Nuclear Device Only Option to Stop Oil Leak Says Simmons founder of the Ocean Energy Institute

Nuclear Device Only Option to Stop Oil Leak Says Simmons founder of the Ocean Energy Institute

4oil.blogspot.com...

Matthew Simmons, founder of the Ocean Energy Institute, talks with Bloomberg's Lori Rothman about BP Plc's oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico and his view that the use of a "small-bore nuclear device" is now the "only option" to stop the flow of oil.

Go for it.

Screw it. Risks mean nothing anymore anyway right?

Nuke it.

It's not like anything else is gonna stop it.

Might as well roll the dice. See what our destiny is.

I know people will come in saying no, the radiation or whatever.

But we are covered in radiation already so lol.

Also they will point out that the gulf seafloor in that location is very unstable and can cause catastrophic consequences.

But I say "Hey lets spice life up a bit".

Spin that chamber. Put it up to your head. Close your eyes.
Pull the trigger.

You wanted to close this well off "Russian" style right??

Sure - got a problem, foreign power bucking the system? Oil spill ruining your day? Use Nuke-a-fix(tm) general purpose thermal nuclear device to solve all your political and ecological problems! (Timer, missile launcher and targeting array sold separately.)

To a hammer, every problem looks like a nail - surely there are far better alternatives to consider before looking at such a potentially destructive option.

Containment should be the first thing on the agenda - dispersant's seem like a way of adding to the problem.

Oil floats, so there must be some way to create a physical barrier - something floating on the water around the area. ##EDIT## Apparently some of this oil is 'heavy' and isn't floating, so containment become fairly diabolical.

Surely nukes should be a long way down the options list at this early stage.

##EDIT## I'm not a fan of the nuke at this stage, the thermite idea looks to have some merit - but it would need to fuse to the rock, and enter the well head against the oil flow - not sure it can work with the oil pressure blasting it out of the way.

[edit on 15-6-2010 by Amagnon]

if you use a nuke to blast the well apart and seal the flow is there not a chance that you could ignite the oils spilling from the well, if they are pulling upto 950000 barrels of oil a day from the well that will be some size of explosion, and the devastation to the area would be just as massive as it is now.



Wee Mad Mental

Here is the interview:

I was thinking that another way to plug the well might be to use thermite. I did a quick search to see if anybody was proposing such a solution. There is one Egyptian engineer who is doing that in comments on various blogs. His name is Hodieb Khalifa, and here is his proposal:

A sure way to cap this wild well is by using a "Thermite Iron Bomb" consisting of a thermite charge (a mixture of aluminum powder and iron III oxide powder) filling the inside of a suitably shaped iron block, conical or bell shaped, weighing several tons and big enough to engulf the top of the blowout preventer.

Lower the Thermite Iron Bomb into the water by a chain exactly onto the blowout preventer and detonate the thermite inside the iron block.

The thermite inside the iron block will burn fast at very high temperature causing the iron block, which weighs several tons, to melt and flow down to cover the top of the blowout preventer, instantly plugging and killing the wild beast – or perhaps BP doesn't want to kill it?!


N.B
I've already sent an outline of this technique two weeks ago, complete with drawings, to many US officials including President Obama, the Coast Guard, MMS, etc, in addition to BP, but no one seems to care… a call in the wilderness. I'm Egyptian Engineer living in Egypt, but I really care for the environment and for the US of which I'm not a citizen - US officials and citizens are supposed to care for the US more than me! Or am I mistaken?!

Source

From what I've read from the oil engineers posting here merely capping the well may just rupture the casing and force oil into the surrounding formation leading to a more diffuse and possibly larger leak. So maybe this has been considered by BP and the US Gov and written off. It looks as though "bottom kill" is the only way to go. HAs anbody said how they plan on ramming a "small bore" nuke far enough down the well to accomplish this? I'm assuming that it needs to be small bore specifically to achieve "bottom kill"?

Originally posted by Amagnon


Surely nukes should be a long way down the options list at this early stage.

Containment and all of that is just a band-aid. Fixes nothing.

A nuke is a real solution.

Either the nuke fixes it, or it makes it worse.

I don't really see any other options if there is a leak down hole 1000meters.

How the hell would you solve that?

Why do they have to use a nuke, can't they just use a huge snipload of TNT?

Just wondering.

Originally posted by Karilla
HAs anbody said how they plan on ramming a "small bore" nuke far enough down the well to accomplish this? I'm assuming that it needs to be small bore specifically to achieve "bottom kill"?

I think they will use another rig to drill a secondary well, and then have that well reach very close to the "problem location" within the original well.

This way they can get it down there. There really isn't any other way I can imagine to get a nuke down there.

I really liked the Thermite suggestion, and maybe that is worth trying first.

It all depends on the scale of the damage at the ruptured casing or whatever the problem is down there.

