BP has peirced the earths crust and now we will pay but not with money.

Yet another string of quakes california/indonesia and alaska ?

yes i know they happen all the time yes we have more media coverage ...

does anyone else out there happen to feel there is more to this geological activity then is presented to us ?

i am of the opinion that over the next few weeks we are going to see a major event of some kind and it will not be able to be dismissed or written off the planet is coming alive and i cant help but think somehow the hole that BP punched in the crust is to blame and causing movement??

Be Well

[edit on 16-6-2010 by triplescorpio]

There are LOTS of holes that have been 'punched' into the Earth and it's been just fine. BP just had one of their pipes burst causing the catastrophe we have now.

reply to post by bigbert81


yes however there has never been a hole this deep from my understanding and it may not only be oil they have found.

Originally posted by bigbert81
There are LOTS of holes that have been 'punched' into the Earth and it's been just fine. BP just had one of their pipes burst causing the catastrophe we have now.

Well its more than just a pipe. It has lead to the fractures in sea bed. Its way more bad. This is gonna be a big disaster unless some miracle happens.

reply to post by triplescorpio


I have been wondering if BP opened pandora's
box and now it can't be shut.
I have been hearing rumors that toxic gasses
are spewing into the gulf besides the oil.You top
that off with that dispersant they are using.Then
add a hurricane to the mix,you could have a disaster
of Biblical proportions.

Blabla doom blabla gloom blabla claims you can't prove at all blabla.

Typical ats thread then.

reply to post by Edews


Maybe doom and gloom and maybe not.
Something big is going on in the gulf and
time will tell.

www.youtube.com...

There's a blue million holes in the earth, many deeper than what BP made. Yes it's a tragedy that all that oil is spoiling the water in the Gulf. I say Nuke it and be done with it. Quick and simple.

reply to post by KILL_DOGG


And what if the nuke makes things worse?
You add a nuclear explosion into the mix
and I will be grabbing my bob!

reply to post by mamabeth


It's actually the only good idea I've heard since this whole thing started. You set the nuke off, it seals all of the cracks in the sea floor and destroys all of the oil in the immediate vicinity of the explosion. There will be some consequences to it, but nothing like what allowing the oil to continue is doing to the environment.

If we actually drilled through the crust into the mantle, we would release so much pressure that lava would immediately come up. (Maybe??)

It would create a new volcanic opening imo.

Which has NOT happened as far as I can tell...

In fact, I don't think any humans have EVER pierced through the entire Crust layer yet.

The Kola Superdeep Borehole (Russian: Кольская сверхглубокая скважина) is the result of a scientific drilling project of the former USSR. The project attempted to drill as deep as possible into the Earth's crust. Drilling began on 24 May 1970 on the Kola Peninsula, using the Uralmash-4E, and later the Uralmash-15000 series drilling rig. A number of boreholes were drilled by branching from a central hole.The deepest, SG-3, reached 12,262 metres (40,230 ft) in 1989, and is the deepest hole ever drilled, and the deepest artificial point on the earth

en.wikipedia.org...

However, due to higher than expected temperatures at this depth and location, 180 °C (356 °F) instead of expected 100 °C (212 °F), drilling deeper was deemed unfeasible and the drilling was stopped in 1992.[4] With the expected further increase in temperature with increasing depth, drilling to 15,000 m (49,000 ft) would have meant working at a projected 300 °C (570 °F), at which the drill bit would no longer work.

The oceanic crust is 5 km (3 mi) to 10 km (6 mi) thick[1] and is composed primarily of basalt, diabase, and gabbro. The continental crust is typically from 30 km (20 mi) to 50 km (30 mi) thick, and is mostly composed of slightly less dense rocks than those of the oceanic crust

en.wikipedia.org...(geology)


We have never pierced the crust yet.

It seems nearly impossible, if only because the cost would be outrageously high. And who knows what the release of pressure down there could cause.



[edit on 16-6-2010 by muzzleflash]

Originally posted by KILL_DOGG
reply to post by mamabeth

 

It's actually the only good idea I've heard since this whole thing started. You set the nuke off, it seals all of the cracks in the sea floor and destroys all of the oil in the immediate vicinity of the explosion. There will be some consequences to it, but nothing like what allowing the oil to continue is doing to the environment.

I agree with the nuke solution friend. It is rational and PROVEN to work multiple times!

We should have nuked this sucker a month ago.

Also, radiation effects will be MINIMAL, and the odds of it causing an earthquake over 5.0 or landslides are MINIMIAL.

We really have almost nothing to lose with the nuke option. People just do not like it because they are ignorant and misinformed by media propaganda. Sadly.

Originally posted by triplescorpio
reply to post by bigbert81

 

yes however there has never been a hole this deep from my understanding and it may not only be oil they have found.

