Hurricane Harvey

[jmt18325]

That would be because there is little ( if any? ) Heavy Rescue involved. HUSAR

Do you think maybe a GSAR team would actually be more helpful?

Edit - I see what you're talking about now.  I thought it was going to be done better than ever before?

 

[Jarnhamar]

This is interesting.

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

The Waffle House Index is an informal metric used by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to determine the effect of a storm and the likely scale of assistance required for disaster recovery.[1]

    "If you get there and the Waffle House is closed? That's really bad. That's when you go to work.

 

[tomahawk6]

This is interesting.

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

The Canadian version would be Timmys.  ;D

 

[jollyjacktar]

I am absolutely gobsmacked at some of the numbers.  I was told the initial deluge dumped 9 trillion tons of water onto the affected area.  I can't even get my head around that volume of water inasmuch as how it would appear if in blocks.

That and those nasty ass mats of fire ants.  They need a torching.

 

[mariomike]

I am absolutely gorgeous smacked at some of the numbers.  I was told the initial deluge dumped 9 trillion tons of water onto the affected area.  I can't even get my head around that volume of water inasmuch as how it would appear if in blocks.

That and those nasty ass mats of fire ants.  They need a torching.

I don't know what the final death toll will be, I believe it is 33 now.

The natural disaster I always heard about as a child was Hurricane Hazel in 1954.

It killed up to 1,000 people.

It killed 81 people in Toronto alone, including five firemen. 35 people died on a single street, Raymore Drive.

 

[tomahawk6]

Houston is more or less dry according to the mayor.There may or may not be fuel shortages for awhile with the refineries shut down.

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/houston-begins-assess-hurricane-harveys-trail-devastation-195004541--abc-news-topstories.html

 

[Blackadder1916]

According to the story, we haven't yet been asked to assist with personnel.  This is an observation mission only.  This actually seems like exactly the kind of thing we have the DART and 5 HUSARS for.  I'm sure we've offered that help at this point.

I can't speak to the capabilities of the HUSARs because I have no experience with that aspect of the techniques of disaster response.  DART, on the other hand, is not what we use to respond to "exactly this kind of thing".  I won't get into the "political optics reasoning" for sending a bare minimum unit in response to a foreign disaster situation, but if the government does provide some form of aid, there will likely be some legitimate humanitarian feeling behind it.

In assessing what DART (as that stand alone organisation by itself) could provide to the Harvey affected area, first let's look at what DART is designed to do.
DART
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/operations-abroad-recurring/dart.page#details-panel-1412460546024-1

DART responsibilities

The primary responsibilities of the DART are:
•to stabilize the primary effects of the disaster in co-operation with national and regional governments and non-governmental agencies;
•to prevent the onset of secondary effects of the disaster; and
•to gain time for national and international humanitarian aid organizations to deploy to the affected area and prepare to deliver long-term recovery programs.

The DART is not designed to provide first response services, such as search and rescue or emergency trauma care. Instead, it can be useful where the capabilities of local governments and humanitarian agencies to provide primary health care and potable water are overstretched.

Typical DART tasks include:
•water purification;
•primary medical care; and
•engineering help.

While Harvey has definitely been a kick in the goolies to Texas specifically and the USA generally, by no stretch of the imagination has it rendered local, state or federal governments (or the massive private health system in Houston) incapable of providing minimum services.  It's not a third world country that was having trouble providing these services before the disaster event.

As some background, this is a description of the Canadian Military response to Katrina.  There are a few capabilities that we provided there that may be useful in this situation but none of them are included in the DART.
http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vol12/no3/doc/PDFeng/Scanlon-Steele-Hunsberger%20Page5462.pdf

 

[a_majoor]

Given that flooding is a pretty common disaster and that we not only see the results with Harvey, but have been dealing with it in places like Quebec and Calgary right here at home, isn't it about time there was a serious push to get amphibious vehicles like the Bronco or whatever else you might find in the catalogue so we have the tools to operate in these conditions?

How many more examples do we really need?

