Should BP Nuke The Well?, page 2


Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 5 times


reply posted on 2-7-2010 @ 02:36 PM by zysin5
reply to post by Gorman91



Thanks for making that crystal clear for me! While I respectfully disagree, I would use a nuke as a last ditch effort.. I mean it has to be fixed at some point, right. So if it comes down to our last option I guess I would say do what you gotta do.. I have no real control over what is going on anyway, so its only my 2 cents..
Yeah we are on agreement about the Earth being more like a cell, than a living being like you or me, but we can agree to disagree, thats why I like ATS.. Different points of views are always important. While we might not agree 100% I still respect your point of view!

[edit on 2-7-2010 by zysin5]


reply posted on 2-7-2010 @ 03:08 PM by getreadyalready
reply to post by ccsct203



www.abovetopsecret.com...

Whoops I missed your thread on my original search, but at least mine went into Breaking News. Here is a link to my thread in the other forum.

If my wife would agree, I would leave today for Missouri!! I don't want to be within 500 miles of the coast if they try this Nuke option, and I am afraid they may not let us know ahead of time!



reply posted on 2-7-2010 @ 03:20 PM by tomdham
reply to post by Now_Then



Got me!!

Yes I did MT3, USS G.W. Carver (SSBN-656) Gold Crew.

We were out of Groton, CT and Holyloch, Scotland, 3 Patrols, around 110 days, underwater, each!!

She was scrapped in Bremerton,WA around 1994.

73's,
Tom


reply posted on 2-7-2010 @ 03:23 PM by Gorman91
reply to post by zysin5



It's 4 months in and they've tried everything already. The relief well will not stop the spill either. because it just splits up the current. You still have three rivers. And because a forward movement is easiest, the relief well will not help as much.

We've tried everything. Now the ocean is dying, methane is 1 mil X normal, and the coast is boiling with dispersant.

All solutions have been done. Nuke it.


And I will answer also to the people who worry about the fragile coast.

The nuke will create glass and magma. IE, it will seal it like cauterizing a vein.

Glass it.

[edit on 2-7-2010 by Gorman91]

Nuclear glassing: No crater, just glass.




[edit on 2-7-2010 by Gorman91]


reply posted on 2-7-2010 @ 04:04 PM by getreadyalready
reply to post by Gorman91



It's 4 months in and they've tried everything already. The relief well will not stop the spill either. because it just splits up the current. You still have three rivers. And because a forward movement is easiest, the relief well will not help as much.


This part is untrue. A pipe with a rushing fluid creates "lower pressure" which means when they tap into the side of it, they will get suction not pressure. This is common in industrial settings where a simple sink faucet and running water create suction for filtering devices, soap injection, etc.

Also, they have special "friction polymer" muds that are specifically designed to be sticky and clingy, and they have at least 3 miles of pipe (some estimates say 7 miles) of pipe where that mud can clog and stick. Then, they pump cement in behind it.

Now, to be successful, their relief wells have to be drilled better, cased better, and have better BOP's to prevent a repeat of the first blow out, but "surely" (crosses fingers), surely they have learned from there original mistakes?

I think the relief wells will work. I live in Florida, and if the relief wells don't work, as my brother puts it, "They will close Florida." The relief wells simply have to work. They are the last resort. Nukes are insane, and if it comes to that, all the worst-case scenario threads on ATS cease to be funny, and start to become real!


reply posted on 2-7-2010 @ 05:15 PM by Gorman91
reply to post by getreadyalready



Right. How did I forget that it would make suction? Sorry. That's really bad. AP Chem, one of the first lessons on vacuums. Bah.


As to hoping they've learned their mistake?


...

Sigh,







[edit on 2-7-2010 by Gorman91]


reply posted on 2-7-2010 @ 06:38 PM by Pellevoisin
reply to post by MrsBlonde



Because they are good at what they do, the US Armed Forces will not follow this path of using a nuke or even ballistic ordinance....

This entire "bombing" idea is bad application based on emotion and not the actual facts of this situation.

The Gulf of Mexico sea floor is more like a caldera with differing levels of strength and vulnerability. Underneath with increasing pressure are VOCs and basically the precursors to crude oil. There are gases being expelled right along with the oil and nothing under the Gulf seems to be an isolated, defined chamber, but it is criss-cross with connecting vents and tubules .... all the things we warned about years ago before drilling in the Gulf of Mexico was permitted.



reply posted on 2-7-2010 @ 06:44 PM by justadood
reply to post by Pellevoisin



Seriously, do you think about what you write? You think the "PTB" and the "NWO" want to control the populice by killing everyone? That doesnt sound very profitable.


reply posted on 2-7-2010 @ 06:58 PM by Gorman91
reply to post by Pellevoisin



And it will all be superheated and sealed.

Much the same is the human body. There are God knows how many little tubules of blood. However, heat seals the skin and the tubes. it incinerates everything/

Honestly at this point, consider the weigh offs. Even if this relief well works, the sea floor will be leaking oil for far longer. It will technically never stop until the oil is all gone.

Incineration and glass closes it off for good. It seals the cracks. I showed a picture of a similar event. The dust, and all its instability, became solid glass plates.

Methane is the only thing to worry about. But the gulf has 1 million times its usual level.

At this point, we couldn't physically do much worse with a nuke. And the positive is a definite end to the leak.


reply posted on 2-7-2010 @ 07:04 PM by Pellevoisin
Originally posted by justadood
reply to
post by Pellevoisin



Seriously, do you think about what you write? You think the "PTB" and the "NWO" want to control the populice by killing everyone? That doesnt sound very profitable.

You really need to learn to spell.

And perhaps some day you will wake up.


reply posted on 2-7-2010 @ 07:09 PM by Pellevoisin
Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to
post by Pellevoisin




At this point, we couldn't physically do much worse with a nuke. And the positive is a definite end to the leak.


It isn't a definite end to the leak. It could create even more leaks. It could cause the sea floor to crack, crumble, and set loose an even worse scenario.


reply posted on 2-7-2010 @ 11:45 PM by Gorman91
reply to post by Pellevoisin



Nope. We do halve magma chambers, but the sea floor is sturdy as hell for a few miles down. It only cracks in some places.

For that matter. I don't think you understand what heat would do here. It would literally incinerate everything. You would hardly have cracks. Because the weaker sea floor that had cracks would be melted together.

Understand that the cracks are from mainly methane chambers. Magma might be here or there. But all of this is far lower. You have a goot mile of solid crust from the earth.

The most we could do is unleash lots of methane. But it would not do much else.

Also understand that if we DON'T nuke it, eventually the oil will run dry. Then the well deep under will be depressurized.

THAT'S your long term problem.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^



New Oil and Tar Balls Litter the Gulf Coast After Hurricane Isaac
  Posted 4 days ago with 26 member flags
Did BP delay sealing the well so they could use it later?
  Posted 2 days ago with 3 member flags
Beach report - St. George Island, FL
  Posted 4 days ago with 2 member flags
Mass die offs still occurring?
  Posted 15 days ago with 1 member flags
Yangtze river turns into tomato juice in China ( picture inside)
  Posted 4 days ago with 1 member flags