Should BP Nuke The Well?

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 11:22 AM
link   
This is all we need!
The whole Gulf would ignite like a fireball.
Oh wait.. maybe that's what Russia wants..

And we think the oil coming out now is radioactive. Just wait until they nuke it!


His face wracked by age and his voice rasping after decades of chain-smoking coarse tobacco, the former long-time Russian Minister of nuclear energy and veteran Soviet physicist Viktor Mikhailov knows just how to fix BP's oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico

A nuclear explosion over the leak," he says nonchalantly puffing a cigarette as he sits in a conference room at the Institute of Strategic Stability, where he is a director. "I don't know what BP is waiting for, they are wasting their time. Only about 10 kilotons of nuclear explosion capacity and the problem is solved."

A nuclear fix to the leaking well has been touted online and in the occasional newspaper op-ed for weeks now. Washington has repeatedly dismissed the idea and BP execs say they are not considering an explosion -- nuclear or otherwise. But as a series of efforts to plug the 60,000 barrels of oil a day gushing from the sea floor have failed, talk of an extreme solution refuses to die.

www.reuters.com...




posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Yes nuke it and get this disaster over with so we can get ready for the next one.



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 11:40 AM
link   
If stabbing mother Earth and making her bleed wasn't bad enough, now the planet trashing humans want to nuke her? Yeah, lol, go for it, I dare humanity try it .. I double dare your species to do so .. go ahead, make my day. Just let me evacuate to the ISS before you do so, because I would prefer to not get in the way of her wrath and karmic retribution.



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Divinorumus
 


I cut off bug bites to stop the infection. Heals in a day or two.

It is better.

We have two solutions here. Let the oil spill out 100%, thus resulting in pressures and a probable volcanoes, or nuke it.

Nuking it would just release cap ton of methane, but end it for ever,

Also, FYI, Russia has nuked half a dozen oil spills. Mother Earth did nothing. Because mother Earth is not alive. It's a system. And restoring a system you broke, with nukes, restores the system.


NUKE IT.



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Divinorumus
 



You do realize that we have detonated many many nuclear bombs on this planet in the past right?

You do realize that we are still standing here right?

Setting of a nuke under a mile of the ocean's surface, and then drilled a mile into the crust, will -not- destroy or disturb much on the surface.

Radiation will also be minimal if found at all on the oceans floor, let alone above the ocean's surface.

*sigh*

I really wish people would take the time to learn what the true impacts of such a bomb would be, which IMO would be close to nothing, other than sealing off the well.

However, I know enough to realize that people are scared and will perpetuate fear mongering whenever they don't understand something.

So in keeping with such, I offer the following fear mongering and totally untrue prediction of using a nuke:

The nuke will shear off the planets crust causing the earths angular momentum to slow until the the planet stops rotating which will then cause the sun to cook one side of the earth and freeze the other side which will then start a convection current along the bordering sun/no sun areas making my day very bad. Oh and it will kill millions. MILLIONS! And it won't stop the oil it will just make a big hole in the ground duh!

[edit on 2-7-2010 by xmaddness]



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 11:52 AM
link   
Hopefully the relief well will take care of the bleed and equalize the pressure to stop the flow. If not, I believe that a large enough explosion (non nuclear) could do the trick to seal things up by caving in the well leak. Admittedly I haven't the foggiest clue whether or not it would work but at least there is some precedence of success in Russia. Hopefully the magnitude of explosion can be attained without the use of nuclear detination. Why add fuel to a fire?



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Divinorumus
 


I've said it once and I'll say it again. There is a scientific and plausible reason why a nuke would work to plug the well. Above the well is a bad idea though, I'll give you that. To the side in the bedrock would probably work and the radiation would be sealed under the seabed. All you need is a shock wave after all.

Granted, I am not necessarily agreeing with the use of a nuclear device. However, it is an option not to be discounted over irrational fear just because the word "nuclear" is in there. If the relief wells don't work (which they probably will because that is how they sealed the 1979 spill finally) we will then be all but out of options.



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Divinorumus
 



Because mother Earth is not alive. It's a system. And restoring a system you broke, with nukes, restores the system.

NUKE IT.


That is a very BOLD statement! Sure the Earth is a system, but the Earth is very much a living Being!!!

I agree the Earth is a self repairing system, and will fix itself.. But to say the Earth is not a living being is very Bold of you to say!!

