Should BP Nuke The Well?

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 02:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


With respect, you are dead wrong.

The sea floor of the Gulf of Mexico is nothing like what is found elsewhere in the world. The posited meteor strike is thought to be the reason for it, and as theories go, it is not a bad one.

There are documented mud volcanoes in the Gulf of Mexico, but no documented volcanoes. However, the structures in the sea floor and the batholithic structures in particular point up the fact that there is a helluva lot more going on here in the Gulf of Mexico than meets the eye. And the descriptor of the breach at Destiny Horizon as an "oil volcano" isn't far off -- except that what is being called 'oil' or 'crude' isn't quite so. Constituent elements that will become crude oil are what are flying out of this breach.




posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 09:39 AM
link   
the problem is everyone is saying NUKE

this conversation would make a lot more sense if everyone would start saying

BOMB

this will work but with a bomb there is a bomb that is not a nuke that can glass the leak



stop with with the nuke it! rhetoric already



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Pellevoisin
 


A nuclear bomb large enough to melt an era of a football field or so is not that bad compared to what is happening. The relief wells are in that zone, and they have yet to hit any methane cave or instability.

Bare in mind that everything you just mentioned is deep deep down. If the relief wells have not caused anything, than a low yield nuke would not do much different.

Of course the area is unstable. It's where the KT extinction meteor hit. It would not be very stable.

However, bare in mind that much, That area TOOK the KT extinction meteorite and did not break up.

Now. We know it was unstable before the KT extinction event because there are volcanic islands there, the Caribbean islands, that are older than that event. They grew out of the instability that was there before and continued growing after.

So do explain. If they could take a meteorite with more punch than a few city busters, what's a low yield nuke going to do? The impact from the oil drill itself, the massive platform, far outweighs the impact of a low yield nuke. It did not punch a whole through the crust.

It is very unstable. But it is still resistant enough to survive a 6.0+ earthquake that hit near Haiti. It is more unstable deep down. The surface is strong enough to hold together through an earthquake and an impact of a couple hundred ton drilling rig. It can survive a small yield nuke.



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 01:52 PM
link   
I wanna see it blow.
That'd be a spetacular fireworks show up here in Ohio.



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrsBlonde
this will work but with a bomb there is a bomb that is not a nuke that can glass the leak


Errrm no there is not...... Well if you think there is would you care to enlighten us?

A nuke is the only possible explosive that would work in a shaft way way down under the sea bed (a sea bed that is it'self way way down).

Nothing else would pack the instant heat and shock needed. - Any conventional explosives could put out an equivalent power of one of the very smallest nukes, but it would not deliver the heat and blast nearly as quickly.

Put it this way, a 1kt nuke is probably a smaller yield than any readily available weapons, but that could be small enough to fit on a missile - that would pack the equilivent explosives of 1,000 tons of TNT - 1,000,000 kg's!! - How on earth are you going to get all that down a shaft under the sea? And even then it would not work.

It needs to be a nuke - I'm guessing 5 or 6kt - I don't know. No conventional explosive stands a chance, you really don't understand what they intend to do (if they do blow it).

 



Originally posted by cheddartoes
I wanna see it blow.
That'd be a spetacular fireworks show up here in Ohio.


Doubt you'd see anything at all if it goes as planned, it's miles down - I don't think there would be a huge plume like some of the other tests.

[edit on 3/7/2010 by Now_Then]



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Now_Then
 


here try this the cure



Deploying the GBU-43 MOAB — known as the “Massive Ordnance Air Burst” or “Mother of All Bombs” — would be “proven, safe and ‘green,’” Gayl tells our pal David Axe, of War Is Boring. The bomb consumes all its own fuel, after all. And it’s not a nuclear weapon, like the one the Russians allegedly used to shut down out-of-control wells. If there are no MOABs to be had, Gayl adds, a Vietnam-era Daisy Cutter will do just fine. Either one … can be enclosed in a simple pressure shell, that is augmented with several tons of liquid oxygen canisters, and lowered to just a few meters above the leaking well head. An oxygen-enhanced MOAB or Daisy Cutter detonated at a water depth of 5,000 feet will indeed have an interesting effect on all the well-related plumbing and equipment that is above, at, and slightly below the sea floor…. The exploding MOAB or Daisy Cutter would have an incredible implosive-sealing effect on oil plumbing within the immediate vicinity of the detonation. Gayl’s active, active mind hasn’t stopped looking for ways to bring technology to bear to solve the most intractable problems. Nor does he limit himself by exploring the implications of those solutions. For instance: what would happen if the Mother of All Bombs went off-target at the bottom of the Gulf? Read More www.wired.com...



told ya



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by MrsBlonde
 


MOAB

Massive Air Ordinance Bomb.

I will leave you hanging.

Edit - no I won't, the idea is the fuel hangs in the air... The air The god dammed air!!!!

