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.

 

Bush Energy Adviser: Relief well will fail, 46 billion gallons could flow into Gulf

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Matthew Simmons, Energy Adviser to George W. Bush: It hasn’t gotten out, but we now know a whole lot of better information from the scientists who are totally, totally disputing what BP’s story has been.


www.floridaoilspilllaw.com...



[edit on 17-6-2010 by hornum]




posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 12:52 AM
link   
Yep... There was a video on another thread of this

It's insane...


I have no clue what to expect next...



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 12:56 AM
link   
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 
So is the only option available to us a controlled nuclear device? and I bet there arent any guarantees if it leads to that!



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 01:00 AM
link   
What does it mean to have a "controlled" nuclear device ?!?

How are we to know that this won't cause more problems than good?

Isn't the area not charted, and so they literally cause a chunk of the Earth to burst out?!

I mean, if they nuke close to a pocket of methane, or oil, or whatever else, doesn't the whole region....including all this oil and methane in this one area, just go KABLAAMO !!! ??



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 01:05 AM
link   
46 billion gallons , thats one billion barrels of oil , this is too much , that could lead to planetary level extinction in oceans



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by unityemissions
What does it mean to have a "controlled" nuclear device ?!?


I totally agree , thats what it's called. This is not turning out to be looking good at all! Theeres a video available on YouTube where the Russians used a controlled nuke to stop a massive gas leak, if you want to take a look.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 01:11 AM
link   
reply to post by unityemissions
 


no as there is presence of oxygen . It will ionise and melt the rocks , the solution to stop the well is a nuke and the damage will be lesser than a billion barrels spilled . saudi arabia oil reserve is 200 billion barrels



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by sadchild01
 


Okay but doesn't temperature or pressure differences cause pockets of methane to ignite?



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 01:34 AM
link   
Well, I don't know where they get the information there is no casing, etc in the well. Look at all the ROV footage. There are several live ROV cameras at this url.
www.sanaracreations.fi...

You can see the well head blowing the oil out. For some reason if I set my browser to 125% all the screens fit in. If you double click on one it goes full screen and ESC will go back to multi-screen. For me at least. A nuclear penetrator type warhead would do it, but the risks are huge and probably a last resort after the relief wells are given a chance to either make or break it.

[edit on 17/6/10 by spirit_horse]



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 01:46 AM
link   
Well dammit, if this is what it has come to I just pray that someone can step up and make it happen quickly...judging by the response thusfar it'll be months before anyone has the balls to put their neck out on that decision.

Maybe bring in the Russians. Communism wasn't exactly a picnic, but those boys know how to get something done decisively.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 02:02 AM
link   
I have heard experts ( don't remember where, perhaps someone could help me search) say that Nuking the well will not work. In order for it to have the slightest chance you would have to account for all the cracks in the sea floor and know how the underground passages of flowing oil is linked to every other passage and take many things into consideration. I forget now what they said..

The bottom line was that the chance of a nuke working was slim to none and the chance the nuke making things worse was very large and most probable.

You would also have lots of radiation fallout to deal with in the water that would in turn finish killing off the gulf for countless numbers of years.

Here's one for you.. What's worse than an oil spill?

A radioactive oil spill.



[edit on 17-6-2010 by JohnPhoenix]



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by spirit_horse
Well, I don't know where they get the information there is no casing, etc in the well.


Correct me if I am wrong, but I think he was referring to the relief wells having no casing, not the original well.

This would mean, if the relief wells have no casing, that using drilling "mud" to hold in the oil at the relief wells while they set up to capture the oil, will not work as the drilling "mud" will just shoot straight back out the top of the relief wells.

That's what I gleaned from what he said anyway, I could be wrong.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 02:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by hornum
So is the only option available to us a controlled nuclear device? and I bet there arent any guarantees if it leads to that!

Yeah, that will work great. I myself always use a hammer to fix eggs with cracked shells too. Works great, I swear. Go for it humans, give it a try, what have you got to loose anyhow. Nuke the bleeding Earth, I dare ya!



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 02:31 AM
link   
A nuke?????

There is a explosive called Astrolite A-1-5. (Hydrazinium Nitrate+aluminum powder)
Its two times more powerful then TNT and a liquid that can be pumped.
10,000 gallons (.02 kiloton)pumped into the relief well along side the blown out well casing will act like a low power nuke with no radioactivity.
and it can be blown into cracks in the rock and let soak to spread it over a large area.
uncensored.citadel.org...

You learn strange things when you work as a blaster.
I do not worry about this mix as its almost imposable to get anhydrous hydrazine unless you work for NASA. (its used for steering jets
in space shuttle.)
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 02:34 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 


I think you're going a little overboard with the impact of radioactivity of the fish. I mean, humans have set off several nukes underwater in the oceans before, correct? Something tells me it doesn't have quite as great of an impact as you think.

As for your other points, I agree.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 02:35 AM
link   
reply to post by ANNED
 


Interesting, I guess this maybe an option they will look at. thanks for the info.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by unityemissions
 


no , it is presence of oxygen and yes wellhead is like a straw , a nuke will blow that straw and permanmently seal it



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 01:08 PM
link   
Why can't we use a nuke on this oil well when its been used before successfully? Well, here's one point of view:




new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join