Should BP Nuke The Well?

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]

Just to enlighten people but a hole would be drilled DEEP and then you put in MINI NUKES. This will not ignite the methane in water nor over the water. will block it like a massive pimple by pushing the dirt from three corners and forceing dirt inwards to seal major leaks. It is a contained method and does not go in the hole.

After all they cant push ANYTHING down that hole do to pressure. It would launch the nuke out if they did.

People here nuke and flip out but to be honest a mini nuke is much safer than the nuke your thinking of.

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!

If they try a nuke of any size, don't stop at Missouri. You will want to be somewhere in western Canada or go south to Paraguay. In this fragile situation a nuke is unthinkable unless TPTB wish to use it to reduce the population of the southern states and Texas. A way to get rid of armed opposition to the NWO to be sure, but a total disaster for humanity and Mother Earth.

Should they? In a word..
NOPE.

It worked for the Russians a long time ago, but that well wasn't anywhere as big or as under pressure as this one. Not to mention that the seabed is already buckling and showing signs that it is seemingly unstable. I wouldn't feel very comfy letting a nuke have it's way with the underbelly of the Gulf.

Think about this scenario: We nuke the well. It doesn't work. Oil is still flowing. And is now radioactive. And is leaking out of more places. And the seabed floor collapses. All of the gulf coast surfs a tsunami to Tennessee.

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 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]

I don't trust BP with a can opener. The idea of a nuke in their, or anyones , hands is insanity. There is a reason we stopped testing such weapons...they were killing us. People in the test areas, Nevada, Utah, NM etc were told to stay in doors and keep their windows closed. The *roll yourself up in a picnic blanket* made about as much sense & provided about as much protection. The last thing we need in this equation is total madness. We've got lunatics in charge of the asylum now.

k

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 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]

if it is bombed and it should be
then we tell BP to get out of the way go yatching in Australia

and our NAVY and Marines do what they are trained to do

a controlled explosion designed to seal the well

they put any kind of explosive they want anywhere in the world the put a rocket up a gnats keister they can do this


DO IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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.

Originally posted by robbinsj


This has been done before

No, it hasnt' The well people keep referring to in Russia was NOT on the sea floor, 5000 feet below the surface. The sea floor and solid ground ar etwo VERY different things.

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 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.

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.

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.

Volcanoes erupt all over the sea in all depths and conditions and the whole world doesn't crack and any bomb we would use is no where near the power of an average volcano


we can do this and yes the PTB want to kill us all how much proof do you need? right now what it seems they're aiming for is the total destruction of the gulf eco system

I think they do it because they are crazy

[edit on 7/2/2010 by MrsBlonde]

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.

Not according to Dr. Michio Kaku...