Much larger oil gusher miles away, and talk of "nuclear option" [Archive]

View Full Version : Much larger oil gusher miles away, and talk of "nuclear option"

Debunker

05-29-2010, 10:32 PM

https://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0529/energy-expert-nuke-oil-leak/

"Next, the so-called 'nuclear option' is about to get a lot of attention. In this case, of course, nuclear option is not a euphemism. It's the real idea that the best way to kill this thing is to stick a small nuke in there and bury the well under rubble. ... By the middle of the coming week, it will be all over cable news, as pundits press The White House hard on whether it's being considered and why not."

The following video was broadcast on Bloomberg News, Friday May 28, 2010.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="https://www.youtube.com/v/4whiKQgnp4w&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="https://www.youtube.com/v/4whiKQgnp4w&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

As the latest effort to plug the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico meets with failure, the idea of nuking the immediate area to seal the oil underground is gaining steam among some energy experts and researchers.

One prominent energy expert known for predicting the oil price spike of 2008 says sending a small nuclear bomb down the leaking well is "probably the only thing we can do" to stop the leak.

Matt Simmons, founder of energy investment bank Simmons & Company, also says that there is evidence of a second oil leak about five to seven miles from the initial leak that BP has focused on fixing. That second leak, he says, is so large that the initial one is "minor" in comparison.

Simmons spoke to Bloomberg News on Friday, before BP announced that its latest effort to plug the leak, known as the "top kill" method, had failed.

"A week ago Sunday the first research vessel ... was commissioned by NOAA to scour the area," he said. They found "a gigantic plume" growing about five to seven miles from the site of the original leak, Simmons said.

Simmons said the US government should immediately take the effort to plug the leak out of the hands of BP and put the military in charge.

"Probably the only thing we can do is create a weapons system and send it down 18,000 feet and detonate it, hopefully encasing the oil," he said.

His idea echoes that of a Russian newspaper that earlier this month suggested the US detonate a small nuclear bomb to seal the oil beneath the sea. Komsomoloskaya Pravda argued in an editorial that Russia had successfully used nuclear weapons to seal oil spills on five occasions in the past.

Live Science reports:

Weapons labs in the former Soviet Union developed special nukes for use to help pinch off the gas wells. They believed that the force from a nuclear explosion could squeeze shut any hole within 82 to 164 feet (25 to 50 meters), depending on the explosion's power. That required drilling holes to place the nuclear device close to the target wells.

A first test in the fall of 1966 proved successful in sealing up an underground gas well in southern Uzbekistan, and so the Russians used nukes four more times for capping runaway wells.

Simmons also told Bloomberg that the idea to use radical measures like a nuclear bomb to seal the leak is probably not being contemplated by decision-makers "because BP is still totally in charge of the news and they have everyone focused on the top kill."

Asked by a Bloomberg reporter about the risks involved in setting off a nuclear bomb off the coast of Louisiana, Simmons argued that a nuclear explosion deep inside a well bore would have little effect on surrounding areas.

"If you're 18,000 feet under the sea bed, it basically wont do anything [on the surface]," he said.

Joe Wiesenthal at Business Insider says the idea of using nukes will be getting a lot of attention now that the "top kill" procedure has failed.

Hotspring 44

05-30-2010, 02:45 AM

Braggi

05-30-2010, 10:09 AM

Nuke it? What a positively horrid idea. Imagine if they blasted a huge chunk out of the ocean floor letting the whole reservoir escape at once. OMG don't let them do this. I can't imagine it being successful.

-Jeff

Debunker

05-30-2010, 10:22 AM

I think you're both preaching to the choir, I doubt anyone here will think it's a good idea. This is a spectacularly monumental disaster, and none of the options look good. It may go on for years, if it does, I read somewhere that the gulf may be dead for at least a century.

Since the Soviets claim to have used nukes to seal five out-of-control gushers, I expect that if all else fails, we will too.

Nuke it? What a positively horrid idea. Imagine if they blasted a huge chunk out of the ocean floor letting the whole reservoir escape at once. OMG don't let them do this. I can't imagine it being successful.

-Jeff

Hotspring 44

05-30-2010, 12:06 PM

Debunker

05-30-2010, 12:20 PM

Sounds great, but if it were possible, you'd think that would be BP's, and everyone else's, first choice.

<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document"><meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 11"><meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 11"><link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CSH%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><style>  </style>
I think a much more sane approach would be to allow whoever has the best and/or most successful way of collecting that oil (even if it is multiple companies) come forward and do so and allow them to sell it even if B.P is involved, but don't limit it to only BP. Let all of the oil companies or whoever make bids on it and show what they're technique is, then if it looks anywhere near promising and safe enough then let them go for it!:idea: <o:p></o:p>

2Bwacco

05-30-2010, 01:12 PM

recall learning the scientists working on developing the first atomic bomb were afraid setting it off would trigger domino effect and poof, our entire world, galaxy, cosmos would be gone!

thankfully logical reasoning with good foundation in physics science prevailed.

not all things nuclear / atomic are bad

seems like the oil well needs to have something go boom, perhaps a measured quantity of TNT, an outward force to break apart the well's column, then have the ruptured rock fall back and block the blast zone.

the bigger the blast, the more damage to surrounding area.

maybe keeping it "small" or just the required outward force will do the trick.

the best minds MUST be working on this problem - we hope, we pray.

Hotspring 44

05-30-2010, 02:51 PM

Maybe not first choice, but hopefully a it comes far closer to the top of the list then the nuclear bomb idea!

Sounds great, but if it were possible, you'd think that would be BP's, and everyone else's, first choice.

Debunker

05-30-2010, 02:59 PM

Your assumption is that it's an option in the first place.

Perhaps some wacco could wave their magic healing wand over the gusher, that would be preferable to a nuclear detonation too, but the question is: would it work?

If your idea were possible, I have no doubt they'd be falling all over themselves implementing it.

Maybe not first choice, but hopefully a it comes far closer to the top of the list then the nuclear bomb idea!

