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.

 

video of nuclear bomb being used to plug gas well out of control

page: 2
62
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2010 @ 09:36 PM
link   
Well, it's interesting. I'd be wary of any video produced as a propaganda piece by the Soviet Union, though. Certain claims, like zero radiation and such may or may not be true. Remember, this is the same country that tried, in vain, to keep a lid on the Chernobyl disaster for the first week or two that was going on.




posted on May, 30 2010 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by UberL33t
 


I think the radioactive contamination would be near to impossible, on the surface, because water brings down radioactive particles, and salt helps, no?

Great find, DC!



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 10:02 PM
link   
I was wonder how well the method works with conventional explosives?
I bet the chemical industry could produce an explosive that made semtex look pretty tame (I'm guessing it must do, because the time for earth extraction is the only obstacle limiting a non-nuclear, conventional, solution. Either way the explosive doesn't need to fulfil military criteria such as e.g. a long shelf life.


What do you suppose would have happened if the heat/shockwave of the nuke had hit the gas chamber?

I think you'll find that it did. But because its like a kilometre underground there is no oxygen. The "chamber" itself was probably just loose rock, so the impact on the loose must just be to re-arrange it. In the gulf the medium is sand, and so it should (if anything) be more compact, malleable, and so therefore stable.

Reality might just be that are (geographically) good reasons not to use nukes to block the well. But if they aren't, BP should start doing the drilling work as preparation!!
And even if they were obstacles I'm sure the heat from a nuclear blast could be used to both scorch and incinerate most of the oil, already on the water.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 10:33 PM
link   
Exactly as I had envisioned. I have been advocating for this for the past two weeks and I will continue to do so. Of course pending the geological survey of the area.

Great film!

To answer some of you:



2 questions:

What do you suppose would have happened if the heat/shockwave of the nuke had hit the gas chamber?

And how long do you suppose it would take for a secondary well to be dug in which to drop the nuke?



The shock-wave of this detonation -will- hit the reservoir, no doubt about it, however the reservoir is some 30,000 feet below the oceans sea floor, roughly 5 miles. In the video, they mention how far they retreated, which was roughly 5km or 3 miles. So the safety zone where people were actually able to survive was only 3 miles away. This should give you some indication of the blast radius. In my opinion, we have the room. Remember that Deepwater Horizon's reservoir is the deepest reservoir to date.


The secondary well is already underway. They are using it as a so called "relief" well. This same well, if wide enough, could be used for the nuke as well. It is important that they drill the relief well with the nuke in mind; as a last resort.


Are there vids of the unsuccessful cases. That case succeeded because the conditions for success applied...a small percentage.
Do any of know the geology under deepwater wells? Nobody does.
But you want to go forward!


Russia has attempted using this approach a total of six times. Of those six times five were successful.

To be able to drill into a reservoir that deep, require they know the exact makeup of the geology of the area. They know what they drilled through to get there.


I was wonder how well the method works with conventional explosives?


Thermite may be the next best thing. Sufficiently large (and I mean large) amounts should be able to turn most of the surrounding rock into a molten state, and then allow it to quickly solidify, hopefully plugging the line.



I think you'll find that it did. But because its like a kilometre underground there is no oxygen. The "chamber" itself was probably just loose rock, so the impact on the loose must just be to re-arrange it. In the gulf the medium is sand, and so it should (if anything) be more compact, malleable, and so therefore stable.


Absolutely. These reservoirs are very old. They have seen the Earth through some crazy times. To suggest that a little shaking will ignite something isn't really possible. There is simply no oxygen to allow for the burning. It should be fine.



[edit on 30-5-2010 by xmaddness]



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 11:09 PM
link   
If they nuke the gulf oil spill it's gonna set off an earthquake and the earthquake will allow the seafloor to collapse leading to a tsunami.

While I agree that may work, using a nuke should be after all other means fail.

That well and formation lie near a fault line and if it were to be set off it could cause other earthquakes in the faults connected to it, Line the New Madrid fault.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 11:40 PM
link   
Nuke would definitely be a last resort, but I suspect it will be the only option left. They opened up something way more powerful than they know how to deal with.

I hope when and if they do we coat the whole place with as many scientists as we can to study its effects on the environment. This could be a useful although grotesque way to study a nuclear weapon for something good instead of mass death and destruction.

