It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Should BP Nuke The Well?

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 12:40 AM
reply to post by kissmygrits

Get a grip, cause the USA to fracture in twain?

Do you have any comprehension of the forces the world exerts on it's self per hour?
Minor volcano here, storm surge there, nancy earthquakes every single hour (that anything over a point 4 seems to get mentioned on ATS).

Seriously get a grip - the energy release of a pipsy squeaky nuke that far down is nothing. Lets say nothing on the scale of the nukes already let off, nothing on the scale of the damage done - probably nothing compared to the daily junk the USA burns watching telly. - Nothing.

But then again a hand grenade is fun to watch from a distance.

Seriously the real card has been on the table from the start - the pansys can't stop cat's from peeing on their garden and the oil people are still looking for ways to save their well. That's the bottom line, they still wan't this well to be a viable well - so much effort, and well (hehe) sooner or later it's gonna get wasted - how many weeks?... Waste it, count the loss, line the people up against the wall and move on.

posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 03:51 PM
Have you guys seen this? It's about the nuke option.

Bottom Seal

posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 11:57 PM

Originally posted by Gorman91
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.


Were those spills this deep under water? Did they set it off over a oil and methane caldera the size of this one, that has risen to form a bubble now? They are now calling this, nothing more than a test, because this type has never been dealt with before. So, do we want them to gamble with fate then? Because, if that nuke is not set off in just the right spot, it could mean the end of a lot of things. You realize don`t you, that it isn`t just the well that is spewing out this stuff, but a big fissure that has opened up ten miles from that well. Even if they close a small well with one, does that mean it would work on a larger fissure?

posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 12:38 AM
to suggest "nuking it" is not an option if you ask me.
Look where "the experts" got us..
my understanding is its a volcano of oil and toxins
and lord only knows what else.
(i spill a beer ..i take a leak)
but hey bill clinton says "i've seen all about this stuff"
heck, thats good enough for me..
how much nuke? 5 kilo ton i hear 10? -15?..
well- just cross your fingers and toss 20 at it..
halliburton made 386 mill to prepared the fema camps-
then was there pouring concrete when disaster struck..
they wanted another pearl harbor event.
looks like they got it.
celebrating independence for britian
as they sabotage america
land of the fee-home of the slave.

top topics
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in