02-05-2015, 03:22 PM
Ironyak states:
You will note, at the last meeting, Mike Kaleikini also reiterated that stopping drilling enhances the risk for a problem.
(Second bold) Yes, there was in depth discussion and expert testimony from those in the field, not just PGV "experts"(discussions also included "cultural issues", which carried no concern regarding noise issue). One might want to delve into the written testimony at the time, which included DLNR, and other entities involved in the safety aspect.
The discussion and proof of safety concerns were disregarded as proven by the passing of 292. PGV was deemed "exempt", thus, didn't matter. Politics, again.
(Rehashing old crap, apologies to all who have been through this exercise for years. Too many experts; so little time.)
Safety issue should be foremost for all; apparently it is not.
JMO.
quote:(BBM to address)
Sorry pbmaise, but drilling can be stopped as needed. Mike K has said so a couple times now when asked directly, and it was clearly done while drilling KS-10. PGV still completed the ~5000 ft well.
http://evols.library.manoa.hawaii.edu/bi...nology.pdf (Page 20-21)
"1-4 February, 1993
As a result of the large number of noise complaints and not being able to meet their noise limits, PGV suspended drilling operations during the nighttime hours."
"17-22 Feb., 1993
DOH and PGV receive a large number of noise complaints due to air drilling of well KS-10 which causes PGV to suspend drilling operations several nights."
It may not be preferable for both possible cost and safety reasons, and these stoppages are not the same as every night, but it can be done from a technology perspective FYI.
Wonder if there were safety vs noise level discussions about this at the time...
You will note, at the last meeting, Mike Kaleikini also reiterated that stopping drilling enhances the risk for a problem.
(Second bold) Yes, there was in depth discussion and expert testimony from those in the field, not just PGV "experts"(discussions also included "cultural issues", which carried no concern regarding noise issue). One might want to delve into the written testimony at the time, which included DLNR, and other entities involved in the safety aspect.
The discussion and proof of safety concerns were disregarded as proven by the passing of 292. PGV was deemed "exempt", thus, didn't matter. Politics, again.
(Rehashing old crap, apologies to all who have been through this exercise for years. Too many experts; so little time.)
Safety issue should be foremost for all; apparently it is not.
JMO.