Hotspring 44

05-30-2010, 05:20 PM

Scientifically speaking, I agree with you that “not all things nuclear / atomic are bad”. The makeup of our very being in the first place has to do with nuclear energy from just after the Big Bang. So actually everything related to nuclear or atomic isn't bad. We could not exist without it.

Also our sun is a huge nuclear reaction of sorts for example, but I would not want to be too close to it.

In theory, the core of our planet also has nuclear mass (energy field) which keeps it warm from the inside and also gives us our protective magnetic field.

That being said I would like to remind everybody that there is a large amount of natural gas in the mix there and the fact that it is under extremely high pressure, I think it would be prudent to be very cautious about fracturing the rock, because after all that is how (one of the techniques called fracturing) natural gas from deep underground is extracted in other places.

They inject mostly water mixed with toxic chemicals, and sometimes sand, ceramic, or something like that under extremely high pressure; into the shale so that the natural gas more readily comes out through the fractures in the shale.

Therefore I think it would be wise to do something else besides fracturing the rock around the well casing, because there would still likely be natural gas coming out in great quantities that would sift through it and/or have enough pressure to actually displace the fractured rock and then that could cause the crude oil to seep through anyway; whereas, if a nuke were to be used, it would also unavoidably release into the environment extremely toxic, radioactive isotopes.

Here is one video about the techniques and the controversy about toxic chemicals used in fracturing that demonstrates how the ecosystem (aquifer in this case) can be adversely affected by this technique, that might be of interest for comparison: Drilling for Gas / Polluting Water / Caution! on Vimeo (https://vimeo.com/2673158)

What has happened there (in Arkansas) is an example of what my serious concern is if someone uses a nuke in an attempt to blow the broken well in the Gulf of Mexico shut.

The fact is that nobody knows whether or not it would work.

And sometimes it is those so-called best minds whom are the ones that "help" us into the biggest trouble in the first place.

However, I think (& I hope) in this case, they (all of the powers that be whom have decision-making power) are willing to listen to and consider anything that seems plausible at all; including an environmentally sustainable energy system for the future (LOL!... Lots Of Luck, not laugh out loud in this case.).

I apologize to those who are sensitive to my sarcasm; I just happen to feel that way about this topic right now.

I think we should consider the possibility that; that hole may not be possible to "plug" at all, and also the possibility that there may be more than one leaking hole or fracture.

One problem is that it may not be profitable to capture the oil. But yet it is necessary.

I think that if we take profitability out of the equation it becomes more likely to be doable without making the situation worse by trying something that could backfire like a nuke or any other kind of explosion, which may actually cause the flow to increase then cause the leaking to be more widespread than it already is. After all there are sedimentary layers and there is the possibility that if there is a secondary fracture already created somehow from the explosion from the drilling rig (I do have my doubts about that though) in the first place or whatever; (that) if the secondary off-site fracture theory is discovered, (then) making another more intense explosion seems to me would have a high probability risk factor of making matters far worse.

I think that by the time anybody that does have access to the supercomputers of the government (at the Pentagon) to task a model with different scenarios, (of) using a nuke to plug the hole; (that), British Petroleum could by then have drilled two successful relief wells and probably put a stop to 90% or more of the leakage using that known technique at which point the remaining seepage could probably be patched over completely within a few months and sealed or pumped out.

recall learning the scientists working on developing the first atomic bomb were afraid setting it off would trigger domino effect and poof, our entire world, galaxy, cosmos would be gone!

thankfully logical reasoning with good foundation in physics science prevailed.

not all things nuclear / atomic are bad

seems like the oil well needs to have something go boom, perhaps a measured quantity of TNT, an outward force to break apart the well's column, then have the ruptured rock fall back and block the blast zone.

the bigger the blast, the more damage to surrounding area.

maybe keeping it "small" or just the required outward force will do the trick.

the best minds MUST be working on this problem - we hope, we pray.

Debunker

05-30-2010, 05:32 PM

Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Hotspring. I just want to address one point. It's not a good idea to invest a lot of hope in the so-called relief wells, because when the same thing sort of blowout happened in Australia, it took five attempts, five different relief wells, to finally intercept and cap the out of control well, and they were doing it in 200 feet of water, not 5,000. I read it's like trying to thread a needle while wearing mittens.

Hotspring 44

05-30-2010, 06:54 PM

Your assumption is that it's an option in the first place.
Unfortunately it may not be a viable option.

Perhaps some wacco could wave their magic healing wand over the gusher, that would be preferable to a nuclear detonation too, but the question is: would it work?
I'm sure at this point, if anybody reasonably thought it would actually work , they would probably try it. But I don't think it'll work.

If your idea were possible, I have no doubt they'd be falling all over themselves implementing it.

Maybe but on the other hand, if it wasn't profitable, I don't think "they'd be falling all over themselves" for the opportunity to lose money.

I remember when some scientists from the nuclear industry were saying that we could send a nuclear bomb on rockets, to a threatening asteroid that would otherwise hit the planet Earth and blow it (the asteroid) to pieces... ...do you remember that?
Come to find out after Supercomputer modeling that they discovered (realized) that millions of extremely heated fragments would hit the earth with the same net velocity anyway, and quite possibly (some say likely, depending upon the original size of the asteroid) causing even more damage!

Why is it that when people don't know what to do about something really big which is out of their control that makes them want to throw a nuclear bomb at it!?... as if somehow the nuclear bomb is going to solve the problem.:hmmm:

philosophically speaking, In some ways, we really do live in a glass house. We should be careful when considering throwing any rocks.:Yinyangv:

<link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CSH%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><style> 
<o:p></o:p>
<table class="MsoTableGrid" style="border-collapse: collapse; border: medium none;" border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr style=""> <td style="border: 1pt solid windowtext; padding: 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top">

Isotopes of special importance include iodine-131, strontium-90 and 89, and cesium-137. This is due to both their relative abundance in fallout, and to their special biological affinity. Isotopes that are readily absorbed by the body, and concentrated and stored in particular tissues can cause harm out of proportion to their abundance. <o:p></o:p>
Iodine-131 is a beta and gamma emitter with a half-life of 8.07 days (specific activity 124,000 curies/g) Its decay energy is 970 KeV; usually divided between 606 KeV beta, 364 KeV gamma. Due to its short half-life it is most dangerous in the weeks immediately after the explosion, but hazardous amounts can persist for a few months. It constitutes some 2% of fission-produced isotopes - 1.6x10^5 curies/kt. [I]Iodine is readily absorbed by the body and concentrated in one small gland, the thyroid.

