Special Report: Should BP nuke its leaking well?

reply to post by memarf1


IMHO, take that for whatever it is worth, it really doesn't matter if they use conventional or nuke. I actually prefer Nuke if they are going to do it, they might as well do it big, and make sure they get it done in one shot. The added heat from a Nuclear explosion might be necessary to cauterize the leak.

Anyhow, the "explosion" part is what I have a problem with! All that Methane, all that brittle limestone, all that pressure and trapped gas and oil, all that Frozen Methane Hydrate on the sea floor. It just seems like a really, really bad idea, and a great way to make a bad situation far worse.

the relief wells will work..the relief wells will work..the relief wells will work..the relief wells will work, sing along if you know it, ..the relief wells will work..the relief wells will work

reply to post by getreadyalready


hahaha. I agree, its a really bad idea. I think they keep forgetting about the methane, and that is the secret to our destruction if they use either explosive for the repair. Explosives do not, despite the American way, fix everything! If the well breaks, kicking it simply will not help!

The relief wells will work... The relief wells will work... The relief wells will work... The relief wells will work... The relief wells will work... The relief wells will work... The relief wells might work... I mean... what I mean is... Wait... What was I saying?

reply to post by memarf1


Unfortunately, I think the date July 11 is a date upon which something terrible will happen: and it could be an unjustified attack on Iran or something insanely stupid like trying to nuke or bomb this breach in the Gulf sea floor so that it is sealed -- which really must be the very worst idea I have ever heard ....

...unless, as I have written elsewhere, the real purpose behind using a nuke or another bomb is actually to blow up all of the gases, send tsunamis raging inland as well as sending fires racing through all of the natural gas pockets and rivulets THEREBY eliminating the population of the the southern States and Texas. For TPTB this would have the "positive" effect of eliminating the Elites most significant well-armed opposition i.e., the average well-armed citizen of the southern and southwestern states of the USA.

reply to post by Pellevoisin



Heh you sound pretty positive that you "KNOW" whats going to happen from this. So in reference I'd like to ask if you have a doctrine in geology or are you possibly a seismologist??? Otherwise your just blowing smoke out your ass about "possibilities" but wouldn't you know what another possibility is??? The chance that it might seal the damned leak! Also since every other option to this point has failed what would you propose we do??? Wait it out? Till the whole damned thing has filled the ocean? Or do you have another "possible" way to seal this thing? What I hate is people who immediately knock down an idea but don't really have any other options and then they refer to the people who brought it up as idiots. You'll come back to thinking this might actually be the only course of action, after they fail to block it the next 10 times!!!

reply to post by Pellevoisin


Also in reference to your 2nd post, why would Bill Clinton endorse a method if it would destroy his southern state of Arkansas???? Since your feeding into this whole, "Obama wants the south dead BS", which I see as being more ludacris of an idea then the idea your calling insane!

I don't see why a controlled explosion wouldn't close the well.

Ask any shotfirer their opinion.

A friend said to me that BP will not nuke the well because it then makes the oil unusable. Can anyone confirm this?

MM

reply to post by MissMegs


Actually it would make the oil unusable b/c of the radiation. The nuclear repository at Yucca mountain in Nevada has contaminated the surrounding ground oil and has made it virtually impossible to mine. Recently some researchers have come up with a way to drill from outside the effected area, use the surrounding ground to filter the radiation, and essentially make the oil usable again. Unfortunately this would be pretty much impossible this deep in the ocean.

Here is a link to the expert in this field, he gave a talk that I attended about 2 years ago in this matter. Its one of the papers listed on his CV from about 2 years ago. I think its this paper:Assessment of radionuclide transport uncertainty in the unsaturated zone at Yucca Mountain
www.gly.fsu.edu...

Anyway, hes the guy to email if you want more info on this.

reply to post by NoJoker13


I don't know about the whole "TPTB" things but it seems to me that if there is something sinister then no matter what we choose to do we are screwed. There are several reasons the nuclear option is bad.
1. There is a whole lot of frozen methane on the bottom of the ocean that can become dislodged and kill(by suffocation) virtually everything on the gulf coast with the small possibility of igniting.
2. The floor of the Gulf is not the typical material that would solidify and crumble to close the well. It is granite and shale and other materials that are likely to simply fracture and release a much larger area of oil. This doesn't even consider the impact that the tsunami, inevitably released by the crumbling sea-floor, would have on the gulf region.

Those are the major reasons, but if you need more read the previous pages on this thread, they are informed and educated people who have been responding about this.

I have a B.A. in Physics and I am telling you the nuclear option is a very bad idea. Nuclear weapons are dangerous for most purposes and they don't simply fuse everything together like many people think. In most cases they release a krapload of energy and destroy everything, not to mention that water carries shock-waves on the order of 20 times farther than air making it that much more destructive and dangerous. I have no idea why these so-called experts are considering it. The relief wells should work as they have so many times before.

