It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Simmons Calls For Obama to Take Over BP; Military To Nuke Oil Leak

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2010 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Simmons Calls For Obama to Take Over BP; Military To Nuke Oil Leak


theintelhub.com

Intel Hub – Today one of the largest investment bankers for the energy industry Matt Simmons appeared on Bloomberg. Simmons international Chairman Emeritus of Simmons & Co; explained there is much more to the oil leak then the news has been reporting on. Last Sunday NOAA has confirmed reports of a second fissure about 5-7 miles away from the original well head leak and growing fast. This new fissure appears to be releasing a plume the size of Delaware and Maryland combined. He stated that “the plume from the riser is minor thing… the best estimate is about 120,000 barrels of oil per day�
(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 28-5-2010 by PayMeh]

[edit on 28-5-2010 by PayMeh]




posted on May, 28 2010 @ 02:29 PM
link   
I ran across this topic touched on in another post. I thought I would post a source with a link to video. I'm not totally sure about the veracity of this site, but here it is nonetheless. I seriously hope this will not happen.. It's already been a horrible disaster. One which we cannot even begin to understand the scope of since the dispersant just dropped the oil out of satellite view.

theintelhub.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 02:35 PM
link   
This was more or less my first suggestion to solve this problem in another thread, and then it turns out the Russians use this technique mostly successfully.

They should of nuked if weeks ago and billed BP for one tac nuke plus all related expenses including clean up.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 02:35 PM
link   
Hi Hi -

Your headline should read :

Simmons Calls For Obama to Take Over BP; Military To Nuke Oil Leak



As for the idea of using nukes?
Well.
Sounds nuts to me, but, what do I know.

peace



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 02:36 PM
link   
Before everyone gets their underwear in a bunch... This WON'T be an atom-bomb lol.

Most likely a deep-penetration-bunker-busted-nuke that would go a few hundred feet into the ocean floor than explode, causing rock and mud to plug the hole.

Or............ open the leak to a 100 meter crater lol



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 02:40 PM
link   
All these Nuke threads are ridiculous!

Why would they use a Nuke on a 20" pipe with a 5" opening?

Nukes are for entire cities, not 20" pipes! Did you ever see them use a nuke to clear a roadway? Or a nuke to tear up your driveway and repour?


Any small shape charge would do the trick, the secret is not making the leak worse.

As for the NOAA confirming the other fissure, I think that is entirely false. I haven't seen that confirmed anywhere. The only thing I have seen is the existence of another cylinder of oil suspended below the surface.

Think about it, where would another fissure come from? This leak was caused by an explosion. If there was never an explosion, and the well was active, would this other fissure have still sprung up? Was it there all along? Is it a blatant lie or exageration? Probably the latter!



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by CanadianDream420
Before everyone gets their underwear in a bunch... This WON'T be an atom-bomb lol.

Most likely a deep-penetration-bunker-busted-nuke that would go a few hundred feet into the ocean floor than explode, causing rock and mud to plug the hole.

Or............ open the leak to a 100 meter crater lol


Bunker Busters aren't nukes. Depleted Uranium shells arent' nukes. They also aren't useful for mud. They are specifically for armor piercing.

Any of our basic construction explosives would suffice for collapsing the pipe, the problem is exactly what you stated. Will it turn a 5" leak into a 50 foot leak? That is tooooooo toooooo toooooooo risky while other options are still on the table!



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 03:00 PM
link   
The question becomes on of geology.

Will a detonation of any kind splinter the rock bed, causing shards of rock to shift and jam the opening shut? Or will it shatter the rock, causing a rubble pile?

And will the pressure of the oil, now infused with whop knows what, to simply push up through the sea floor in hundreds, if not thousands of smaller flows.

Will BP spend the rest of this century pumping chemical dispersants into the water so no one can actually see how much oil is being released?

This example of commercial exploitation will stand for ages as the result of unrestrained robber barons and their perpetual lust for profit.

The funny thing is, we are going to PAY for them to correct his matter... mark my words... they will find a way to make US pay.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by PayMeh
 


You also have to wonder what an investment banker's qualifications are for determining the best course of action in a case like this.