Strontium-90 is a beta emitter (546 KeV, no gammas) with a half-life of 28.1 years (specific activity 141 curies/g), Sr-89 is a beta emitter (1.463 MeV, gammas very rarely) with a half-life of 52 days (specific activity 28,200 Ci/g). Each of these isotopes constitutes about 3% of total fission isotopes: 190 curies of Sr-90 and 3.8x10^4 curies of Sr-89 per kiloton. [I]Due to their chemical resemblance to calcium these isotopes are absorbed fairly well, and stored in bones. Sr-89 is an important hazard for a year or two after an explosion, but Sr-90 remains a hazard for centuries. Actually most of the injury from Sr-90 is due to its daughter isotope yttrium-90. Y-90 has a half-life of only 64.2 hours, so it decays as fast as it is formed, and emits 2.27 MeV beta particles. <o:p></o:p>
Cesium-137 is a beta and gamma emitter with a half-life of 30.0 years (specific activity 87 Ci/g). Its decay energy is 1.176 MeV; usually divided by 514 KeV beta, 662 KeV gamma. It comprises some 3-3.5% of total fission products - 200 curies/kt. It is the primary long-term gamma emitter hazard from fallout, and remains a hazard for centuries. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
</td> </tr> <tr style=""> <td style="border-width: medium 1pt 1pt; border-style: none solid solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext; padding: 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top"> Copied with the Copyright permission when used or excerpted from the following:
Section 5.0 Effects of Nuclear Explosions<o:p></o:p>

Nuclear Weapons Frequently Asked Questions<o:p></o:p>

Version 2.14: 15 May 1997 <o:p></o:p>

“COPYRIGHT CAREY SUBLETTE<o:p></o:p>
This material may be excerpted, quoted, or distributed freely<o:p></o:p>
provided that attribution to the author (Carey Sublette) and <o:p></o:p>
document name (Nuclear Weapons Frequently Asked Questions) is <o:p></o:p>
clearly preserved. I would prefer that the user also include the<o:p></o:p>
URL of the source. <o:p></o:p>
Only authorized host sites may make this document publicly<o:p></o:p>
available on the Internet through the World Wide Web, anonymous FTP, or<o:p></o:p>
other means. Unauthorized host sites are expressly forbidden. If you<o:p></o:p>
wish to host this FAQ, in whole or in part, please contact me at:<o:p></o:p>
[email protected]<o:p></o:p>
This restriction is placed to allow me to maintain version control.<o:p></o:p>
The current authorized host sites for this FAQ are the High Energy<o:p></o:p>
Weapons Archive hosted/mirrored at:<o:p></o:p>
https://gawain.membrane.com/hew/ (https://gawain.membrane.com/hew/) <o:p></o:p>
https://nuketesting.enviroweb.org/hew/ <o:p></o:p>
and Rand Afrikaans University Engineering hosted at: <o:p></o:p>
https://www-ing.rau.ac.za/ “

I got this info from this web page: https://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq5.html (https://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq5.html) <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p>
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> <o:p> </o:p>

Debunker

05-30-2010, 07:10 PM

I'm confused. You were the one who proposed "it", as being a much better alternative instead of the nuclear option, now you seem to be agreeing with me... if there were a way to recover the oil, profitable or not, they'd be doing it.

Unfortunately it may not be a viable option.

I'm sure at this point, if anybody reasonably thought it would actually work , they would probably try it. But I don't think it'll work.

Maybe but on the other hand, if it wasn't profitable, I don't think "they'd be falling all over themselves" for the opportunity to lose money.

I remember when some scientists from the nuclear industry were saying that we could send a nuclear bomb on rockets, to a threatening asteroid that would otherwise hit the planet Earth and blow it (the asteroid) to pieces... ...do you remember that?
Come to find out after Supercomputer modeling that they discovered (realized) that millions of extremely heated fragments would hit the earth with the same net velocity anyway, and quite possibly (some say likely, depending upon the original size of the asteroid) causing even more damage!

Why is it that when people don't know what to do about something really big which is out of their control that makes them want to throw a nuclear bomb at it!?... as if somehow the nuclear bomb is going to solve the problem.:hmmm:

philosophically speaking, In some ways, we really do live in a glass house. We should be careful when considering throwing any rocks.:Yinyangv:

<link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CSH%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><style> 
<o:p></o:p>
<table class="MsoTableGrid" style="border-collapse: collapse; border: medium none;" border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr style=""> <td style="border: 1pt solid windowtext; padding: 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top">

Isotopes of special importance include iodine-131, strontium-90 and 89, and cesium-137. This is due to both their relative abundance in fallout, and to their special biological affinity. Isotopes that are readily absorbed by the body, and concentrated and stored in particular tissues can cause harm out of proportion to their abundance. <o:p></o:p>
Iodine-131 is a beta and gamma emitter with a half-life of 8.07 days (specific activity 124,000 curies/g) Its decay energy is 970 KeV; usually divided between 606 KeV beta, 364 KeV gamma. Due to its short half-life it is most dangerous in the weeks immediately after the explosion, but hazardous amounts can persist for a few months. It constitutes some 2% of fission-produced isotopes - 1.6x10^5 curies/kt. [I]Iodine is readily absorbed by the body and concentrated in one small gland, the thyroid.