Yeah you are going to need to cite the evidence for that statement.

This well isnt remarkable for being deep. It is remarkable for leaking. There are many drill sites with wells this deep. There are known deposits even deeper. The Tiber site is deeper than everest is tall and that doesnt include the 4000 feet of water it is under.

[edit on 16-6-2010 by Rapacious]

Duplicate

[edit on 16-6-2010 by Rapacious]

It's actually the only good idea I've heard since this whole thing started. You set the nuke off, it seals all of the cracks in the sea floor and destroys all of the oil in the immediate vicinity of the explosion. There will be some consequences to it, but nothing like what allowing the oil to continue is doing to the environment.

So,did you and your co-workers at McDonalds decide this was a good idea?

It amazes me that releasing the energy and power of a nuclear device a mile deep in the ocean with oil and gas in the vicinity,would to some ignorant people,would be a "good"idea.

You have NO idea what you are talking about.

Stick to, "Do you want fries with that".

Originally posted by KILL_DOGG
reply to post by mamabeth

 

It's actually the only good idea I've heard since this whole thing started. You set the nuke off, it seals all of the cracks in the sea floor and destroys all of the oil in the immediate vicinity of the explosion. There will be some consequences to it, but nothing like what allowing the oil to continue is doing to the environment.

No the oil is not destroyed

It is COMBUSTED.

Releasing energy in excess of the nuclear device.

reply to post by Oneolddude


It's these type of comments that keep that pipe open and flowing. Releasing a nuclear device a mile under the ocean would, at most, cause a slight rising of the tide for several hours and cause several small (5.0 or less) earthquakes off shore.

You're acting like I think we should deliver a full nuclear payload from an ICBM rocket to the site. A small warhead with a 50 megaton yield will sufficiently seal the site, combust (as another poster stated) the oil in range of the blast, and seal the pipe along with the cracks in the ocean floor that have developed. The heat from the blast would be contained within the water and the residual radiation would be negligible.

Maybe it is you who should stumble out of the dark ages and understand what nuclear energy is capable of and, more importantly, what it is not capable of before you expouse your ignorance on a subject.

Originally posted by triplescorpio

yes however there has never been a hole this deep from my understanding and it may not only be oil they have found.

It's not very deep at all. It just happens to have more sea above it than most oil wells do (and even then it's still in comparatively shallow water) There are plenty of other deepwater wells around the world. Sadly, in this case, a piece of equipment failed and we see the consequences of our greed for more and more cheap oil.

I'm not sure why a nuclear explosion has been suggested, but assume it's deemed a credible solution. It would have largely the same effect as all the thousands of other nuclear devices that have been detonated either below ground or in the oceans over the past few decades. But possibly also seal the hole.

[edit on 16-6-2010 by Essan]

Originally posted by Oneolddude

So,did you and your co-workers at McDonalds decide this was a good idea?

It amazes me that releasing the energy and power of a nuclear device a mile deep in the ocean with oil and gas in the vicinity,would to some ignorant people,would be a "good"idea.

You have NO idea what you are talking about.

Stick to, "Do you want fries with that".

This type of mentality you have sir, is quite disturbing.

#1) You debate by ridiculing others.
#2) You think if someone works a McD's they are automatically retarded, NOPE NOT TRUE.
#3) We educated folks seriously doubt you know anything about nuclear devices.

We have already proven that the liquids will NOT IGNITE under water. This is a fact and has been discussed several times this week.

It will not combust, it will be incinerated by the intense heat /pressure of the blast.

It will NOT set off the oil down under.
It will NOT cause massive earthquakes.
It will NOT cause massive radiation contamination.
It will NOT destroy the sea floor to any large extent.

There are almost no negative side effects of trying a nuclear device in this particular situation. We are looking at a 1% chance of catastrophic consequences. Actually LESS than 1%.

I am a fair person, I leave room for being wrong despite the well documented facts.

If I am disprove, I will concede that I am wrong. I would LOVE to see you disprove it.

But don't expect just to post a sly comment and think I will immediately concede to you, no. I will research it. I will think about it and consider the possibilities.

And I will debate it. If you can handle a good debate, than perhaps you can win me over to your side.

I was originally totally against the Nuclear option, until I started Reading and learning FACTS....Now I am 100% all for it.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
I agree with the nuke solution friend. It is rational and PROVEN to work multiple times!

It has only been used on gas wells, as far as I'm aware, and only on dry land. If it does go ahead, the only way the nuke will work (according to oilmen who seem to know what they are on about) is if the nuke is put down a hole down to the depthe where the real problem is. This means using one of the relief wells when they are finally drilled. Detonation on the sea-floor won't solve the problem.

If BP successfully dig the relief well, I can't see them sealing it off again with a nuke. They will be too busy pumping oil in an effort to recoup their losses. IMO that is.