If the damage is limited, perhaps thermite will do the job.

But if it is extensive damage, a nuke may be our only solution left.

It was interesting watching the video and watching Matthew Simmons react to the host like "What are you talking about..."

And he states that relief wells will not solve the issue. So, the only options are to nuke or "let 125,000 barrels of oil spill a day for the next 25 or 30 years ..."

People advancing the nuke option are also population reductionists and a host of other unsavoury notions. Those who know anything about the geology involved know that a nuke is not the answer. Of course, if one were looking to kill a continent, several seas, and an ocean, then the nuke is a flipping brilliant idea... *cough*

Looking into the Iron thermite proposal mentioned above.... interesting proposal.

Originally posted by berkeleygal
Why do they have to use a nuke, can't they just use a huge snipload of TNT?

Just wondering.

The temperatures in TNT explosions may be too low to fuse the rocks together very well.

But with a nuke (or thermite) the temperatures should be significant enough to fuse rock/metal/etc and totally seal the gaps.

reply to post by muzzleflash


Thanks muzzleflash, after I posted my comment I read about the thermite, that sounds like a better option, for sure... no radiation!

Originally posted by muzzleflash
I really liked the Thermite suggestion, and maybe that is worth trying first.

At least it would negate the radiation, shockwave and tsunami issues associated with the nuke.

Depsite my best efforts to disspell the feeling, I can't help coming to the conclusion that BP are not behaving like a company seeking the best solution to this problem. They should be speaking to absolutely anybody, listening to their ideas and having those ideas examined by a panel of the best and brightest in the oil industry, regardless of which company or country they are from.

Originally posted by Pellevoisin
People advancing the nuke option are also population reductionists and a host of other unsavoury notions. Those who know anything about the geology involved know that a nuke is not the answer. Of course, if one were looking to kill a continent, several seas, and an ocean, then the nuke is a flipping brilliant idea... *cough*

Looking into the Iron thermite proposal mentioned above.... interesting proposal.

What???

A mini-nuke will not kill a continent that is totally absurd.

I always argue that population reduction is for idiots and that good science creates ways to increase population capacities.

And at the same time, I know when things have gone too far. And this well has gone too far.

All of this "Oh no it's a nuke" stuff is way blown out of proportion.

Do you have any idea how many underground tests have been conducted? Underwater tests? Atmospheric tests?

And we are talking with some massive sized bombs using primitive techniques that left tons of radiation everywhere.

Nowadays techniques have improved significantly and radiation levels are far lower in the "cleaner" bombs.

If you think it's going to cause an earthquake larger than a 5.0 well you need to explain how the hell that is possible with such a low energy explosion. To make significant earthquakes you would need far larger warheads for sure.

Is there any evidence that out of the 1000+ nuclear tests done that any of them can cause an earthquake larger than 5.0??? I would like to see it.

I really feel that your fears are overblown and unfounded.

If I am wrong, I would like to know Exactly how.

reply to post by Karilla


Think about what you are saying! When the bomb goes critical it heats up to incredible temperature. It is then molten and will simply get blown away from the well head by the huge pressure coming out of it.

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by berkeleygal
Why do they have to use a nuke, can't they just use a huge snipload of TNT?

Just wondering.

The temperatures in TNT explosions may be too low to fuse the rocks together very well.

But with a nuke (or thermite) the temperatures should be significant enough to fuse rock/metal/etc and totally seal the gaps.

Or to blow a huge chunk of the earth away Bruce Willis Style.

"When it comes to this you don't wnat to trust someone who got a C- in Astrophysics!!!"

We're screwed either way!, I say go for it.

DIDI MOA DIDI MOA> MOOOOOOOOA!!!!!

I doubt the thermite would work - you would be trying to pour molten metal into a well head that is spewing oil at very high pressure. The metal would tend to get blasted out of the way - it would need to get right into the top of the well head with only the force of gravity - it is going to freeze before going in, if fuses to the adjacent rock then it will trap vaporized oil under it - the force created by the vaporizing oil is likely to blast the freezing iron to pieces.

Regardless - I would still prefer to give that a try before a nuke.

[edit on 15-6-2010 by Amagnon]

Originally posted by Karilla


At least it would negate the radiation, shockwave and tsunami issues associated with the nuke.

I do not think a Tsunami will happen with a nuke in this particular position.

You should check out my thread called "Tsunami Bombs are Real, Declassified Documents Reveal". I discuss PROJECT SEAL.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Basically developing a bomb that creates Tsunamis is challenging. You have to create landslides or other upheavals of massive proportions to create the surges.

Also you have to position them in very special areas and it is very specific. A slight miscalculation and you will not get a tsunami at all.

Due to these difficulties, I would have to say the chances of a significant sized tsunami are slim to none.

We may see a very small one though, but it will not cause any real damages.