Strontium-90 is a beta emitter (546 KeV, no gammas) with a half-life of 28.1 years (specific activity 141 curies/g), Sr-89 is a beta emitter (1.463 MeV, gammas very rarely) with a half-life of 52 days (specific activity 28,200 Ci/g). Each of these isotopes constitutes about 3% of total fission isotopes: 190 curies of Sr-90 and 3.8x10^4 curies of Sr-89 per kiloton. [I]Due to their chemical resemblance to calcium these isotopes are absorbed fairly well, and stored in bones. Sr-89 is an important hazard for a year or two after an explosion, but Sr-90 remains a hazard for centuries. Actually most of the injury from Sr-90 is due to its daughter isotope yttrium-90. Y-90 has a half-life of only 64.2 hours, so it decays as fast as it is formed, and emits 2.27 MeV beta particles. <o:p></o:p>
Cesium-137 is a beta and gamma emitter with a half-life of 30.0 years (specific activity 87 Ci/g). Its decay energy is 1.176 MeV; usually divided by 514 KeV beta, 662 KeV gamma. It comprises some 3-3.5% of total fission products - 200 curies/kt. It is the primary long-term gamma emitter hazard from fallout, and remains a hazard for centuries. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
</td> </tr> <tr style=""> <td style="border-width: medium 1pt 1pt; border-style: none solid solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext; padding: 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top"> Copied with the Copyright permission when used or excerpted from the following:
Section 5.0 Effects of Nuclear Explosions<o:p></o:p>

Nuclear Weapons Frequently Asked Questions<o:p></o:p>

Version 2.14: 15 May 1997 <o:p></o:p>

“COPYRIGHT CAREY SUBLETTE<o:p></o:p>
This material may be excerpted, quoted, or distributed freely<o:p></o:p>
provided that attribution to the author (Carey Sublette) and <o:p></o:p>
document name (Nuclear Weapons Frequently Asked Questions) is <o:p></o:p>
clearly preserved. I would prefer that the user also include the<o:p></o:p>
URL of the source. <o:p></o:p>
Only authorized host sites may make this document publicly<o:p></o:p>
available on the Internet through the World Wide Web, anonymous FTP, or<o:p></o:p>
other means. Unauthorized host sites are expressly forbidden. If you<o:p></o:p>
wish to host this FAQ, in whole or in part, please contact me at:<o:p></o:p>
[email protected]<o:p></o:p>
This restriction is placed to allow me to maintain version control.<o:p></o:p>
The current authorized host sites for this FAQ are the High Energy<o:p></o:p>
Weapons Archive hosted/mirrored at:<o:p></o:p>
https://gawain.membrane.com/hew/ (https://gawain.membrane.com/hew/) <o:p></o:p>
https://nuketesting.enviroweb.org/hew/ <o:p></o:p>
and Rand Afrikaans University Engineering hosted at: <o:p></o:p>
https://www-ing.rau.ac.za/ “

I got this info from this web page: https://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq5.html (https://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq5.html) <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p>
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> <o:p> </o:p>

Hotspring 44

05-30-2010, 07:16 PM

Hotspring 44

05-30-2010, 08:07 PM

I'm confused. You were the one who proposed "it", as being a much better alternative instead of the nuclear option, now you seem to be agreeing with me... if there were a way to recover the oil, profitable or not, they'd be doing it.

<link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CSH%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><link rel="Edit-Time-Data" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CSH%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_editdata.mso"><style>  </style> <table class="MsoTableGrid" style="border-collapse: collapse; border: medium none;" border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr style=""> <td style="width: 6.15in; border: 1pt solid windowtext; padding: 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top" width="590">
As far as what I said; “[I]but I don't think it'll work” was in specific response to your wacco magic healing wand waving over the gusher comment:
<o:p></o:p>
</td> </tr> <tr style=""> <td style="width: 6.15in; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt; border-style: none solid solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext; padding: 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top" width="590"> <table class="MsoNormalTable" style="" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr style=""> <td style="border: 1pt inset; padding: 4.5pt;"> Debunker wrote:  (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccoreader/67885-much-larger-oil-gusher-miles-away-talk-nuclear-option.html#post114736)
“Perhaps some wacco could wave their magic healing wand over the gusher, that would be preferable to a nuclear detonation too, but the question is: would it work?”<o:p></o:p>
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> [I]I said in response "I'm sure at this point, if anybody reasonably thought it would actually work, they would probably try it. But I don't think it'll work."

<o:p></o:p>
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

<o:p></o:p>
<table class="MsoTableGrid" style="border-collapse: collapse; border: medium none;" border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr style=""> <td style="width: 6.15in; border: 1pt solid windowtext; padding: 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top" width="590"> Tthen there was this: <o:p></o:p>
</td> </tr> <tr style=""> <td style="width: 6.15in; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt; border-style: none solid solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext; padding: 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top" width="590"> <table class="MsoNormalTable" style="" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr style=""> <td style="border: 1pt inset; padding: 4.5pt;"> Debunker wrote:  (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccoreader/67885-much-larger-oil-gusher-miles-away-talk-nuclear-option.html#post114736)
Your assumption is that it's an option in the first place.<o:p></o:p>
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> [I]I said in response "Unfortunately it may not be a viable option."

<o:p></o:p>
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> I said; it may not be a viable option because I really don't know if it is or not.
<link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CSH%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><style>  </style>

<o:p></o:p>
<table class="MsoTableGrid" style="border-collapse: collapse; border: medium none;" border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr style=""> <td style="width: 6.15in; border: 1pt solid windowtext; padding: 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top" width="590"> Then at some point, I think in a different post; is this:<o:p></o:p>
</td> </tr> <tr style=""> <td style="width: 6.15in; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt; border-style: none solid solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext; padding: 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top" width="590"> <table class="MsoTableGrid" style="border-collapse: collapse; border: medium none;" border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr style=""> <td style="border: 1pt solid windowtext; padding: 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top"> Debunker said: If your idea were possible, I have no doubt they'd be falling all over themselves implementing it.
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> [I]My response to that was: “Maybe but on the other hand, if it wasn't profitable, I don't think "they'd be falling all over themselves" for the opportunity to lose money.”<o:p></o:p>
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
The overall meaning of the message/s I'm trying to convey is that. I think there are a lot of other things that would work better or equally as well than the theory of attempting to nuke the hole shut successfully.

After all, that Australian well leak did get plugged even though it did take five attempts and it was only 200 feet of water.

I can only imagine how screwed up things would be if they had to attempt to nuke it five times to get it to work! Yikes!