If they are trying to kill the gulf region I would say this is a very good plan. If they are trying to stop the leak then I say this is a very bad plan.

[edit on 2-7-2010 by memarf1]

The title of this thread is so weird it is humorous.

So a oil company has it's own nuke weapons just sitting around?

The thought of this and even that idiot that everyone listens to, the possible/probable Russian agent and former president Clinton even talking about it,is unfathomable.

Are we all insane?

reply to post by NoJoker13


the russians never did this 5000 feet under the ocean on the sea floor.

reply to post by justadood


Clearly but that doesn't mean they couldn't try, with the same principle.

2nd line.

I am a petroleum engineer and have worked in the oilfields in Russia. Do any of you remember a little event they had at Chernobyl. Let me assure you that their oilfield technology is not much better. I can assure you we don't want to emulate.

Has anyone noticed that the nuclear option is only reccomended by people that have no clue what they are talking about, Bill Clinton, Matt Simmons and other assorted bankers,journalists and politicians. Being the only person on this thread that has actually been on a rig floor during a "kick" and actually understand the physics involved(I'd believe Michiao Kaku if string theory and quantum mechanics would help), we can deliver just as much force over time with hydraulic horsepower as we could with a nuclear weapon.

Relief well kills have been done multiple times and I suggest that you look at other threads I've posted if you really care to get a better understanding of the process.

reply to post by billyjack


I totally agree billyjack! Thanks for your post.

What I don't understand, is if they could clampon and cut the pipe, why couldn't they clamp on and pinch it down, or clamp on and weld something to it? Why couldn't they clamp on, and then obstruct the flow while they did the topkill?

Why couldn't they give it an angioplasty like plumbers do to flush a drain, and doctors do to clear an artery?

If they had the equipment to cut off that riser, and they had the horsepower to pump mud into the BOP at high enough pressures that it seeped out of the seafloor, then they had everything they needed to make this work?

Clamp to it, obstruct it, thread an inflatable piece at the end of a long tube down into the piping a few hundred yards, inflate it, and then start pumping mud through the BOP, and then pinch off and weld the riser, and then pull the inflatable piece out and continue pumping mud now that you have the end capped off? Why not?

I wouldn't be at all surprised if they're not considering it.

As I've said in a few other topics on this matter, on the YouTube/PBS live Q&A with BP the other day, the BP spokesman said they were working with the "government" on two options he could not discuss. Nukes were the first thing that came to mind when he said this...otherwise why would he not be able to discuss it? Not like it's war plans or anything that have to remain so secret. Then again, talk of that might panic a lot of people....

reply to post by NoJoker13


Sure. But i was responding to the statement referring to " the Russian's doing exactly that"

The Russians, in fact, did not do "just that" they did it on a dry well, on solid ground, not a brittle seas floor. You cant really compare the two.

reply to post by getreadyalready


my understanding to your 'why not' is because the well is compromised too far down. Your solution would only exacerbate the problem. they have to dig the relief wells to try and stop the oil below the compromised casing.

Originally posted by justadood
reply to post by getreadyalready

 

my understanding to your 'why not' is because the well is compromised too far down. Your solution would only exacerbate the problem. they have to dig the relief wells to try and stop the oil below the compromised casing.

I think you are correct, especially at this stage, but it wasn't that way in the first few weeks.

Also, if they were able to obstruct the flow, even temporarily enough to get an open valve welded into place, then close the valve and start pumping the mud through the BOP, eventually the mud would make it past all the compromised pipe and get all the way to the reservoir, wouldn't it?

Originally posted by zroth

Originally posted by getreadyalready

Originally posted by zroth


Can anyone name a single time when blowing up a nuclear weapon helped anything on this planet?

Well, the Russians have supposedly used this techniqe and been successful 3 out of 4, or 4 out of 5 times. I forget. Anyway, the science is solid. Typically they drill below the blown out well, they set off the nuke to liquify the rock formations and collapse and seal the well.

The problem here is the shear depth of the well, the extra large Methane deposit, and the composition of the rock layers. This situation is much, much dicier than a typical bedrock situation.

I have no doubt it turned the ocean floor to glass and sealed the hole but that does not mean it did any good. Nuclear bombs are bad news for the planet, it's ability to stop the sun's radiation and it's atmosphere.

[edit on 2-7-2010 by zroth]

Pardon me, but I don't follow the logic regarding the sun etc. How does a nuclear warhead detonated that far down have the ability to stop solar radiation? And if it did, so what?

Besides, several hundred million gallons of oil with no end in sight poses a particularly damaging risk to the Eastern Seaboard. Wait until the next hurricane comes by, this one was a bust. It will be raining oil in Chicago.


Mod Edit - corrected quote tags


[edit on 7/4/2010 by TheRedneck]