Ken Hon's comment about exactly this point..
Was focused on the point of contact, as if describing a wall, which in all instances of high volume effusion, as he pointed out, is futile. What Ken didn't discuss, and the USGS in general wants nothing to do with, is that the way to approach diversion is in nudging the flow, giving it an alternative path.
Ken, the USGS, will not go there, but Jack Lockwood, a now retired volcanologist who worked for a good portion of his life at HVO, is a strong proponent of lava diversion. During his time as a government employee he was bared from speaking out on the matter. But Jack's experience, his world view, is world wide, not limited to the official US Government's stance on the matter. And he's participated in several efforts elsewhere.
But here, in Hawaii, Jack did design and oversee the creation of the berms mauka of the Mauna Loa Solar Observatory. Look at a satellite view, Google maps etc, of the place.
IMO, in order to adequately deal with the current situation the diversion would have had to have been on the greater slope more mauka than where it has reached now. And, like Jack's berms above the solar observatory, the intent would not be to stop, but to nudge one side or another. But then, if anyone did that they would subsequently inherit some liability for everything the flow did thereafter, wouldn't they?
To deal with the flow as it is, on flat ground, trying to stop the flows advance entirely, I could imagine building a large berm facing the flow, but with intent using material, the rock on the back side, the Mauna Kea side, so as to build, dig, a really large trough, so if/when the flow does overtop the berm it is then encouraged to follow the trough laterally..
And still, nobody here, in the USA, will touch it. Note the cultural sensitivities in Ken's statement.
Was focused on the point of contact, as if describing a wall, which in all instances of high volume effusion, as he pointed out, is futile. What Ken didn't discuss, and the USGS in general wants nothing to do with, is that the way to approach diversion is in nudging the flow, giving it an alternative path.
Ken, the USGS, will not go there, but Jack Lockwood, a now retired volcanologist who worked for a good portion of his life at HVO, is a strong proponent of lava diversion. During his time as a government employee he was bared from speaking out on the matter. But Jack's experience, his world view, is world wide, not limited to the official US Government's stance on the matter. And he's participated in several efforts elsewhere.
But here, in Hawaii, Jack did design and oversee the creation of the berms mauka of the Mauna Loa Solar Observatory. Look at a satellite view, Google maps etc, of the place.
IMO, in order to adequately deal with the current situation the diversion would have had to have been on the greater slope more mauka than where it has reached now. And, like Jack's berms above the solar observatory, the intent would not be to stop, but to nudge one side or another. But then, if anyone did that they would subsequently inherit some liability for everything the flow did thereafter, wouldn't they?
To deal with the flow as it is, on flat ground, trying to stop the flows advance entirely, I could imagine building a large berm facing the flow, but with intent using material, the rock on the back side, the Mauna Kea side, so as to build, dig, a really large trough, so if/when the flow does overtop the berm it is then encouraged to follow the trough laterally..
And still, nobody here, in the USA, will touch it. Note the cultural sensitivities in Ken's statement.