There may be a way to recover a lot of the spilled oil, profitable or not, but the logistics may not have been figured out yet. That could also take weeks or months, and a few failed attempts. I'm sure they don't want to lose any more lives on any oil rigs or tankers.

So in a sense, I am probably agreeing with you. Maybe it's just a matter of semantics, and/or certain specifics where we may not quite have the same thought.
In a generalized sense, it seems to me that we probably agree more than disagree.

:idea:I hope this further enlightened you then it confused me. LOL!


<o:p></o:p>

It would be a very tedious decision to make to say the least to even consider using a nuke because of the following questions;
Where is the data about what the Russians supposedly did to plug oil and natural gas well with extreme pressure at such depths, or anywhere for that matter?

Was it in anywhere near 5000 foot deep water?
Did the Russians successfully do that at anywhere near something comparable to 13,000 feet below the ocean floor?
With what amount of certainty could there possibly be that it would work even if they did hire the Russians with (that supposedly have) that experience to do it; (assuming they did it successfully.)?

It still seems to me there is much more potential for major wreckage using a nuke (in an attempt) to plug the hole, rather than some other way to collect oil.

I don't believe there are any quick fixes, just damage control at this point, at best.

<o:p></o:p>

Thad

05-31-2010, 12:00 AM

Its general consensus as of March that the trigger for the extinction of the Dinosaurs was from the impact of an asteroid on the Yucatan Peninsula,

Thinking of fractured tectonic plates and popping of nuclear explosions into them to plug an oil well

Oh My

The Chicxulub crater (pronounced [tʃikʃuˈlub] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA)) is an ancient impact crater (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_crater) buried underneath the Yucatán Peninsula (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucat%C3%A1n_Peninsula) in Mexico (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico).<sup id="cite_ref-0" class="reference">[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicxulub_Crater#cite_note-0)</sup> Its center is located near the town of Chicxulub (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicxulub,_Yucat%C3%A1n), after which the crater is named.<sup id="cite_ref-penfield_1-0" class="reference">[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicxulub_Crater#cite_note-penfield-1)</sup> The crater is more than 180 kilometers (110 mi) in diameter, making the feature one of the largest confirmed impact structures on Earth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_impact_craters_on_Earth#Confirmed_impact_craters_listed_by_size); the impacting bolide (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolide) that formed the crater was at least 10 km (6 mi) in diameter.
The crater was discovered by Glen Penfield (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Glen_Penfield&action=edit&redlink=1), a geophysicist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geophysics) who had been working in the Yucatán while looking for oil (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum) during the late 1970s. Penfield was initially unable to obtain evidence that the unique geological feature was in fact a crater, and gave up his search. Through contact with Alan Hildebrand (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alan_Hildebrand&action=edit&redlink=1), Penfield was able to obtain samples that suggested it was an impact feature. Evidence for the impact origin of the crater includes shocked quartz (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shocked_quartz), a gravity anomaly (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_anomaly), and tektites (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tektite) in surrounding areas.
The age of the rocks and isotope analysis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope_analysis) show that this impact structure dates from the end of the Cretaceous (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous) Period (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Period_%28geology%29), roughly 65 million years ago (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Million_years_ago). The impact associated with the crater is implicated in causing the extinction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous%E2%80%93Tertiary_extinction_event) of the dinosaurs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur) as suggested by the K–T boundary (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%E2%80%93T_boundary), the geological boundary between the Cretaceous and Tertiary (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertiary) periods, although some critics argue that the impact was not the sole reason<sup id="cite_ref-bakker_2-0" class="reference">[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicxulub_Crater#cite_note-bakker-2)</sup> and others debate whether there was a single impact or whether the Chicxulub impactor was one of several that may have struck the Earth at around the same time. Recent evidence suggests that the impactor may have been a piece of a much larger asteroid that broke up in a collision in distant space more than 160 million years ago.<sup id="cite_ref-Bottke_3-0" class="reference">[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicxulub_Crater#cite_note-Bottke-3)</sup>

In March 2010, following extensive analysis of the available evidence covering 20 years' worth of data spanning the fields of palaeontology, geochemistry, climate modelling, geophysics and sedimentology, 41 international experts from 33 institutions reviewed available evidence and concluded that the impact at Chicxulub triggered the mass extinctions during K-T boundary including those of dinosaurs.<sup id="cite_ref-science_4-0" class="reference">[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicxulub_Crater#cite_note-science-4)</sup> The BBC reported that "their review of the evidence shows that the extinction was caused by a massive asteroid or comet smashing into Earth at Chicxulub..."<sup id="cite_ref-5" class="reference">[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicxulub_Crater#cite_note-5)</sup>

21.4,-89.516667(Chicxulub crater) - Google Maps (https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=21.4,-89.516667&spn=5,5&t=m&q=21.4,-89.516667%28Chicxulub%20crater%29)

Debunker

05-31-2010, 05:31 AM

I am in no way advocating using a nuke, but this sounds a bit hysterical. We have detonated hundreds, if not thousands of nukes underground in Nevada that were far larger, and were detonated far shallower than the nuke proposed for the Gulf crisis.

Its general consensus as of March that the trigger for the extinction of the Dinosaurs was from the impact of an asteroid on the Yucatan Peninsula,

Thinking of fractured tectonic plates and popping of nuclear explosions into them to plug an oil well

