It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Blanca Rose
Originally posted by discl0sur3
It's starting to look like the Nuke option is quickly becoming the only "viable" solution.
Well, that option wasn't even mentioned in the video, so, quit fear mongering about it!
What now? The expert gave some information as to what could be done next, and also, perhaps I missed it, but where exactly in the video did they also say that the gusher is un-stoppable? They didn't.
Originally posted by aboxoftrix
While this method may have worked for the Soviets, the circumstances in the Gulf of Mexico are much different. As LiveScience's Jeremy Hsu points out: "The Russians were using nukes to extinguish gas well fires in natural gas fields, not sealing oil wells gushing liquid, so there are big differences, and this method has never been tested in such conditions."
One of the things that concerns me about the nuclear option is how could we get a nuke even close to the top of the sea bed where the leak is when the pressure there is 2,300 psi. Even if we get one there, it still has to go in the whole to be effective, adding to the psi. I don't know if that is possible and I doubt that anyone else does either.
Originally posted by 5senses
My other post just now was not rhetorical. I honestly do not grasp the thinking behing the bombing notion. It makes no sense to me what so ever. On the contrary - it sounds like it would trigger our potential demise. Don't get it. Response please?
Originally posted by ~Lucidity
Ugh. Sorry, but your thread headline is misleading.
MSNBC news merely reported that someone claiming to be an expert said that the oil gusher is unstoppable. They did not say themselves. There's a big difference there.
The situation is dire enough without this kind of sensationalism and fear mongering. In addition, that "expert" and his theories have been discussed in numerous topics here on ATS already.
Originally posted by justadood
Funny you would title it 'un-stoppable' but then suggest stopping it with a bomb.
If it's un-stoppable, then it cant be stopped.
The bomb idea has been debunked SOOOOOO many times, i really have to wonder at the intelligence level of those who suggest it. The sea floor is /HIGHLY fragile and already compromised. In addition, there is quite a lot of methane present.
Think before you suggest. It would be like pouring gas on a fire to extinguish it.
Originally posted by justadood
reply to post by xEphon
Perhaps debunked isnt the correct term. I dont have the threads saved, but ive seen some pretty good explanations in this Forum as to why an explosion would be potentially catastrophic.
And those making such a suggestions seem FAR more informed than the off-the-cuff -just blow it up- suggestions from armchairians, so im gonna go with the -dont make a situation worse- approach.
Im just personally kind of tired of reading peoples suggestions like -put a rock on it- or -blow it up- that is a clear indication that they havent been following ANY of the information coming out on this. The assumption that BP is run by a bunch of idiots who couldnt think of such pre-school solutions is amazingly ignorant. Yes, BP is negligent of the public good in their quest for profits, but they are not stupid. If they could stop losing billions in profit by a simple explosion or -putting a rock on it- they would have done so a long time ago.
of course, as many of us who have been paying attention know, the well is compromised down pipe, and any attempt to stop the flow will only make it worse.
please, OP, read around the thread a little bit before you suggest the same thing that has been suggested numerous times.
[edit on 26-6-2010 by justadood]