 

[jmt18325]

I can't speak to the capabilities of the HUSARs because I have no experience with that aspect of the techniques of disaster response.  DART, on the other hand, is not what we use to respond to "exactly this kind of thing".  I won't get into the "political optics reasoning" for sending a bare minimum unit in response to a foreign disaster situation, but if the government does provide some form of aid, there will likely be some legitimate humanitarian feeling behind it.

In assessing what DART (as that stand alone organisation by itself) could provide to the Harvey affected area, first let's look at what DART is designed to do.
DART
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/operations-abroad-recurring/dart.page#details-panel-1412460546024-1

While Harvey has definitely been a kick in the goolies to Texas specifically and the USA generally, by no stretch of the imagination has it rendered local, state or federal governments (or the massive private health system in Houston) incapable of providing minimum services.  It's not a third world country that was having trouble providing these services before the disaster event.

As some background, this is a description of the Canadian Military response to Katrina.  There are a few capabilities that we provided there that may be useful in this situation but none of them are included in the DART.
http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vol12/no3/doc/PDFeng/Scanlon-Steele-Hunsberger%20Page5462.pdf

Thank's for the info - I was thinking about stuff like basic medical care and safe drinking water.  I guess I didn't think it through.

HUSARs time has pretty much passed at this point.

 

[Blackadder1916]

Given that flooding is a pretty common disaster and that we not only see the results with Harvey, but have been dealing with it in places like Quebec and Calgary right here at home, isn't it about time there was a serious push to get amphibious vehicles like the Bronco or whatever else you might find in the catalogue so we have the tools to operate in these conditions?

How many more examples do we really need?

And what would we be doing with the "amphibious vehicles like the Bronco" while waiting for the wet and wild to occur?  There seems to be a tendency to try to always include a "having X capability in case of a disaster or humanitarian response" comment whenever proposing a piece of kit or to have these pieces of equipment sitting around, just in case.  It's very easy to get in that mindset, especially since it may convince the holders of the purse stings to loosen them a little because its not about kit designed to kill people.  However, we should be thinking the other way; request the equipment that is necessary to accomplish a military, war fighting mission.  If it is able to be adapted to a less violent situation, e.g. disaster response, all the better, but if not, so what.

I still remember the suggestion one of the evaluators made to me during the first Op Eval that I was involved in following commissioning.  The exercise scenario was a MAJAID in the far North (back then Edmonton also had a MAJAID responsibility) and the particular problem I was facing (as the HAO, my job was in Base Ops as the medical rep) was having enough bodies to do whatever lifting and toting of casualties/patients/bodies at the forward base (a community up North).  While there was a well developed ops plan that listed where such bodies came from (including CABC and 1CMBG units) the difficulty lay in the available airlift to get them there.  The number of seats assigned to the medical element just didn't provide room for what I thought was necessary (or what was listed as available in the ops plan).  The evaluator (a LCol MO), quietly said in my ear, "Don't worry about it, once you get on the ground, especially if it was a no duff situation, there will be volunteers galore from the locals who will want to help.  They will be even more willing to help if you're able to offer them a little payment, which you can.  As for vehicles to get around, how do you think the locals get around.  There's nothing wrong with beg, borrow or stealing, but we usually rent."

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Sounds like things are coming together on that front.

Let's move onto a different aspect of the consequences. Are we prepared to deal with two, three, five or ten years of energy crisis? Can we survive the massive industrial slowdown or stops?

I know nothing about the state of our petroleum industry in Canada.

How fast can we ramp up production again. Have we got the logistics to transfer it?  If yes, can we transfer to a refinery that could handle our product?

Gas here, was $1.23/ litre @ 17:00 today. It was $2.63 USD/ US gal in Michigan. The state is dusting off their rationing and driving ban policies.

It's not going away soon. Have we got the capacity, us and the US, to keep our reserves up and keep North America solvent in petroleum at the levels we have presently? Would declaring it a national emergency get us self sufficient. How about a moderate price, whatever that would be, with say .75 per litre going directly to increasing petroleum infrastructure by the industry, only with non interfering oversight funded and staffed by existing government resources?

Do we risk, at our peril, not using our own cheaper product rather become totally subservient to OPEC, because, you know, they're so nice they won't try recoup all they've lost politically and  financially from us?

