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.

 

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

page: 2
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by theregonnakillme
 


Molten iron still weighs the same as solid iron. Why would it being molten mean it would get blown away. The molten iron, if there is enough of it, would surely vaporise some of the oil as it comes from the well. The pressure and temperature at those depths may well affect how the iron solidifies. Possibly resulting in dense lumps of iron attaching to the steel pipe if it made it far enough into the pipe.

Having see the top hat lowered into position and NOT being blown away I think it has a chance of working.

More powdered thermite could possibly be delivered via some kind of pipe as the first lot was burning, too. More molten iron to overcome the pressure?




posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 06:20 PM
link   
I present to you:

A nuclear explosion has been used to stop a gas well leak before..... Would a similar explosion work on an oil well leak?


Skip to about 24 seconds to get to the actual video.

A contained underground nuclear explosion worked on this gas well..... So... I wonder if maybe this would not be something we should consider for the oil well.

Radiation was nil and the gas well pipe was pinched off there by stopping the leak and ending the fire.


What say you now?


[edit on 15-6-2010 by gimme_some_truth]



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 06:22 PM
link   
Arrrrrrrrrrrr, can we do it using English nukes please??? After all, Obama is blaming the Brits for this....... you know ya' wanna' let us do it.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 06:25 PM
link   
The oil people in Texas have said early on that the nuke option would eventually be used, and I have posted comments to that effect in other threads.

While there are always risks involved in using this type of power, especially given all the factors involved, we may reach the point of having no other alternatives.








[edit on 15-6-2010 by manta78]



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
I present to you:

A nuclear explosion has been used to stop a gas well leak before..... Would a similar explosion work on an oil well leak?


Hey it's a PROVEN technology to do this exact job!!


Originally posted by john124

Arrrrrrrrrrrr, can we do it using English nukes please??? After all, Obama is blaming the Brits for this....... you know ya' wanna' let us do it.


Sure! Be our guest!!

I do wanna let you do it!



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by john124

Arrrrrrrrrrrr, can we do it using English nukes please??? After all, Obama is blaming the Brits for this....... you know ya' wanna' let us do it.


Sure! Be our guest!!

I do wanna let you do it!


The only nukes we have are on Trident subs, aren't they? Two birds, one stone? Fill a sub with thermite and park it on top of the well then blow the nukes?

Then BP can buy us a new sub!



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Karilla
 


the flow is in the vacinity of 2000 gal a minute
there is no lowering anything into that I don't think

plus the ignition of the crystalized gasses under pressure

slant drilling to put a nuke in place will take a couple months
the russians had smaller problems and they had to use nukes
on land
out of 5
4 worked



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 08:05 PM
link   
I cant help feel that as a society this is all our fault. With our constant need for everything that we can grasp and corrupt its no wonder that this happened. It was just a matter of time......I say nuke the thing. Its not like its going to get any better before it gets a lot worse. We have turned the beautiful gulf of Mexico into a super grande caca tar pit. I am not pointing the finger at BP but the world.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
I present to you:

A nuclear explosion has been used to stop a gas well leak before..... Would a similar explosion work on an oil well leak?


Skip to about 24 seconds to get to the actual video.

A contained underground nuclear explosion worked on this gas well..... So... I wonder if maybe this would not be something we should consider for the oil well.

Radiation was nil and the gas well pipe was pinched off there by stopping the leak and ending the fire.


What say you now?


[edit on 15-6-2010 by gimme_some_truth]


Excellent video for anyone interested in how we would use a nuke to cap off the well.


[edit on 15-6-2010 by xEphon]



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


Well that video proves it. Using a nuclear bomb placed in an adjacent slanted well is the only way to stop the oil.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 10:46 PM
link   
This is all like some bad michael bay movie (armageddon... lol)


"oh no.. all other options have failed"
(cept the ones that would prolly work but were ignored)

"lets nuke it!"


cept in the real world when they try this last ditch effort crap, something always goes horribly wrong.


You people go on and on all day about how the gov is corrupt and inept but at the end of the day, who are you crying for help to? Idk about you people but I personally would never trust the fed gov to make the right informed decision in a crisis, they have already proven they cant manage a crisis correctly. iraq, katrina, borders.. and now this.

Here's a question I want to put to you. If something went bad with the nuke option, do you really trust the people in charge to warn any of us? A nuke should be the absolute last option. Before setting off a nuclear device lets look at every available option instead of throwing a stick on a potentially devastating fire.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Question Fate
 


Which is why I said it may be the only option if/when other alternatives have been tried and failed. As far as the federal government letting us know if something goes wrong if a nuke option is used; I would think the answer to that would be obvious, or become obvious within a short period of time if a failure were to occur.



[edit on 15-6-2010 by manta78]



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 01:22 AM
link   
Maybe it isn't an option!!

Just found this:


So if the relief well won't work and you can't use a nuke.. then what?



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Morpheas
Maybe it isn't an option!!

Just found this:


So if the relief well won't work and you can't use a nuke.. then what?


He is totally wrong.

There will not be hundreds of holes formed.

Sand at a million degrees melts, it will close the gaps, not open more.

Honestly the guy is barely educated about the subject.

These fears are way overblown and have no scientific evidence to support their validity.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 01:20 PM
link   
Would a nuclear explosion cause this section of the sea floor to release all of it methane hydrates.

Even without a spark - which might be asking a lot during hurricane season - sudden release of an entire pocket of methane hydrates might not be the best idea.

I'd like see something on this.




top topics



 
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join