producing area.

Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams said he was satisfied with new assurances from Ottawa that the U.S. could destroy the rocket if anything went awry and it appeared a 10-tonne booster might hit oil installations in the Atlantic Ocean.

The region's regulator, the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board, ruled Hibernia and other oil operations can keep running normally, Williams said in a statement.

"After extensive efforts, I am relieved and satisfied that we have been successful in getting the assurances required to ensure the safety of workers on those vessels," he said.

Over the past week, he had voiced frustration over a lack of hard information about the risks of the launch.

The launch at Cape Canaveral, Florida, is now tentatively scheduled for April 20 after several delays, said Air Force spokeswoman Maj. Karen Finn. The United States plans to use the rocket to launch a classified satellite to be used for security purposes.

"It's not uncommon for the launch date to slip like this. The weather conditions have to be just right, everything has to be just right, and typically there's a lot of tinkering that goes on at the last minute," Finn said.

The issue grabbed international attention last Thursday, when the regulator ordered the 200,000 barrel a day Hibernia project evacuated and another rig towed away as a precaution against risks that both countries called minuscule.

Ottawa lobbied Washington to postpone the launch and later that day the Air Force pushed back the mission, prompting the evacuation order to be lifted.

But U.S. officials said they delayed the launch because of problems with the equipment needed to fuel the rocket, not in response to Canadian pressure.

U.S., Canadian, Newfoundland and oil industry representatives met in Nova Scotia last weekend to discuss the safety and environmental risks to the East Coast offshore, but Canadian officials said several thorny questions remained.

Williams said Anne McLellan, Canada's deputy prime minister, wrote to him late Wednesday to assure him that her staff reviewed all the U.S. data and analysis and were satisfied the oil operations will be safe during the launch.

The U.S. Air Force Space Command said its computers track flight paths on a real-time basis and the rockets have "destruct packages" that can be activated remotely if one veers too far from its intended route.

Hibernia, meanwhile, is pumping crude at normal rates, as it has been through the past week's machinations, said Alan Jeffers, spokesman for co-owner Exxon Mobil Corp. .

The other partners in the project, located 315 km (195 miles) southeast of St. John's, Newfoundland, are Petro-Canada , ChevronTexaco , Murphy Oil Corp. , the government of Canada's Canada Hibernia Holding Corp. and Norsk Hydro .