It's a bunker buster, bunkers that have AIR!!!

Air goddamit!!!!!


Nukes do not require air - they do however love a medium to transmit massive heat and shock, that's a nuke.

And no, weird is definitely off the mark... The Idea of a fuel air explosion is the same as a flour mill blast... Your fuel has an overall massive surface area because you have aerated it - it has been aerosol'd... It hangs in air maximising the surface area, maximising the chemical reaction.

Air + fuel =


How are they going to do that in a shaft under the sea?

I close never to talk to you again.



[edit on 3/7/2010 by Now_Then]



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Now_Then
 


Bombs do not require air. Bombs have everything they need to explode self-contained. Explosions are not 'fires'. Explosions are rapid expansions of gasses or plasmas. They release a bunch of stored energy, and that energy often causes heat and fire, but it is not a necessity.

Before posting such a condescending ridicule of another member, how about you do a little research and make sure you know what you are talking about?

Also, MOAB stood for "Mother of All Bombs" before the more official acronym took its place.

It is probable that this munition was initially nick-named the "Mother Of All Bombs" with the retronymic expansion of MOAB following later



It is NOT a Fuel-Air Explosive.

Contrary to some published claims, it most certainly is not an Ethylene-Oxide Fuel-Air Explosive (FAE). Some initial reports had stated that this replacement for the BLU-82 bomb uses more of the slurry of ammonium nitrate and powdered aluminum used in the BLU-82



This happened, literally in my backyard. My next door neighbor was an EOD expert that helped coordinate the safety for the test. It was "felt" through all of Ft. Walton Beach and Crestview, and Niceville.

On 11 March 2003 he Air Force tested its Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB) weapon at the Eglin Air Force Base Air Armament Center's western test range, dropped from a C-130.


www.globalsecurity.org...



Deploying the GBU-43 MOAB — known as the “Massive Ordnance Air Burst” or “Mother of All Bombs” — would be “proven, safe and ‘green,’” Gayl tells our pal David Axe, of War Is Boring. The bomb consumes all its own fuel, after all. And it’s not a nuclear weapon, like the one the Russians allegedly used to shut down out-of-control wells. If there are no MOABs to be had, Gayl adds, a Vietnam-era Daisy Cutter will do just fine.


www.wired.com...


[edit on 3-7-2010 by getreadyalready]



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Now_Then
 


If bombs required a bunch of oxygen to do their jobs, then being a bomb tech would be easy! Just use your little robot, push the bomb into a container, and fill the container with CO2, or suck it to a vacuum. Then when the bomb tries to detonate, it would be suffocated. Problem solved, cheap and simple. Except it doesn't work that way, and your post is entirely wrong.

Oh ya, and it is NOT a Bunker Buster. Read some of the links i provided. This is not a bunker buster, although it is occassionally used to plug up entrances to caves and things.

And the Ammonium Nitrate Slurry that is the main component is also the main component in most underground mining, road building, explosive industrial uses. UNDERGROUND, no air, just like the proposed oil well idea.

And, for the record, any type of explosive on this particular oil leak is insane. In doesn't matter if it is nuke or conventional. The stored methane hydrate frozen at the bottom of the gulf is estimated to contain the explosive potential of 100,000 Hioroshima sized bombs! Any little explosive that we put there will be more like the blasting cap that sets off the planet killer that already lives there!

[edit on 3-7-2010 by getreadyalready]



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 10:19 PM
link   
Scientist out there, I am certainly not one - but I do wonder what a nuclear bomb would do if it was dropped on or near an earthquake fault. I guess I am a fraidy cat because just the name "nuke" gets me very close to a panic attack.

I have seen radiation poisioning - I don't want to go that way and I don't wish that on anyone or anything! Please, there has to be another way!

I know you going to tell me that nothing will be affected by radiation, but for some reason I just can't buy that, sorry.



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by cheddartoes
I wanna see it blow.
That'd be a spetacular fireworks show up here in Ohio.

Yeah, it is kind of puzzling .. all this talk about methane and other volatile gases in the air, and the whole nation is going to shoot off rockets bursting in mid air tomorrow. This could turn into one of those DOH! moments.



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by crazydaisy
 


Radiation would likely make the oil in the reservoir unuseable. Radiation in air is not nearly as dangerous as people think. It goes away fairly quickly, but radiation in ground and waater lasts a long time.

A Nuke is not nearly as powerful as people think either. It would take literally 1000's of (Hiroshima-sized) Nukes to equal an 8 mag earthquake. (Or about 30 of the largest Nuke ever tested). Therefore, using a Nuke to trigger an earthquake is like using a popsicle stick to roll a house-sized boulder. You might get lucky and find a boulder that is about to roll, and you might provide just the force needed, but really your impact was minimal and the boulder was gonna roll anyway.

I'm sorry that you knew somebody with radiation poisoning. That is a horrible way to go. It is very rare, were they a Nuke worker....or a spy?