Oh My

The Chicxulub crater (pronounced [tʃikʃuˈlub] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA)) is an ancient impact crater (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_crater) buried underneath the Yucatán Peninsula (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucat%C3%A1n_Peninsula) in Mexico (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico).<sup id="cite_ref-0" class="reference">[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicxulub_Crater#cite_note-0)</sup> Its center is located near the town of Chicxulub (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicxulub,_Yucat%C3%A1n), after which the crater is named.<sup id="cite_ref-penfield_1-0" class="reference">[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicxulub_Crater#cite_note-penfield-1)</sup> The crater is more than 180 kilometers (110 mi) in diameter, making the feature one of the largest confirmed impact structures on Earth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_impact_craters_on_Earth#Confirmed_impact_craters_listed_by_size); the impacting bolide (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolide) that formed the crater was at least 10 km (6 mi) in diameter.
The crater was discovered by Glen Penfield (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Glen_Penfield&action=edit&redlink=1), a geophysicist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geophysics) who had been working in the Yucatán while looking for oil (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum) during the late 1970s. Penfield was initially unable to obtain evidence that the unique geological feature was in fact a crater, and gave up his search. Through contact with Alan Hildebrand (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alan_Hildebrand&action=edit&redlink=1), Penfield was able to obtain samples that suggested it was an impact feature. Evidence for the impact origin of the crater includes shocked quartz (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shocked_quartz), a gravity anomaly (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_anomaly), and tektites (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tektite) in surrounding areas.
The age of the rocks and isotope analysis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope_analysis) show that this impact structure dates from the end of the Cretaceous (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous) Period (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Period_%28geology%29), roughly 65 million years ago (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Million_years_ago). The impact associated with the crater is implicated in causing the extinction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous%E2%80%93Tertiary_extinction_event) of the dinosaurs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur) as suggested by the K–T boundary (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%E2%80%93T_boundary), the geological boundary between the Cretaceous and Tertiary (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertiary) periods, although some critics argue that the impact was not the sole reason<sup id="cite_ref-bakker_2-0" class="reference">[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicxulub_Crater#cite_note-bakker-2)</sup> and others debate whether there was a single impact or whether the Chicxulub impactor was one of several that may have struck the Earth at around the same time. Recent evidence suggests that the impactor may have been a piece of a much larger asteroid that broke up in a collision in distant space more than 160 million years ago.<sup id="cite_ref-Bottke_3-0" class="reference">[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicxulub_Crater#cite_note-Bottke-3)</sup>

In March 2010, following extensive analysis of the available evidence covering 20 years' worth of data spanning the fields of palaeontology, geochemistry, climate modelling, geophysics and sedimentology, 41 international experts from 33 institutions reviewed available evidence and concluded that the impact at Chicxulub triggered the mass extinctions during K-T boundary including those of dinosaurs.<sup id="cite_ref-science_4-0" class="reference">[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicxulub_Crater#cite_note-science-4)</sup> The BBC reported that "their review of the evidence shows that the extinction was caused by a massive asteroid or comet smashing into Earth at Chicxulub..."<sup id="cite_ref-5" class="reference">[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicxulub_Crater#cite_note-5)</sup>

21.4,-89.516667(Chicxulub crater) - Google Maps (https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=21.4,-89.516667&spn=5,5&t=m&q=21.4,-89.516667%28Chicxulub%20crater%29)

Thad

05-31-2010, 07:45 AM

Nevada is about 2,000 miles away from the impact point of the Crater.

The Crater is 110 miles across,

The BP disaster is about 500 miles from its center.

An asteroid impact with enough force to trigger a mass extinction is going to have had a shattering effect on surrounding areas,

Doesn't this thread mention an oil plume distant to the gusher, and the video of the Methane Hydrate show that the crystals are buoyant mostly held in place in place by disturbable sedimentation?

I am in no way advocating using a nuke, but this sounds a bit hysterical. We have detonated hundreds, if not thousands of nukes underground in Nevada that were far larger, and were detonated far shallower than the nuke proposed for the Gulf crisis.

Debunker

05-31-2010, 09:28 AM

I dare say that a high tide or high pressure weather system exerts far more pressure on the area, and as we can see, it survives.

Let's not even mention plate tectonics.

You'd make a much better argument if you stick to what you know. You can't fake physics.

Nevada is about 2,000 miles away from the impact point of the Crater.

The Crater is 110 miles across,

The BP disaster is about 500 miles from its center.

An asteroid impact with enough force to trigger a mass extinction is going to have had a shattering effect on surrounding areas,

Doesn't this thread mention an oil plume distant to the gusher, and the video of the Methane Hydrate show that the crystals are buoyant mostly held in place in place by disturbable sedimentation?

Thad

05-31-2010, 02:27 PM

The largest crater from an asteroid to have struck the earth as we know it, and you can write it off as though none of the surrounding area was influenced, and nothing to worry about because the Russians did it, I say bunk

Your high tide and high pressure system spread over the area they exert their pressures on in pressure per square foot is is nothing in comparison to the concentrated pressure of a nuclear blast which at the most will be concentrated in the size of the pipe.

I dare say that a high tide or high pressure weather system exerts far more pressure on the area, and as we can see, it survives.

Let's not even mention plate tectonics.

You'd make a much better argument if you stick to what you know. You can't fake physics.

Debunker

05-31-2010, 02:54 PM

It takes a lot of effort not to ridicule your arrogant ignorance.

That asteroid struck 65 million years ago. Since then, there have been countless major earthquakes in the area, 8.0 or greater, that released many, many thousands of times more energy than a small nuclear device does.

The energy is so great that the land (and seabed) itself rolls in waves. It's orders of magnitude greater than a nuclear explosion.

The resevoir of oil has been there for tens of millions of years, under pressure, surviving all those earthquakes.

The largest crater from an asteroid to have struck the earth as we know it, and you can write it off as though none of the surrounding area was influenced, and nothing to worry about because the Russians did it, I say bunk

Your high tide and high pressure system spread over the area they exert their pressures on in pressure per square foot is is nothing in comparison to the concentrated pressure of a nuclear blast which at the most will be concentrated in the size of the pipe.

Thad

05-31-2010, 04:34 PM

I see no effort what so ever. Is this a matter of the pot calling the kettle black...?

This is as simple as I can make it. a sheet of glass can dissipate waves of energy and roll like the liquid that it is. a very small portion of that one sheet of energy focused can shatter the whole sheet.

It takes a lot of effort not to ridicule your arrogant ignorance.

That asteroid struck 65 million years ago. Since then, there have been countless major earthquakes in the area, 8.0 or greater, that released many, many thousands of times more energy than a small nuclear device does.

The energy is so great that the land (and seabed) itself rolls in waves. It's orders of magnitude greater than a nuclear explosion.

The resevoir of oil has been there for tens of millions of years, under pressure, surviving all those earthquakes.

