Officials: Worries about more subsidence in area will be revealed at today’s public meeting on giant sinkhole — Possible ‘gaps’ underground

Published: October 23rd, 2012 at 9:15 am ET


Title: Company reports most of sinkhole crude collected
Source: The Advocate
Author: David J. Mitchell
Date: October 23, 2012


Officials plan a community meeting 6 p.m. Tuesday at St. Joseph the Worker Catholic Church hall, 3304 La. 70 S., in Pierre Part.

John Boudreaux, director of the parish Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness, said Monday that discussion will include concerns about possibly other voids or gaps underground from the cavern failure.


Boudreaux and parish Sheriff Mike Waguespack have pointed out that the volume of the sinkhole is about 2.7 million cubic yards smaller than the amount of subterranean earth believed to have entered the cavern, leading to worries about the voids and additional subsidence in the area.

[An Oct. 11 order from state Office of Conservation Commissioner James Welsh] calls for seismic testing that could see whether such voids do exist.

Watch the latest video showing bubbling on the sinkhole’s surface here

Published: October 23rd, 2012 at 9:15 am ET


Related Posts

  1. Officials concerned pressure may build to “explosive concentrations” in aquifer near giant sinkhole — Geologists say top layer may not hold back gas if above 75 psi — New footage of area (VIDEO) October 8, 2012
  2. Officials: Giant sinkhole measures 550,000 cubic yards — Much more room to grow underground October 22, 2012
  3. Paper: 50 micro-earthquakes a day at giant Louisiana sinkhole — Blamed on ‘breaking rock’ underground — Sidewall of cavern still collapsing April 16, 2013
  4. Officials: Wall around giant sinkhole must be ‘re-routed’ — Land is sinking outside boundary — “Ongoing surface subsidence” April 26, 2013
  5. WAFB: Work halted at sinkhole — “Stoppage caused by tremors in area” — “Not good news for residents” — Emergency meeting Thursday September 17, 2012

7 comments to Officials: Worries about more subsidence in area will be revealed at today’s public meeting on giant sinkhole — Possible ‘gaps’ underground

  • vivvi

    Maybe they should consider the fact that Texas Brine probably dumped a whole heap of contaminated crap in that cavern that they dont want to admit to, and now that they are busted, are playing dumb and blaming the toxic mess on this sinkhole. "Gee, how did all that stuff get into our abandoned cavern?" Yeah, right.

    • dosdos dosdos

      Actually, Texas Brine had full permission from the owners of the dome and the La. gvernment to dump radioactive materials and fracking sludge in the salt cavern. Add to it that federal law protects them from liability for such actions. They have no need to hide from the authorities, they are protected. It's public reaction and bad PR they are trying to suppress.

      • vivvi

        True, dosdos, I am just sayin' that they don't want ppl to know how much crap they put in there and how dangerous it is. They dont want to have to clean it up now that their recklessness in damaging the salt dome has some unexpected consequences. If they can blame it on a natural disaster, then they dodge having to pay to fix it.

      • Maggie123

        Hi Dosdos, everyody at ENE … Dosdos I fully agree with your statement but want to pull out a piece of well-estabhished language and propose a radical shift.

        It's well known that word choice "frames" our concept of what the words mean. By our ordinary language we suggest or affirm beliefs and values. (We all do this all the time.)

        It's also well known that changing "verbal frame" shifts concepts, beliefs, values. That's why shifting from "mankind" to "humankind" for ex. causes us to think in less gender-biased terms, etc.

        So here's my proposal: We begin to drop language that assigns or 'affirms' land as something that we can individually (or corporately) "own". We replace this with language that reminds us that all earth belongs to all life, and we are stewards. (For example, I have a deed to a small property – but I'm not a legitimate owner so much as I've implicitly agreed to "steward" the parcel.)

        With a change in perception, "full permission from the owners of the dome" means nothing because *all* humanity "owns" the land (is responsible for stewardship) and "we" did not give permission to "to dump radioactive materials and fracking sludge in the salt cavern".

        I realize the language shift I suggest has no legal standing. But it sure shifts "concept" of land-care. If on a daily basis whenever possible we use language re earth care that reflects humanity as stewards not owners … wonder 3 yrs from now how much diff…

        • Maggie123

          … how much difference it would make! πŸ™‚

          (Like I said – I'm in full agreement with your actual points, and don't mean to "pick on" a language convention as if it's a problem. I use the same convention all the time. But I'm big on how language works with perceptions, values, beliefs, etc .. and 'stewardship' has become a favorite "thought-shaping vocab word" for me in the last few years. I just used your language as a convenient way to make my proposal – which I've not made to any group before!) πŸ™‚

          • enoughalready45 enoughalready45


            I like your idea of land "owners" turning into land "stewards". It indeed would make a mental change of direction in land use.

          • "No man can own the land he is just a steward of that land."

            – Native American saying (translated)