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.

 

Matthew Simmons: RW will fail; Nuclear device; Oil "LAKE"; 125,000 bbl/day

page: 1
13
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 09:46 PM
link   
Matthew Simmons, founder of the Ocean Energy Institute, talks with Bloomberg's Lori Rothman about BP.

Here is what he says:

  • Relief wells will fail; Casing is gone
  • Nuclear device only option
  • Undersea oil "LAKE" may be covering 40% of Gulf
  • 125,000 bbl/day and for 30 years if not stopped
  • Gov't to take all of BP's cash!



This video was brought up on the following thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Edit: added to list

[edit on 6/15/2010 by Morpheas]




posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 09:50 PM
link   
And, Gov't to take all of BP's cash!

[edit on 15-6-2010 by Gold_Bug]



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 10:01 PM
link   
And,

* Casing is gone --- that's why relief wells won't work.
* Gov't to take all of BP's cash!


IMO, we are at the doomsday point. With the well casing gone, and Simmons claim that 120,000+ barrels per day are now flowing into the ocean; the only thing he forgot to mention is the exponential flow rate increase which will result from continued erosion of the uncased well hole.

We could be looking at millions of barrels per day in just a few months!

FOLKS, we are now living in the aftermath of the SHTF doomsday event!

Many are scared that the Nuke may not fix the problem but make it worse, BUT when you understand that NOT NUKING means that exponential flow rate growth will doom all life in the oceans in less than 10 years (IMO) then what do we have to lose by trying the NUKE FIX?



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 10:05 PM
link   
like i said in another thread. the most stupid thing will be to put a nuke on that.

if you consider the already disrupted seabed and possible volcanoes beneath it, it becomes clear why. a nuke there will lead to a huge explosion & catastrophe. it will pump out all oil, gas, water+vapor, volcanoe-stuff at once. i dont need to mention the effects of a radiated + contaminated gulf stream by plutonium and stuff, do i?

nuke the well = end of america

only solutions are sucking and cleaning up for ages id say.

[edit on 15-6-2010 by april1]

[edit on 15-6-2010 by april1]



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 10:12 PM
link   
Top kill = fail
junk shot = fail
dispersant = twice the fail
let it go = fail
relief wells without a casing to hit = fail

Don't nuke the well = end of the world. We all know that by the time relief wells arrive the thing will have crapped out and collapsed. Look at the feeds today compared to two days ago.. can't even see a pressure guage on the side of the BOP anymore there is so much more oil coming out. So much more hydrates.. it's ramping up and things are getting worse each hour.

Ocean goes so do we. What do we have to loose? This going till december at minimum (if magically relief wells work) is going to seriously screw up the oceans for centuries. Damned if we do damned if we don't. NUKE IT its the most dangerous but only option that has a chance of working. 10km of rock is not going to turn into play-doh...

I'd choose a tiny risk of cancer (almost zero with underwater nukes) and an earthquake or two that'll happen anyway over no food and a dead planetary ecosystem.

It's sorta like voting red vs blue at the local ballot... screwed either way perhaps a tiny bit less screwed with one of them. It's not a choice but an action we have to take. As my instructor said; "if you think something needs to be done, do something about it, don't just sit there".. that's what crashes many planes. Perhaps replacing plane with planet might help it sink in a little.

[edit on 15/6/10 by GhostR1der]



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 10:32 PM
link   
Help me out here. Simmons is an Investment Banker that caters to companies in the energy field. Any statement he would make would be to benefit his bottom line. He is not an expert in Oil Field Operations by any stretch of the imagination.

The conspiracy here would be why is making a statement at all? How will it benefit him? There must be a way his statements benefit him and his company?

If he goes negative as far as the Oil Industry it would seem to follow it would harm him financially. Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Did he suddenly find Jesus?

[edit on 6/15/2010 by Blaine91555]



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
Help me out here. Simmons is an Investment Banker that caters to companies in the energy field. Any statement he would make would be to benefit his bottom line. He is not an expert in Oil Field Operations by any stretch of the imagination.

The conspiracy here would be why is making a statement at all? How will it benefit him? There must be a way his statements benefit him and his company?