Debunker

05-31-2010, 04:40 PM

I give up. It's an embarrassment that we share some of the same opinions. Please, don't try to debate anyone who is actually promoting the use of nukes in the Gulf, you're shooting yourself in the foot.

I see no effort what so ever. Is this a matter of the pot calling the kettle black...?

This is as simple as I can make it. a sheet of glass can dissipate waves of energy and roll like the liquid that it is. a very small portion of that one sheet of energy focused can shatter the whole sheet.

2Bwacco

06-01-2010, 10:35 AM

lordy, lordy, does any one understand the difference between TNT and a nuclear bomb?

i won't torture you with endless cites from wiki.

Nuclear bomb size is expressed by equating quantities of force from measured amounts of TNT.

TNT is not nuclear - it's a chemical related to nitroglycerine and dynamite. it is an explosive, not an atomic chain reaction that releases force.

our sun is an example of atomic fusion, which if we could accomplish it and safely control it on earth, our energy sustainability struggles would be over. the sun bombards our planet daily with massive radiation -- we are somewhat protected by the atmosphere.

without the molten interior of our planet -- suspended and fluid -- the turning of the earth could stop, as would life.

the folks that are brought in to put out serious fires and implode buildings may have some insight into how to go about this

this is the quickest way to plug the well -- i'm thinking a series of strategically placed charges, cascading may succeed.

Debunker

06-01-2010, 10:57 AM

What about this thread could possibly give you the idea that we don't understand the difference between TNT and a nuclear bomb? Must you be sarcastic to convey your contribution? It does not foster communication, it destroys it.

lordy, lordy, does any one understand the difference between TNT and a nuclear bomb?

i won't torture you with endless cites from wiki.

Nuclear bomb size is expressed by equating quantities of force from measured amounts of TNT.

TNT is not nuclear - it's a chemical related to nitroglycerine and dynamite. it is an explosive, not an atomic chain reaction that releases force.

our sun is an example of atomic fusion, which if we could accomplish it and safely control it on earth, our energy sustainability struggles would be over. the sun bombards our planet daily with massive radiation -- we are somewhat protected by the atmosphere.

without the molten interior of our planet -- suspended and fluid -- the turning of the earth could stop, as would life.

the folks that are brought in to put out serious fires and implode buildings may have some insight into how to go about this

this is the quickest way to plug the well -- i'm thinking a series of strategically placed charges, cascading may succeed.

Hotspring 44

06-01-2010, 03:46 PM

When they had to stop the oil well fires in Kuwait and Iraq, it was to put out the fires not to stop the flow of oil from the well head.

After the fire was put out, they then, had to do something else to stop the flow of oil out of the well head.

Also, of course they did use some kind of high explosives (In Kuwait and Iraq to put out the fires), and it also did not work (the way they wanted it to) every single time.
Sometimes they had to try ( the explosive technique) more than once.<link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CSH%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><style>  </style> <table class="MsoTableGrid" style="border-collapse: collapse; border: medium none;" border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr style=""> <td style="border: 1pt solid windowtext; padding: 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top"> “Then came the tough part. As much as 250 pounds of dynamite would be packed in dry chemical inside an asbestos-lined steel drum. The steel drum would be hung from the athey wagon's boom. Working in reverse, a bulldozer operator backed the wagon toward the fire, taking hand signals from Red. When the dynamite was where Red wanted it, he ordered the operator off the dozer. Red stayed close though, waiting for the blast crouched behind the dozer's blade. <o:p></o:p>
If everything went right, the explosion blew out the fire. If not, the whole procedure was repeated until he got the result he wanted. <o:p></o:p>
After that it was just a matter of welding a flange over the pipe with about 6,000 pounds of gas pressure shooting oil straight up. Simple, right? The correct sized valve would be secured to the flange by a single bolt. Then, with the valve open, it would be swiveled into place and completely bolted down. Once the valve was closed the blow out was over.” <o:p></o:p>
I got that information from: FAREWELL TO A LEGEND - “Paul N. ‘Red' Adair, a world-renowned oil well firefighter who revolutionized the science of capping exploding and burning wells. (https://www.fireworld.com/ifw_articles/Paul_N_Red_Adair.php) <o:p></o:p>
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

As far as understanding the difference between TNT versus uranium or plutonium I believe, I know one basic difference.
That difference is the radioactive (isotopes) fallout which comes from the nuclear detonation.
I have already posted some information and a link to explore that on this thread, if anybody so chooses to do that.

If anybody still has any question about the difference between TNT, plastic, or other hyper accelerating explosives that are not nuclear; they could do their own search too.

BTW, the information and links that I supplied that described the basic breakdown of the components in the radioactive fallout from nuclear,chain reaction detonations (https://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq5.html) and the other link that explained how the toxic materials that were being used to fracture the deep gas wells (in Arkansas) and how it created an undesirable circumstance concerning groundwater pollution (https://vimeo.com/2673158), amongst other things, were not from Wikipedia.
However, that being said, there is also information in Wikipedia about both subjects.

As far as the statement:
"[I]this is the quickest way to plug the well -- i'm thinking a series of strategically placed charges, cascading may succeed." is concerned... ...I'm not so sure it would be advantageous to blow the well casing apart.
That well casing may still have enough structure to it to actually cap or tap the well.

Just to make things clear, [I]I never claimed to be an expert about anything, but I do know enough about the so-called "nuclear option" (of which this thread is dedicated) to realize that it shouldn't be an "option".

Whether or not, something like what you suggested; using something (highly explosive) other than a nuclear device could work, I don't know.

I am not necessarily against that if there isn't enough viable well casing to somehow rig something up to cap It or tap It, or the structure of the ground around the outside of the well casing has the highly pressurized gas and oil escaping through the borehole around the outside of the casing.

hopefully there is no breakages of the well casing, deep underground somewhere that they don't know about.
I remember one of the geothermal wells they were drilling at the geysers in Geyserville had so much pressure in it that, when they went to put the cap over it to pressurize it, the whole casing started coming up out of the ground and they had to open the valve to release some of the the pressure.

