RELIEF WELLS NEAR COMPLETION in the face of Methane/Oil SUPER ARMAGEDDON

page: 4
120
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 09:30 PM
link   
Those who are against the nuke option because it will "pollute the water" have no idea what they are talking about. The radiation would be absorbed by the rocks, and virtually no radiation would leak into the water. And what's a little radiation compared to millions of gallons of methane, sulfur, and crude oil?

Seriously, has everyone been so brainwashed by the anti-nuke propaganda? How ironic that the anti-nuclear energy movement was started by the oil companies in the first place.




posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by avatar01
Seriously, has everyone been so brainwashed by the anti-nuke propaganda? How ironic that the anti-nuclear energy movement was started by the oil companies in the first place.


You can't hug your children with oily nuclear arms.



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 10:15 PM
link   
i would like this to work and am aware that top minds are working around the clock to figure it out, but what i truly feel is that this is so called fix we are looking for is beyond our current ability. Too much unknown about the geology, and the possibility of uncontrolled release of methane along with the oil is frightening.



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


I'm giving this thread a star because it was well put together. It's also not a doomsday scenario and offers something positive. I've had enough doom and gloom for a while. Here's to hoping that everything works as planned.



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


Excellent information. Thanks for bringing it with the illustrative detail and links.



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by avatar01
Those who are against the nuke option because it will "pollute the water" have no idea what they are talking about. The radiation would be absorbed by the rocks, and virtually no radiation would leak into the water. And what's a little radiation compared to millions of gallons of methane, sulfur, and crude oil?

Seriously, has everyone been so brainwashed by the anti-nuke propaganda? How ironic that the anti-nuclear energy movement was started by the oil companies in the first place.


No, those who have educated themselves on the geology of the gulf fully realize it is in no way comparable to any of the Russian DRY GROUND wells.
The concern is not for the radiation but rather because of the brittle granitic caprock which is already riddled with fissures and leaks and covered by an unstable mix of salt domes sedimentary deposit and a lot of gas clathrates.
The judgment is among those scientifically opposing the nuclear option are doing so based on the geology of the area not the possibility of radiation.
N.



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 10:29 PM
link   
Were the efforts on drilling the relief wells or were they not delayed two weeks due to Hurricane Alex? Simple question. I've seen this in more than few reports and have not seen anything to indicate otherwise. Thanks.



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


I'm not really a betting man, but I'll put 10 bucks on it won't fix the
problem and it just will create another problem.
After all BP are so sure of themseleves they're drilling two relief
wells to finish on different dates. So depending how the first one
goes, determines what and how the second one will be used.



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 10:36 PM
link   
On the YouTube/PBS live Q&A with BP yesterday, 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. Unless of course there aren't actually any options they're discussing at all. The relief wells better work because it seems they're running out of options.



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkelf
My hope is that they actually intersect the well on the first try. If not, they have to fill it in and start over. Someone stated that this is like performing surgery from another room by holding the tools with chopsticks.


Maybe that is why they're drilling two relief wells. If one misses the mark, the other is on the ready. And maybe the 1st is waiting on the 2nd to catch up before attempting to intersect because it's all so risky with the weakened seabed and any need for a 2nd attempt might need to take place as quickly as possible. (This is purely conjecture on my part, based only on bits and pieces of info I've gleaned, like the seabed being fragile, and also inspired by the great pics provided by the OP.)



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 10:55 PM
link   
www.youtube.com...

"Warning for Gulf Coast Residents to Get Out Now"



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by avatar01
 


One of the problems that have been brought up with a nuke is the problem of subsidence, or subsidence craters in which the nuke creates a "bubble" from an explosion - a cavern of glassified rock that eventually breaks and fills in. The whole (well bore in this case) might be plugged when that happens, or if the strata is fractured enough, the oil might then come leaking out in dozens or hundreds of smaller fractures. It might work and it might not, but the idea that radiation would be substantially minimal is equally as speculative. Operation castle bravo, the first H-bomb underwater test produced an unexpectedly powerful explosion and intense radiation was spread for hundreds of miles causing the US to have evacuate a number of island populations.

Now, that was not "underground underwater" so the spread wouldn't probably reach the surface as much, but we don't know how much would and radiation from any nuclear blast is harmful or has varying, harmful effects. All you need to do see the minimally harmful scenarios is to go to wikipedia for that. You can ALWAYS assume they are giving you the most gov friendly scenario on any military subject because the Pentagon is the most prolific editor of any military issue site outside of the CIA. I don't have sources for that right at hand, but they are not hard to find with a few minutes of searching. (nuclear tests for something like wikipedia will get you that first thing and many university sites in the first two pages)(pentagon or DoD edits wikipedia will get you info on the other on the first page of sources.

Bill Clinton said in a speech or appearance this week he would order the navy to blow it up but use high power non-nuke explosives. He was cagey about what those might be and wouldn't say. I do have a site for that:

money.cnn.com...

So, I'm undecided on this, but it may come to that.



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by new_here
 


Here's a decent source for why two wells:


PTTEP, with advice from ALERT Well Control, drilled only one actual well to stop the Montara leak, but once the well was drilled to the approximate site of the leak, it took five passes to locate the 25cm piece of steel casing needed to dump mud down the well and ultimately block the leak with cement. Each pass involved in a ’sidewell’, most of which were then filled with cement. BP is drilling two relief wells at Macondo, the first commenced on May 2 and the second, a ‘contingency’ well, almost a week later.


blogs.ft.com...

It compares the shallow water Montara well off Australia with the Macondo well and also a little on Ixtoc. I have read on other threads on other sites, people who claim to be engineers who say BP is lagging on the second to be able to sink it as producing well below the sealed well-casing sealing that would result from a success of the first one. If not it would be ready for a second try at sealing the well. I can't say on that and I can't speak for the veracity of the source. He sounded like he knew his stuff. He was on GLP, but I don't go there; I was with a friend who does and showed me.



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ditdeen
i would like this to work and am aware that top minds are working around the clock to figure it out


They have done a great job so far.


At least they can make nice charts and diagrams to make everyone feel better.



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 11:12 PM
link   
great thread for a disinfo
2nd line



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by icecold7
 


Just puzzling over what's disinfo and what would good info look like. Care to elaborate?



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 11:36 PM
link   
This is an absolutely beautiful picture BP rendered to show the containment contingency option, isn't it?


BP photo


It's very realistic of the current conditions with the crystal clear blue water on and below the surface, isn't it? I couldn't even see oil coming out of the BOP until I enlarged the picture. I understand they're going to work on rebuilding their image but this is almost a slap in the face of non admittance to me. Maybe it's just me, but I think that picture should be a little more realistic and actually show some oil in it instead of looking like a PR campaign of how clean the water is.

But, I digress. Nice thread Puterman and I sure hope they succeed but it's difficult to believe anything they say might actually work out the way they plan.



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 11:37 PM
link   
I'M HERE TO LEARN WHAT I CAN ABOUT THE OIL SUPER ARMAGEDDON! WHEN? WHERE? HOW? IS A TSUNAMI FULL OF UFO's & SHARKS COMING MY WAY?


Heeeey! They are gonna fix it?

What a misleading title


[edit on 2-7-2010 by Blender]



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 11:50 PM
link   
Well i hope it works for earths sake.
One thing that bothers me tho. Are there ANY real pictures,film, satellite images that show these two new platforms exist?


Edit to add found vid.

[edit on 2-7-2010 by iceblue20-12]



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


When the Bells of Hell Ring You Shall sureley Hear Them.






top topics



 
120
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join