If he goes negative as far as the Oil Industry it would seem to follow it would harm him financially. Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Did he suddenly find Jesus?

[edit on 6/15/2010 by Blaine91555]



he has probably shifted his position to be short on the oil industry stock futures. These kinds of guys make money on the way up and make money on the way down.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


I think you answered your own question with this statement:

"Simmons is an Investment Banker that caters to companies in the energy field."

He obviously believes the nuke option will work, and wants the
oil business to continue to thrive.



[edit on 15-6-2010 by manta78]



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 10:44 PM
link   
Both good answers. Thanks so much. Betting against the Oil Industries future or trying to protect its future. Is it not odd how two such diverse idea's can both lead to massive wealth. Sad really.

When I first heard the nuclear idea I thought it was insane. Now, knowing it has been done before, I'm not so sure it is a bad idea.

No way will Obama order it though. His voting base is to far to the Left to ever allow such a thing, even if it would save the Gulf. It just won't happen. I'd bet his Administration never even looks at it as an option.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by GhostR1der
Top kill = fail
junk shot = fail
dispersant = twice the fail
let it go = fail
relief wells without a casing to hit = fail

Don't nuke the well = end of the world. We all know that by the time relief wells arrive the thing will have crapped out and collapsed. Look at the feeds today compared to two days ago.. can't even see a pressure guage on the side of the BOP anymore there is so much more oil coming out. So much more hydrates.. it's ramping up and things are getting worse each hour.

Ocean goes so do we. What do we have to loose? This going till december at minimum (if magically relief wells work) is going to seriously screw up the oceans for centuries. Damned if we do damned if we don't. NUKE IT its the most dangerous but only option that has a chance of working. 10km of rock is not going to turn into play-doh...

I'd choose a tiny risk of cancer (almost zero with underwater nukes) and an earthquake or two that'll happen anyway over no food and a dead planetary ecosystem.

It's sorta like voting red vs blue at the local ballot... screwed either way perhaps a tiny bit less screwed with one of them. It's not a choice but an action we have to take. As my instructor said; "if you think something needs to be done, do something about it, don't just sit there".. that's what crashes many planes. Perhaps replacing plane with planet might help it sink in a little.

[edit on 15/6/10 by GhostR1der]



You don't get "it". We are screwed either way. The "button" has been pushed. All we can do is run around like a rat in a cage for awhile.

On a brighter note, say if your doctor told you to quit smoking or drinking so much, well why bother.

Don't bother too much about your mortgage or debts.

Who caused this? The ET characters have pushed the button on us. They have those quantum things. I know, keep laughing.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


I was under the impression that he was quoting research by the Thomas Jefferson research vessel which was compiled late on Sunday.

www.zerohedge.com...



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by chorizo4
 


So you think this event, which could not lead to a global event even if the pool bleeds out, means the end of the world?

Please explain with data to back up your idea? Be sure and consider the volume of the oceans compared to the comparatively small Oil Reservoir. Also do it while factoring in that crude oil in the ocean water degrades to a non-toxic form in about 70 days after entering the ocean and how it will then spread worldwide?



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Morpheas
 


Yes he was. I was getting at motivation for him even getting involved, considering he is not actually qualified. I'm fond of knowing possible motives for peoples actions before trying to figure out if they are genuine or reliable.

A nuclear weapon is an extremely big step and to even consider it there would have to be massive proof it is a wise idea right in front of Obama's nose where he could not ignore it. It is not politically expedient for him to do that.

Like it or not, I think he is so focused on his game plan that he would in fact cause more harm than good if he thought doing the right thing would stop his stated agenda.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
Also do it while factoring in that crude oil in the ocean water degrades to a non-toxic form in about 70 days after entering the ocean and how it will then spread worldwide?


Really?

Well, I guess I this whole thing is being way blown out of proportion than.

They are acting like it will last forever, kill everyone, and cause the moon to fall on us. *Sarcasm there lol*

You get the point.

No one mentions the 70day thing.
That is kind of CRITICAL INFORMATION you know???

TY for telling me though Blaine



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 10:59 PM
link   
Fracture the formation closing the well bore,you lose the well entirely but you stop the pollution,what the hell are you people talking about with nukes.

