MSNBC Video- Oil Gusher is "UN-STOPPABLE!"

As I have mention somewhere before.. we live amoung Born again Idoit's, Most of them are in control of the welfare of all of us. But they don't care, if they did we would not be in this postion.
Take Apollo 13.. now there were people that cared, dispite a mistake, someone found a solution.
Might be to late now.
The Answer would of been let's not go there.. Risk far exceeds the gain!
However that would of made to much sense.

Insert again Here... BAI's

I just get white hot on this...

Meanwhile world resourses are sitting idle, because it cost to much, paper work to intense. Red Tape..

50% of the World depends on our Oceans/Sea life!
100% of Ocean/Sea life depends on it!

Are the numbers adding up.. not in a positive way!

Next will be our land mass.
Still getting real ugly folks!

Jesse.

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.

I have looked into this subject and realized that this leak can't be stopped. If you drill the relief wells and pump the mud, it will rise under all that pressure and burst the top of the pipe.

If you used a nuke, once the pipe is sealed there will still be pressure over 20,000psi which will burst that pipe.

Personally, I wouldn't try the heavy mud fluid. I would try tonnes of tiny metal shards. This will weigh down the oil while being small enough to push through the holes so the pressure doesn't build and burst the pipe.

whoa there Nuclear Cowboys!!!!


no need for nukes SEE


WE need one or two of those MOABS they drill themselves down into the crust and then ignite and burn with the power of several suns for 24 hours or something like that


point being they aren't nukes but they can sure melt this damn thing shut for good

reply to post by jeffrybinladen


Bumper sticker seen after 3 mile island incident in the 70's:
A little NUKEY never hurt anybody!

Seriously though, my understanding of methane hydrates is that they will stay on the ocean floor until one of several things happens. The pressure and temperature are what keeps the methane clathrates (hydrates) down there where they won't bother us, up to saturation level (i.e. how much the water can hold at certain temp. & pressures). If the pressure lowers (won't happen), or the temperature rises (possible), then there could be a release. If an earthquake or underwater landslide happens, there could be a release in the same way as when you thump a freshly opened bottle of soda on the counter. It could trigger a chain reaction where gaseous bubbles can knock the gases off surrounding molecules resulting in a large simultaneous release, especially if the water at depths is saturated or super-saturated.

So, my opinion is no NUKEY.

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.

reply to post by justadood


It'll work ,yes it will but who can do it the way it should be done?


you know what else is fragile? Coral Reefs ,the Earths crust breaks all the time this would be no different Coral Reefs never come back

reply to post by justadood


I wouldn't say it has been "debunked" at all. It is a viable solution once you actually understand how it works. I'm not saying I would recommend it for the reasons you pointed out, but I wouldn't completely rule it out either.

Let's just hope the relief wells work.

[edit on 26-6-2010 by xEphon]

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]

I haven't watched the video yet, but are they saying the relief well approach is not going to work?

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.

My apologies...I thought it was common knowledge around here. Watch thisVideo to update yourself.

Un-stoppable was CLEARLY mentioned by Bob Kavaenar at the 2:43 mark, perhaps you should watch again.

Please don't accuse me of "fear mongering", the information I provide is factual based on my research.

reply to post by justadood


No, I completely agree. I wouldn't even consider a nuke unless all other options failed. At that point it's a: "well... we can try and nuke it or let the entire well leak into the gulf..." Rock and a hard place.

[edit on 26-6-2010 by xEphon]

reply to post by ThreeNF


No one has ever claimed the relief well will work. Its a shot in the dark.

The big lesson for Americans and people in general here is to realize that we can cause problems we dont have the capability to solve. Perhaps such wisdom, once it truly seeps in, will humble us enough to stop openeing pandoras box and just LEAVE it the # ALONE!!

reply to post by jeffrybinladen


Just out of curiosity, we read here on ATS about underground bases and super high speed rail systems being underground. "IF" we were to set off a nuke, even a small one, wont some of their ceiling fall in on them???

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."

Link

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.

It would be a tactical Nuke, about the size of loaf of bread. It would be inserted into a bore hole about 18,000' below the seabed floor. The idea is to melt the rock and turn it into glass thereby "sealing" the fissures.

As I mentioned before, this technique is untested at this depth so we don't know what to expect.

Thanks for you comment...

reply to post by justadood


Interesting .. I thought the chances were better than "a shot in the dark"! I guess I need to read more. Found this, which is saying it as a 0 percent chance

0 Percent Chance





[edit on 26-6-2010 by ThreeNF]

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?

Not "bombing" per say...tactical, strategic nuclear weapon. See my above post.

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.

I am aware that discussions around this topic have been floating around ATS for quite a few weeks. I wanted to bring attention to the fact that this is finally starting to break into the MSM....and it's being backed by their experts.

Pretty important stuff IMHO!

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.

If you read my previous posts, I've never said that I thought it was a good idea...in fact I believe my exact words were "terrible idea".
I'm simply relaying the information that was portrayed in the video.

The million dollar question is....if they can't stop this thing, and they won't Nuke it. What the hell are we going to do??

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]

Wow...I'm truly baffled. To reiterate...I didn't make the suggestion, I was relaying information from a video that has been circulating this forum for the past few days. HERE

Don't shoot the messenger guys....