I think you may have misread, the wreck is about 3.8km deep (5 mile or so). It’s 690km away from the nearest cost laterally.
I think you may have misread, the wreck is about 3.8km deep (5 mile or so). It’s 690km away from the nearest cost laterally.
Yes, it’s all very good.
They note towards the bottom they’ve also developed a sustainable resin in place of PVA.
Sure, anything is possible without enough c4.
Whether it’s economical to do so and the risks of making a submerged navigation hazard are worthwhile is up for debate.
I suspect we’ll land in between - many of these rigs are far beyond where anyone is likely to see them and should be retained as is. The ones closer to the coast should probably be decommissioned or modified as you suggest with navigation markers.
There is a bit of a scandal in aus at the moment about this. Qatar asked for more international flights (they back Virgin Australia, one of 2 major domestic carriers in Australia). Government said no, for undisclosed reasons.
The “national” carrier Qantas are scumbags with the government in their pocket and likely quietly lobbied against it, but also Qatar International Airport did this to Australian citizens not that long ago:
https://amp.abc.net.au/article/12817070
So it’s just kind of dickheads all the way down.
It’s easier to think about it in terms of where is the wind going.
Air moves into adjacent regions that have lower pressure. It begins everywhere but is moving towards these areas of lower pressure.
They do… 1/3rd of it is used that way.