Nukes are silly.This is and has been about money from the beginning,its been about waiting as long as the law allowed and screwing around as long as possible before throwing in the towell,do you really expect people to believe that this is some unforseen mysterious problem that has never been contemplated by a human mind.

Do you expect people to believe that the guys who will EVENTUALLY solve the problem,DIDNT posess the solution,BEFORE THE WELL WAS EVER DRILLED.


Do people realise that it is basic training for upper echelon righands to recieve constantly updated technical training in well security preparedness and in EVERY ASPECT of the functions of the well and the oil and gas resevoirs that they tap into.You need to know that on off-shore rigs like this,THE MEN PERFORMING THE LOWER ECHELON LABOR TYPE JOBS ARE SEASONED PROFESSIONALS MOST OF WHOM HAVE HELD UPPER ECHELON POSITIONS AND POSESS CURRENT VALID CERTIFICATION FOR THOSE SKILLS.

In other words THE JANITOR CAN FLY THE PLANE IF HE NEEDS TO.

This entire scenario has been played out thousands of times in technical settings AND IN BOARD ROOMS.

All the major players involved know what could have been done and when,AND SERIOUSLY,WHAT HAS TO BE DONE RIGHT NOW.

As I said on another thread,Obama,U2U me,you need a consultant to help you form a miltary team FULLY EQUIPPED IN EVERY ASPECT OF WELL CONTROL ON THE READY TO ENFORCE THE US GOVERNMENTS WILL ,and you need it now.

There should simply be a phone call made and the rest SHOULD BE A HOLLYWOOD MOVIE.Everyone should hustle to do what the President says,move the earth if need be.

[edit on 15-6-2010 by one4all]



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


I don't know anything about science, although there are letters after my name. That was a generation ago.

My father worked on air planes, he was a flight mechanic. I was born on Kirkland AFB in New Mexico. I was in Alaska and California on bases growing up.

When is there a difference between interpreting things and influencing things? The line is difficult.

Anyhow, to be critical is good. I was completely fooled by the recent flu pandemic. Good thing people were cautious about their use of the new flu vaccines.

Seems like we went through a "Doomsday" scenario just recently with the swine flu. I was fooled, I supplied my relatives with vitamin D ampules, free.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


It is still a horrible thing however. It sickens me this happened. The Gulf is in for a hard time.

I have a nearly 40 year old degree in Geology I never used. Don't even know where it is any more. It helps me to know what information to look for but I'm still in the dark on much of this.

As I understand it, from the time the oil enters the salt water environment it starts to degrade, giving off toxins as it does. By the end of around 70 days, I'm sure things like temperature and salinity factor in, it reaches a state where it is non-toxic. The remainder is then taken care of by naturally occurring microbes that feed on it. It's presence in the water is far from permanent. Otherwise the naturally occurring seeps would have destroyed the Oceans long ago.

The idea of it even reaching the East Coast in a recognizable form, or a toxic form is media hype I think. What motivation would Obama have to educate us, since this may push his agenda for him. He started down that path with his speech today.

Still, if the nuclear idea has worked in the past for the Russians, we should be on the phone with them right now. I did think it was insane at first, but maybe not?



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by chorizo4
 


This is one complex world we live in. This disaster is a real head shaker.

We make a wrong move, or more correctly if Obama makes a wrong move, it could do more damage than doing nothing at all. I'd think priority one is keeping it off the beaches and out of the marshes.

When I found out he turned down all those skimmers just to placate his Union Buddies, I had steam coming out of my ears. He must be mad or hell bent on some insane agenda we can only guess at.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 11:33 PM
link   
reply to post by one4all
 


Now we are entering the Twilight Zone. I don't buy into massive conspiracies of that nature as people simply can not keep secrets. The bizarreness of many of the threads on this are not helpful at all. Full of misinformation and hysterical nonsense.

Yesterday I found out there are many who actually think this oil is in a giant underground cavern and the roof may collapse. Should I take them seriously if they can't even look up the basics?

[edit on 6/15/2010 by Blaine91555]



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 01:25 AM
link   
Maybe a nuke isn't an option!

I just found this:


So now what?



new topics

top topics



 
13
<<   2 >>

log in

join