[edit on 3-7-2010 by getreadyalready]



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 



Originally posted by getreadyalready
Before posting such a condescending ridicule of another member, how about you do a little research and make sure you know what you are talking about?

Also, MOAB stood for "Mother of All Bombs" before the more official acronym took its place.

It is probable that this munition was initially nick-named the "Mother Of All Bombs" with the retronymic expansion of MOAB following later



OK excellent quoting, apart from the fact you did nothing to dispute me??

It is an air ordinance weapon , your quotes clearly said it operates along the same principle as a daisy cutter wotsit, well your quotes mentioned the daisy cutter, but your links (or which one was weird, wired even).

The MOAB weapon is based upon the same principle as the BLU-82 “Daisy Cutter”, except that it is larger and has a guidance system.


That is a FUEL AIR weapon. - Just because the fuel is different


Also to point out, any one on this site who says something happened in their back yard is usually american and it usually happened more than 50 miles away. That's not your back yard dude. Litterly is a much over used word.

 


Originally posted by getreadyalready
If bombs required a bunch of oxygen to do their jobs, then being a bomb tech would be easy! Just use your little robot, push the bomb into a container, and fill the container with CO2



Originally posted by getreadyalready
My next door neighbor was an EOD expert


Well if your friend is an EOD expert then he will tell you that for some explosives that is actually a viable idea - Nitrogen is used to inhibit reactions all the time - I didnt say oxygen was not chemically contained in xyz explosive... I was mearly commenting on the nature of the fuel air bomb beast... The fuel is suspended in a medium (air
and then ignited for maximum surface area to react.

Board now.

[edit on 3/7/2010 by Now_Then]



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Now_Then
 


LOL. Ok, it was probably 50 miles away or more, but it was "literally" because my backyard backed up to the bombing range, and we used to sit around my pool and watch the C-130's fire at the range. It was very cool, but you are probably correct about the 50 miles. The range was HUGE, so it was probably even more than 50 miles.

Now, as for the Fuel-Air bomb. The Daisy Cutter may have been, but the links clearly state that the MOAB is not a FAE, and it is also not a Bunker Buster.

Even if it were a FAE, it would still not limit is destructive power. The inital explosion would not be hampered by the lack of oxygen, only the incendiary burn would be hampered, and since this is not an applicatino for anti-personnel, we don't need the incendiary burn.

To contradict myself, and support your side (I dunno why?), I did find some people suggesting that liquid oxygen containers be lowered into the whole with the3 MOAB. Unnecessary, but suggested no less.

Also, in case you missed it, I AM ENTIERLY AGAINST THE IDEA OF USING THE MOAB, NUKE, OR ANY OTHER EXPLOSIVE DOWN THERE!!



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Now_Then
 



Nitrogen is used to inhibit reactions all the time - I didnt say oxygen was not chemically contained in xyz explosive


Nice catch, I wondered if you would notice that.


Actually though, the Liquid Nitrogen is used to cool the entire explosive down to a point that a chemical reaction won't take place. It isn't use to deplete the Oxygen. They would just use CO2 for that. In some bombs, the liquid N2 can be used to slow everything down and then dismantle or destroy the bomb, or even control detonate it with much less force.



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Thank you for answering my questions - still not feeling to easy about nukeing it tho.

My friend was over exposed while working at a Cancer Hospital in the Radiation Dept. It does happen but rare.



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 10:54 PM
link   
here's the argument against the nuclear option


as you can see, but I still maintain a conventional non nuclear bomb will work just fine and since I' have to say it again I will

we have submarines that bomb things IN THE WATER all the time and they can bomb this thing shut

I think you guys just like the spill ,that's what I'm staring to think



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 11:11 PM
link   
they wont nuke the well because that would mean the Russians are better than us...

/sarcasm



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ugie1028
they wont nuke the well because that would mean the Russians are better than us...

/sarcasm


they virtually admit to it in the article



but we /they are not using their/our heads ,and they have to know that we have regular bombs FERKRYSSAKES!!!



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by ccsct203
 


This is so stupid I cannot believe anyone is even logically thinking about Nuking the BP spill.

First of all the downward pressure (lets think big time now) will cause the Madrid Fault up north to fracture causing the great Lakes to poor into the Gulf. This will split the U.S.A. in half. This is only the beginning.

A nuke in that part of the Gulf of Mexico will act like a giant Toilet Plunger pushing down an enormous amount of pressure.

If you want to know what is going to happen after the U.S.A. splits in half go look up Edgar Casey's Prediction concerning the Great Lakes draining into the Gulf Of Mexico.

For those of you who do not like to investigate on your own but are willing to let someone else do all of the work for you, you will emain in the dark clinging to your teddy bear until you hear the sound of rushing water and then it is too late. . ....................................................KMG





new topics
top topics
 
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join