Slashdot Mirror
Iraq's Mosul Dam Could Burst At Any Time (blastingnews.com)
MarkWhittington writes: The Mosul Dam, located near the city of Mosul in Northern Iraq, was started by Saddam Hussein in 1981 as a way to bolster his regime and provide power to the surrounding area. It was completed in 1986 and has since generated 3,420 gigawatt/hours per year. Unfortunately, the dam was built on an unstable foundation of gypsum and thus needs constant repairs to plug leaks and maintain its structural integrity. Even more unfortunately, such repair efforts have stopped since the Islamic State seized control of Mosul. The dam could burst at any time, as a consequence. The flood could kill a million people and render a million more homeless. Radio Free Europe reports that Italy's Trevi Group has been contracted to repair and maintain the dam, but it seems like there's a lot to catch up with. (Also at The Guardian and Mother Jones.)
Shouldn't that be "3,420 gigawatt*hour per year", or "3,420 gigawatt*hour/yr"?
Shachar
Why haven't they blown it already?
Who is "they" and why would "they" do that?
This story smells bad.
We have a 2006 study by the US Army Corps of Engineers which says the same thing. And the problems apparently go back to its very construction in 1984.
In September 2006, the US Army Corps of Engineers determined that the dam, 45 miles upstream of Mosul on the River Tigris, presented an unacceptable risk.
"In terms of internal erosion potential of the foundation, Mosul Dam is the most dangerous dam in the world," the corps warned, according to the SIGIR report. "If a small problem [at] Mosul Dam occurs, failure is likely."
Isis is a radical Sunni sect.
Most of the people killed will not be members of Daesh. While the floodwaters will certainly first hit Mosul, for the most part they'll be heading AWAY from Daesh-controlled territories - and towards Baghdad.
#DeleteChrome
According to the article I read yesterday, equipment was looted and the teams of 300 people who worked round the clock are now about 30.
The loss of equipment means that the voids that are eroded in the "rock" below the dam can no longer be filled with grout.
Also, one of the two sluice gates is jammed and because they need to be used as a pair (to avoid erosion) the water level cannot be reduced as the spring melt starts.
Finally, while the dam isn't under ISIS control, Mosul and post of the surrounding area is, so it probably exacerbates the problems.
They are sunni group following wahbisim interpretations which are officially adopted by Saudi Arabia. On the other hand , Iran backed forces (Shiaa militas) were the first to resist ISIS progress and defeated them in Tikrit,Anbar,Diyala. Read more on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
What you said didn't make much sense. Regardless if the war was irresponsible to start or not?, ISIS didn't have the control in Iraq until after Obama pulled the troops out. And to that point, it still doesn't make much sense because ISIS grew out of Syria's civil war that we largely sat on our hands about verbally bashing Assad saying he had to go while encouraging the rebellion.
You can say ISIS is in Iraq because we left to soon, but you cannot legitimately claim that ISIS is a product of entering the war.