You agree with going for the Nuke..
Surely you jest, and you are saying that with a level of sarcasm?

I think a nuke would be a very bad idea.. Can we not come up with something a little better? While on the same token, I do not know enough about nukes, or the ocean floor to really know what would happen.. I just know this, nukes are dangerous, and when used they create utter lifeless area for years to come.

And do you live anywhere near the coast line?

As if you don't I can understand why you would say, yeah nuke it..
Why not right? I mean it wouldn't have any affect on you I would assume.
But I will save my assumptions for a later time..


Zy5

[edit on 2-7-2010 by zysin5]



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 12:10 PM
link   
No. That would be a HORRIFICALLY bad Idea.

If your familiar with the country Turkmenistan, they have a fire thats been steadliy burning for 40 years. they lit the gas but they didnt have any idea that it would still be burning.




The Derweze area is rich in natural gas. While drilling in 1971 geologists accidentally found an underground cavern filled with natural gas. The ground beneath the drilling rig collapsed, leaving a large hole with a diameter of about 50–100 meters at 40°15′10″N 58°26′22″E / 40.25264°N 58.43941°E / 40.25264; 58.43941

(The Door to Hell).

To avoid poisonous gas discharge, it was decided to burn the gas. Geologists had hoped the fire would go out in a few days but it has been burning ever since. Locals have named the cavern The Door to Hell.


also, lets not forget about Centralia, Pennsylvania. there, its a burning coal mine.

these types of things could be avoided if people would pump the breaks and think before they act.

does anyone here have a reasonable understanding of what would happen? No, because it would be like saying you know the outcome of the 2015 super bowl.

Imagine if some sort of irreversible effect were achieved, Atleast then we would have a good reason to stop suppressing free energy.



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 12:15 PM
link   
This may be the time that it wouldn't work. I have a bad intuitive feeling about this nuke the GOM idea. Something tells me this situation is different, and my intuition is seldom wrong, especially when that feeling is as strong as it has been when this idea comes up. This could be the nuke that breaks the camels back, so to speak.



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 12:16 PM
link   
honestly, like most people posting about this, i dont know enough about the sea floor, the amount of radiation a 10 kiloton nuke would release, or what the long-term effects on the ecosystem such a solution would be. im not a fortune teller, and i usually side 100% with environmental protection in almost every situation its brought up.

however, we, and the gulf coast, might be screwed already. i guess its that side of my humanity that wants a quick fix, regardless of the consequences. i guess the real questions to me are these:

can we realistically cap this leak anytime in the near future? if we cant, would a relatively small amount of radiation on the sea floor be more detrimental to the surrounding environment than leaking millions of gallons of oil daily for another couple months?

its not like the gulf will be the same again in any short amount of time (as far as i can tell from what i have read). im scared to death of nuclear weapons, but honestly what other choices do we have? it pains me to actually believe im about to type these words, but...

i think im more for it than i am against it.



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 12:20 PM
link   
1 mini nuke could have fixed this in a heart beat on day 1. Now it will take 3-4 if the sea floor is failing.

This has been done before and is the only way without giving BP 2 new wells for free. Now we will never see the end of it and letting large oil companies steal patents for better cars and energy is the major reason we are so dependant as we stand.



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 12:21 PM
link   
Yes! Let's nuke the ground where possible methane reserves are sitting above it underwater.

Let's release that methane from in the water (where it's safe!) and let it come to the surface to explode to any little spark or flame.



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 12:38 PM
link   
While I'm not for nuking the well, here's a video of Soviet attempt (successful) to stop a leaking gas well with a nuke.



Apparently the videos on here already, the description says "as seen on abovetopsecret.com".



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 12:38 PM
link   
I have to ponder, what if they did nuke it and it didn't work, or what if It went horribly wrong.

At least the suspense would be over right?


Yes! Let's nuke the ground where possible methane reserves are sitting above it underwater.


Wha you don't think this was the plan from the start? I pretty much do.


[edit on 2-7-2010 by randyvs]



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Tentickles
 


I think you already know this but I'll point it out any way, methane is something like 1,000 times more effective as a green house gas than they wimpy CO2 that we all have to care so much about.

 


Some more food for thought, what if a small nuke is used that sets off a fusion reaction in the methane for an uber huge unexpected explosion!?! - Not even sure if it possible but remember methane is one part carbon to 4 parts hydrogen... And of course a hydrogen bomb is a bunch of hydrogen set off with a smaller nuke.