The scary but smart thing for the US gov is to capitalize on nuclear weapons being useful and swaying the public back into having a fully functional nuclear arsenal. (although we already do) A little political favor never hurts.

Nukes are scary.
Although in favor of a nuke being used, I want to express that before they do, they better make dang sure they are prepared for some unseen disaster.

[edit on 30-5-2010 by Darkblade71]



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by juniperberry
2 questions:

What do you suppose would have happened if the heat/shockwave of the nuke had hit the gas chamber?

And how long do you suppose it would take for a secondary well to be dug in which to drop the nuke?


Maybe some one needs to call the Russians and see if they have any of them funny looking nukes they are willing to sale. Save us the time having to make one that will fit down a well shaft.
There is 30,000 feet of rock (I read some where)between the sea floor and the gas chamber so I think that is not a problem and neither is a seafloor collapse . Two relief wells are being drill right now as I understand it so they have already started.

At this point I think we may not have any other choice about the matter.


And a note to BP:
You know you have really messed up when you cause a problem so bad the only way to solve it is with a nuke.




[edit on 5/31/2010 by fixer1967]



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by xmaddness

Thermite may be the next best thing. Sufficiently large (and I mean large) amounts should be able to turn most of the surrounding rock into a molten state, and then allow it to quickly solidify, hopefully plugging the line.


This isn't a time to try new things like thermite. They need to stick to what they know works, like nuclear explosives.

Nukes are a proven technique.



[edit on 31-5-2010 by Freedom or Death]



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 01:53 AM
link   
reply to post by TheOneElectric
 


"seabed collapse"?

There is densely packed sand down there with oil in between it. It's not a hallow space filled with oil and gas. Why do you think they have to drill into it in the first place instead of just popping a "big metal straw" down into the ground?





[edit on 31-5-2010 by glitchinmymatrix]



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 06:13 AM
link   
So let me get this straight....
The US now wants to use an A-Bomb to close an OIL leak?
Why doesn't this sound logical in my head?
It's probally me, but it sounds like something out of Looney Toones to me.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 06:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Subjective1
 



Why would you believe this is a good thing - oh I see because they say it would work. This is like believing the oil companies saying underwater oil exploration is safe - right.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 06:27 AM
link   
Hmm couldn't they use conventional explosives if they detonated it close enough?



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 06:28 AM
link   
Why use nukes, why not use them super bunker busters they built for no reason.

Saves on drilling a hole to put a Nuke in.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 06:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Desolate Cancer
 


Great find nice i like it , really great find hopefully this could work


stars and flags my friend



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 07:16 AM
link   
I really cannot see the logic here:

It worked great for a GAS leak ABOVE GROUND wich was ON FIRE.

That is a great leap in logic for you to think that it will work just as well on an Oil leak a mile UNDERWATER, with multiple holes.

[edit on 31-5-2010 by MR BOB]



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by MR BOB
 

You are right, but "multiple holes" are all just branches of the same hole drilled by BP. They are not directly linked with the chamber.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Desolate Cancer
 


The Russians have used this method with good results in the past..I believe 5 times. The real reason we (the US) won't do it is because we are actively trying to keep Iran from getting nukes. If we were to seal these leaks with a nuke, and show the rest of the world there are peaceful uses for having them (deterent aside), then Iran will have a very strong case for having them as well. IMO the government would rather let every living thing in the Gulf perish before giving Iran a legitamate reason fo having nukes as they are also heavily into drilling for gas and oil. Being a signer of the NPT they would push for their right to have these specialized nukes for themselves.

[edit on 31-5-2010 by Raven1965]



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 08:21 AM
link   



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 08:35 AM
link   
Sounds like a great idea using a Nuke. Only problem is this is 5000 ft underwater. How long is it going to take to drill the hole? Probably no sooner than the relief wells. And is it possible to get the nuke down their under this crushing pressure? Radiation wouldn't be a problem as 15 feet of water will block the worst radiation.

1 PSI = 27. 7 inches of water.
5000 feet of water = 60,000 inches.
60,000/27.7 = 2166 PSI of pressure.

2167 PSI plus however deep they drill the hole for the Nuke.

And then I guess their is the possibility this could blow open a much bigger leak destroying all the oceans of the world.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 08:51 AM
link   
Acme is probally providing the bomb...



new topics

top topics



 
62
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join