To be honest, it just makes me wonder if the bastard doesnt just have a bet placed, and causing a worse disaster wont make his little hedge pay off and make him richer.

Edit to add;

And to Maxmars, of course we are going to pay. No matter what happens, no matter whose fault it is, the money to make it right always comes from the common people. Not the rich who caused the problem.

[edit on 28-5-2010 by Illusionsaregrander]



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Here's to hoping that soil isn't unstable and that a nuclear solution(if implemented) won't create wanton ruination and discord.



Here's to hoping ... anyway.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 03:05 PM
link   
Yeah, Russia has nuked leaks 5 times, 4 successfully.

That's a good percentage rate, we need to try.

Otherwise it's going to be months until the relief wells are done.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 





The funny thing is, we are going to PAY for them to correct his matter... mark my words... they will find a way to make US pay.


We already have! The "per barrel tax" that was enacted after the Exxon Valdez is paid in by oil companies to a fund for clean up. They pass that cost right on along to the end user.....US!!

Now, they are proposing quadrupling that tax. That will teach those oil companies! They won't get away with this. They will have to raise their prices to continue their record profits, and the end user will pick up the tab for each mile we drive, or each degree on our thermostat!


We only have one way to vote and it looks like this $

If we continue our lifestyle, they will continue to exploit us.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


It is not ridiculous. It is the only way that thing is going to be stopped. A drill hole is punched next to the existing well, about 3000 feet deep... A kiloton yield nuke is placed deep in the hole and then the hole above it is filled. The device is detonated and the explosion melts the rock and slams the adjacent out of control well shaft shut forever. The Russians have done it on 5 or 6 occasions successfully. When you have a situation like this, you use what you have to use to stop it. Unless of course you want a trillion barrels of oil floating around the Gulf of Mexico.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 03:18 PM
link   
real clever detonating a bomb 5 miles under water where the earths crust is at its thinnest. Not to mention the possible huge tsuanmi that will occur through the shockwave it will produce. Also real smart to detonate a bomb filled with an unknown quantity of flammable gas and liquid. The intelligence of some people goes beyond a joke...



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by expat2368
 


Ok, the "melting" part makes sense for the use of a Nuke. It would depend on the strata though, it wouldn't be useful everywhere.

As far as slamming the hole shut, it would not take such a large explosion. I think we could blast a series of small explosives into the pipe and set them off immediately. The positive pressure would push everything out of the way and crack and damage the pipe, immediately create a vacuum, and then the hole would slam shut from the pressure of the earth and sea water. C4 would suffice, and they supposedly have the capability to blast debris down the pipe, so why not C4?



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 03:34 PM
link   
With that much oil per day, how long could it leak for? Granted it will destroy all the life in that area. Still it should empty quickly at those rates. Besides it just means that the British oil company has now effectively caused so many issues with oil, off shore drilling, health and nature problems with America. It effectively make mess you guys up for decades.

So basically it took the Brits some time to destroy the renegade tea tossers but they did it eventually.

Good luck with the clean up and i hope you all have valid passports to come up to Canada, cause the border is very tight with who they let in. Also apply for your work visas now so you avoid the rush later.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by anubis9311
 


BP estimated it would provide 100,000 barrels per day for 100 years!

If it is leaking 20,000 to 50,000 barrels per day, then it could leak for several centuries! Not that any human or fish would be left around to witness it!



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 

Conventional explosives just to not have the force required to do the job. The Earth's crust is plenty thick enough...several miles.

It is kind of like being caught between the devil and the deep blue sea, but while detonating a nuke to fix the problem is distasteful, the alternative is MUCH worse. It does have the potential of being an extinction level event if the oil continues to flow.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 03:50 PM
link   
People are worried about the crust? Even if something punched through the crust and caused magma to come up it would cool and solidify to form new crust anyway.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 05:05 PM
link   
It says something about the state of things when the nuclear option starts to seem sensible...

Its not really a concern about cracking the crust. As an earlier poster said its miles thick even in the shallowest oceanic crust.

Its also doubtful there would be a tsunami. There wont be enough displacement of water. Some tidal surge maybe but i expect they would order an evacuation anyway. Its not a hydrogen bomb they would use. People wouldn't be seeing spectacular mushroom clouds or 2012 style waves of doom....



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join