Also slightly unrelated but most of the strange appearance of ships over the years that didn't even get off a mayday call could be due to big methane burps from the sea bed - it totally changes the density of the water and the ship literally drops to the sea bed


Still I'm in favour of a nuke, it's something to do
- should be quite a display - I reckon it's would work.



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmaddness
reply to post by Divinorumus
 



You do realize that we have detonated many many nuclear bombs on this planet in the past right?

You do realize that we are still standing here right?

Setting of a nuke under a mile of the ocean's surface, and then drilled a mile into the crust, will -not- destroy or disturb much on the surface.

Radiation will also be minimal if found at all on the oceans floor, let alone above the ocean's surface.

*sigh*

I really wish people would take the time to learn what the true impacts of such a bomb would be, which IMO would be close to nothing, other than sealing off the well.

However, I know enough to realize that people are scared and will perpetuate fear mongering whenever they don't understand something.

So in keeping with such, I offer the following fear mongering and totally untrue prediction of using a nuke:

The nuke will shear off the planets crust causing the earths angular momentum to slow until the the planet stops rotating which will then cause the sun to cook one side of the earth and freeze the other side which will then start a convection current along the bordering sun/no sun areas making my day very bad. Oh and it will kill millions. MILLIONS! And it won't stop the oil it will just make a big hole in the ground duh!

[edit on 2-7-2010 by xmaddness]





EXACTLY

[edit on 7/2/2010 by MrsBlonde]



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Now_Then
reply to post by Tentickles
 


I think you already know this but I'll point it out any way, methane is something like 1,000 times more effective as a green house gas than they wimpy CO2 that we all have to care so much about.

 


Some more food for thought, what if a small nuke is used that sets off a fusion reaction in the methane for an uber huge unexpected explosion!?! - Not even sure if it possible but remember methane is one part carbon to 4 parts hydrogen... And of course a hydrogen bomb is a bunch of hydrogen set off with a smaller nuke.

Also slightly unrelated but most of the strange appearance of ships over the years that didn't even get off a mayday call could be due to big methane burps from the sea bed - it totally changes the density of the water and the ship literally drops to the sea bed


Still I'm in favour of a nuke, it's something to do
- should be quite a display - I reckon it's would work.


Just my $0.00002...I worked on Poseidon C-3 IRBM's on SSBN's a while back during my Navy days and...
There is no hydrogen in the fusion bombs that we use. Mostly Deuterium and Tritium with a few other FUN ingredients.

Please see:

en.wikipedia.org...:W-88_warhead_detail.png

and

upload.wikimedia.org...


Thanks,
73's,
Tom



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by zysin5
 


No joke. Nuke it.

Radiation would not even be a problem. it would be under sea level. And radiation particles are so heavy, anything that does get released would sink, turn to lead, and be forgotten. A single oil slick would do more damage.

Earth is not a being. Maybe you can classify it as alive, as it does the same things any living thing does at a larger scale. i can understand that. But it would only be a basic big cell. It has no brain and no intelligence. It is a set system that self regulates, just as simple cellular organisms do. Thus you can classify it as being alive. It cannot reproduce however. But perhaps our desire to go to space IS reproduction for Earth. None the less. It is not a being. it is not intelligent. It craps and eats just like a cell does.

Back to nuking it. No joke.

Nuking it is the safest solution. The rock turns to solid glass, closes off the oil, and releases a bit of methane. It ends then and there. In fact, because it turns the rock to glass, it can even be said to better the place. Seeing as the gulf sea floor is more unstable than a balsa wood skyscraper. Glassing it would actually add to its stability.

The Russians have done it many many times with the end point being better than BP could ever do.

Nuke it.

Glass it.

Fry it.

Whatever you want to call it.



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by tomdham
 


Well that may be right, but that does not change the fact that Hydrogen (and I'm postulating Methane also) can and does undergo fusion using a nuke trigger - it is the massive heat and pressure that's neded.

 



Originally posted by tomdham
There is no hydrogen in the fusion bombs that we use. Mostly Deuterium and Tritium with a few other FUN ingredients.


Hang on a cotton picking minute!!! This took me a white to catch on...

Deuterium and Tritium ARE Hydrogen!??
Just different forms.

..... Did you really
work on the missiles?


[edit on 2/7/2010 by Now_Then]





new topics
top topics
 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join