Fortunately I think that is very unlikely to happen with the oil well unless the explosion that burned the drilling rig down compromised the well casing somewhere relatively close to the surface but below the well-head.

lordy, lordy, does any one understand the difference between TNT and a nuclear bomb?

i won't torture you with endless cites from wiki.

Nuclear bomb size is expressed by equating quantities of force from measured amounts of TNT.

TNT is not nuclear - it's a chemical related to nitroglycerine and dynamite. it is an explosive, not an atomic chain reaction that releases force.

our sun is an example of atomic fusion, which if we could accomplish it and safely control it on earth, our energy sustainability struggles would be over. the sun bombards our planet daily with massive radiation -- we are somewhat protected by the atmosphere.

without the molten interior of our planet -- suspended and fluid -- the turning of the earth could stop, as would life.

the folks that are brought in to put out serious fires and implode buildings may have some insight into how to go about this

this is the quickest way to plug the well -- i'm thinking a series of strategically placed charges, cascading may succeed.

"Mad" Miles

06-01-2010, 06:47 PM

...I'm not so sure it would be advantageous to blow the well casing apart.
That well casing may still have enough structure to it to actually cap or tap the well.
....
hopefully there is no breakages of the well casing, deep underground somewhere that they don't know about.
....
Fortunately I think that is very unlikely to happen with the oil well unless the explosion that burned the drilling rig down compromised the well casing somewhere relatively close to the surface but below the well-head.

Hotspring44,

Excellent points about radioactive pollution from nuking the well head.

The news from the last day or so is that the "Top Kill" didn't work because of the massive pressure of this deep sea gusher, but also because the well casing is damaged underground and much of the drilling "mud" they were forcing into it was being pushed out the sides of the damaged casing into the sedimentary rock. So, unfortunately, your fears are already realized.

I spent a few hours several weeks ago reading the comments on a major scientific news site regarding this debacle. Crimping, blowing up, forcing caps, putting in a giant tampon, etc. were all mentioned. Unfortunately, because of the depth, and the force of the gusher, oil exsanguination, hemorrhage, whatever you want to call it (it certainly isn't a "leak" unless explosive drainage in massive amounts can be called such) none of them are feasible.

Crimping? It's so cold down there the metal will most likely crack, not bend. And the force of the blasting oil makes most other ideas moot.

What I find interesting, when I'm not simply in despair, is that the more information that comes out, the more it seems BP ignored warnings, tried to do it on the cheap, and has been lying about their safety precautions all along. Also their low ball estimations of volume have been extremely biased in their own favor, to try and keep their liability down. Not surprising.

As for the government, they're in on the fix. Although the extent of this disaster is forcing the Obama administration to try and look like they're doing something. Too little, too late.

Blowing shit up works for Hollywood. In the real world, it rarely leads to constructive results. Explosions tear things apart. They don't push things together (and don't get all technical with claims of implosive charges. I doubt anyone here is any more of an engineer or explosives expert than I am.)

Red Adair and partner (forget his name, he died recently) invented the technique to blow out the fire of gushing wells, by using high explosives (TNT I believe) to deprive the fire of oxygen, so as to give oil workers a chance to cap a gusher when it's no longer a massive inferno. But that was in aboveground wells, not undersea wells. There's no fire to put out here. Hasn't everyone seen the John Wayne movie?

I hope they can cap the gusher(s). But it's not looking good. (Heard about the massive seabed plume the oceanographers found? Quickly denied by BP flacks. Who're you gonna trust? Scientists? Or hired spin doctors? How about scientists hired to spin?)

Haven't read today's paper yet, but yesterday's said we're gonna have to wait until August for one of the two side wells, aka "relief" wells, to take off the pressure and allow a block of this massive flow.

Anybody else sickeningly amused by the terms we've learned? "Top Kill", sounds like sniper terminology. "Junk Shot", is that porno production lingo? "Blow Out Preventor", your guess is as good as mine. Automotive? Hernia medicine?

How's this for a solution? Build a giant dam between the tip of Florida and the Mexican coast to keep all the oil in the gulf? Then we can just let it gush and we'll have a massive reservoir to meet all of our future energy needs.

Who needs wildlife? Fishermen? Seafood? Tourism? Breathable Air?

Fuck it, let's just make the entire gulf into one massive Cancer Alley!!!

I mean, if walls can work to contain borders, why can't they work to contain "spilled" oil? Right?

Who's with me?

Global warming's just a Leftist lie to try and crush Capitalism, didn't you know?

And for those fans of targetted mini-nukes, hell, let's just blow some more holes in the seabed to let the oil gush faster. Once we get that wall built of course.

Alas and alack,

Debunker

06-01-2010, 10:06 PM

I think it's very likely BP is still lying, the multiple plumes seem to be a red flag. When we see separate plumes of smoke, it's usually from separate sources.

I have little faith in the 'relief wells' for reasons I've already addressed.

It's completely FUBAR, and if they can't stop it, it will be an unprecedented disaster, a world changing catastrophe.

Hotspring 44

06-01-2010, 10:31 PM

"Mad" Miles

06-02-2010, 12:45 AM

...
<link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CSH%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><style>  </style>It seems to me it is a very tricky thing to do; to actually drill a hole that deep and then have it intersect with another existing hole that is only a single-digit number of feet or so in diameter, and going to a depth of almost 13,000 feet below the ocean floor at a semi-horizontal angle bending its way to the spot they want to get to. then for things not to break if they do hit the casing.
So maybe they do have to go all the way to the reservoir, just below the casing.
...
I probably have. Do you remember the name of it?
...

Second question first: "Hellfighters" (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063060/)

The news today, or was it yesterday, is all about how relief wells are a long shot, and may take three to four, plus, tries to hit the mark.

There's a concept in "Dante's Inferno" that I learned in Humanities Core at UCI back in 1974-75 (Freshman Year) called contre paso. That's the idea that the sins one commits in life are visited upon one, in reverse, in hell. Perhaps the blowout (https://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/homepage/STAGING/local_assets/bp_homepage/html/rov_stream.html)is an example of this. If this isn't a warning to change our ways, I don't know what is!

Hotspring 44

06-02-2010, 08:55 AM