Should we not ramp up our coal plants etc to try take some load off petroleum? Yes we're not receiving any coal generated power, according to politicians, but I think the boilers are still staying at heated standby for emergency are they not?

I'll reserve my input until someone that knows the industry, from working within the industry can teach us (me) what we have to work with. I'm also not going to engage in any back and forth, until we at least, determine if we have the capacity for something of this magnitude. While we're dealing with hypotheticals, I'd rather not go down crazy hypotheticals that would lead us nowhere. So no Sheldon Cooper alternate universe string theory please.

Discuss?

 

[ModlrMike]

Fuel here in Wpg has risen 0.20/L (88.9-->107.0) in the last four days. I thought that the first 0.10/L rise was due to Harvey, but I can't help but feel that the second is nothing short of profiteering.

 

[jmt18325]

Fuel here in Wpg has risen 0.20/L (88.9-->107.0) in the last four days. I thought that the first 0.10/L rise was due to Harvey, but I can't help but feel that the second is nothing short of profiteering.

It's certainly not profiting at the gas station level.  At 88.9, margins were non existent (1-2C a litre).  At the current price, fuel is costing about 1.00 for the stations.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>I was told the initial deluge dumped 9 trillion tons of water onto the affected area.  I can't even get my head around that volume of water inasmuch as how it would appear if in blocks.

A cube 20km each edge, if I got the arithmetic right.

 

[a_majoor]

And what would we be doing with the "amphibious vehicles like the Bronco" while waiting for the wet and wild to occur?  There seems to be a tendency to try to always include a "having X capability in case of a disaster or humanitarian response" comment whenever proposing a piece of kit or to have these pieces of equipment sitting around, just in case.  It's very easy to get in that mindset, especially since it may convince the holders of the purse stings to loosen them a little because its not about kit designed to kill people.  However, we should be thinking the other way; request the equipment that is necessary to accomplish a military, war fighting mission.  If it is able to be adapted to a less violent situation, e.g. disaster response, all the better, but if not, so what.

Broncos can fulfill a multitude of military roles, both as fighting vehicles and logistics vehicles (and the other half of the argument is they can move over the 80% of Canadian territory which is not covered in improved roads, as well as in marginal terrain in any area of the world). So equipping the third companies of every light battalion with Broncos (like they were originally designed around being a BV-206 equipped company) minimally fulfills both the war fighting and "operations other than war" requirements.

 

[Blackadder1916]

[

>I was told the initial deluge dumped 9 trillion tons of water onto the affected area.  I can't even get my head around that volume of water inasmuch as how it would appear if in blocks.

A cube 20km each edge, if I got the arithmetic right.

I think that the original figure may be off a little, from some of the reports I've seen, it was in the neighbourhood of 24.5 trillion "gallons" not tons.  That would put the calculation off by a factor of approximately 239 88 650 divide by, carry the 2. . . uhh, a whole shitload (239.65 US gallons in a short ton of water).  However, still a large block of water.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2017/08/30/harvey-has-unloaded-24-5-trillion-gallons-of-water-on-texas-and-louisiana/?utm_term=.a33c6b7f19ac

 

[Bearpaw]

CNN(yesterday)----> 27 trillion USGal
1 cubic mile = 1.1 trillion USGal
thus 24.5 cubic miles of rain

1 cubic mile = (1.621km)^3 = 4.26 km^3

Thus 104.35 km^3 for rain water = cube of water 4.7km on each side

or

104.35 billion metric tons water

Bearpaw

 

[dapaterson]

Or, to use a more commonly understood term, very wet.

 

[PuckChaser]

From IFLScience: http://www.iflscience.com/environment/how-much-water-hurricane-harvey-dumping-houston/

Harvey has stalled over Houston so the rainfall that normally tracks over a large area is drenching a single city. By the time its over, there will be 3.8x the amount of rainfall than that of Katrina.... Absolutely insane.

 

[tomahawk6]

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth expressed a very kind message to the folks in Texas and Louisiana.

“I was deeply saddened to learn of the loss of life and the devastation following the recent terrible floods caused by Hurricane Harvey. Prince Philip and I send our sincere condolences to the victims of this disaster, to those who have lost loved ones, and to those who have seen their homes and property destroyed. My thoughts and prayers are with those affected.”