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

I'll celebrate when the relief wells work! Until then, I'm a bit skeptical as to how successful it will actually be.

I know it probably was asked a thousands times...

But ... if it fails, what's the next step?

Nuking the well directly or what?

More relief wells?

reply to post by WATCHER.1


Yeah apparently some people seem to think that the at least a million of gallons of COREXIT, which is very toxic despite the lies from the EPA, they used to disperse most of the oil, and to keep it underwater so people can't see the real devastation this leak caused and is still causing, plus all the methane, non-methane VOCs, H2S etc will all suddenly dissapear once they hit the target...which there is a very real possibility that they won't hit the target...

But hey these days and age it seems that being realistic = loving doom....

[edit on 3-7-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

reply to post by Vitchilo


Seriously sometimes I feel like smacking people in the head every time they keep saying "nuke it"...

It is nothing personal, but you have no understanding of the problems that "nuking" or even using a "hydrogen bomb" could cause.

Here, you don't even have to believe me.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 3-7-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by WATCHER.1
I know Holland, Denmark, Sweden and others with state of the art equiptment and experienced people were turned down in April and early May when they offered to help.

You will also know then that the reason they were turned down was because American protectionist laws that will not allow foreign vessels to operate in US coastal waters.

June 30, 2010

BP Oil Spill - 2 sources with insider knowledge

Quick update:

2 new sources are saying the following (paraphrased or quoted when possible):

BP oil spill was a planned Op...Both sources agree on this.

Source 1: An off-shore marine shipping consultant

They were told for the past 5 years that the site they are drilling was "unstable" geologically. My source is a off-shore marine shipping consultant very solid with close connections to BP and other interested parties.

Bp was warned they were tapping into volcanic area. They have reports going back 4 or 5 years that there was a massive pocket of methane. It is going to blow. They had a rig manager who was very inexperienced.. The seals can't contain the rush / gas & oil methane. This is what caused the explosion. Block preventer -- has got methane building and it will blow... All the employees and people involved forced to sign nondisclosure agreements. You have an oil field the size of Scotland, when a hurricane comes through it will spread the toxic cocktail over Texas and surrounding areas and what could happen has never happened before -- it will rain oil and chemicals.

He went on to say that the amount of oil leaking has not been reported... it's at least 150,000 pds. The sea bed floor is cracking and it is going collapse...the well casing is going to collapse. All the workers out there know this. The gases you breath in are going to impact any first responders... and people out there.

There are other rigs in the Mississippi Canyon...That is what this area is called. BP's crews don't have the money behind them to contain the spill. How much oil is actually leaking out of the casing.. how much pressure...The question to ask is what is the pounds per square inch... I estimate 30-50,000 -- that is based on what I have been told.

KEY: the nuke idea would be a disaster according to this witness. "...With the leaks seeping out-- if that was happening in the North sea they would evacuate the area. When it rains hydrogen sulfate, benzene, methane and corexit...it's a lethal cocktail--a toxic cocktail. Direct quote: This thing is going to bring down economies..Then he said, that the seabed is collapsing -- they are fighting a force of nature -- Bp has their best people on it but they haven't got a clue."

Note: this info is from an very knowledgeable source with details withheld to protect his identity. The info on BP is coming from employees with a need to know access. This is not the whole story but the informants are close to the ground at the site.

Second whistleblower:

Says the following:

According to his insider contacts they planned this. What they want is for there to be a public outcry begging for a nuke. This will backfire and cause devastation undreamed of... The negative ETs are using the public sentiment against the people.

This would bring on Armageddon. This is their intention.

Do not be deceived by Lindsay Williams and others who are saying a nuke is the way to seal the leaks. (end of 2nd whistleblower testimony)

Clarification: the above is quoted from the whistleblower... to our knowledge Lindsay Williams is not advocating use of a nuke to fix the leak. --Kerry

My note from another whistleblower: If a nuke goes off it will cause rivers of fire to ignite the hidden methane and gas leaks currently coming out of the ground in Texas and north. A river of fire will lead to a chain- reaction that will ignite the Yellowstone Super Volcano to erupt which will in turn ignite the chain of volcanoes down the West Coast ring of fire going down into South America.

Commentary: This is how the negative side works. Remember? Problem-reaction-solution. They cause a problem then that leads to the positive side of humanity coming on board in reaction seeking a solution that will have dire consequences. Both sources agree: Hoagland is right about the methane bubble.

Dr. Deagle says Fema will evacuate starting in 2 weeks.

Source: projectcamelotproductions.com...

I'm no scientist so if there are any out there please feel free to correct me.

Methane and god knows what other combustible junk is being released in our air.

If we use a nuke won't that ignite the surrounding air?

If something is combustible, logic says you don't light a match to it, right.

This situation is getting crazier by the week.

And we are on Day 74 with no end in sight.

Every drop in the ocean counts. Yoko Ono

How inappropriate to call this planet Earth when it is quite clearly Ocean.
Arthur C. Clarke



[edit on 3-7-2010 by ofhumandescent]

[edited for double post]

[edit on 3-7-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

reply to post by PuterMan


Pretty much everyone who has offered to help has demanded payment...and then they have the galls to call us Americans "greedy".... When we have sent aid to almost every one of these countries without any attachments and without "demanding" for later payments" SEVERAL times when they needed it....

[edit on 3-7-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Everyone is greedy my friend - it is the way of the modern world.

I will get back to you your other points.

reply to post by ofhumandescent


Can we at least try to keep this thread within the parameters of non-fiction?

reply to post by PuterMan


from two weeks ago:

Currently, 15 foreign-flagged vessels are involved in the largest response to an oil spill in U.S. history. No Jones Act waivers have been granted because none of these vessels have required such a waiver to conduct their operations in the Gulf of Mexico.

However, in order to prepare for any potential need, Admiral Allen has provided guidance to the Coast Guard Federal On-Scene Coordinator, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and the U.S. Maritime Administration to ensure any Jones Act waiver requests receive urgent attention and processing.

“While we have not seen any need to waive the Jones Act as part of this historic response, we continue to prepare for all possible scenarios,” said Admiral Allen. “Should any waivers be needed, we are prepared to process them as quickly as possible to allow vital spill response activities being undertaken by foreign-flagged vessels to continue without delay.”

To date, the administration has leveraged assets and skills from numerous foreign countries and international organizations as part of this historic, all-hands-on-deck response, including Canada, Germany, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, the United Nations’ International Maritime Organization and the European Union’s Monitoring and Information Centre. In some cases, offers of international assistance have been turned down because the offer didn’t fit the needs of the response.

www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com...

But hey these days and age it seems that being realistic = loving doom....

Are you saying you dont love doom? I agree the crude and corexit are bad, but the ocean is FULL of toxic crap we dump in it every day. The Gulf is actually a dumping yard for military munitions.I'm curious what makes you think the corexit will cause the end of humanity, but the toxic, military and industrial waste hasnt.

[edit on 3-7-2010 by justadood]

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


I'm not asking you if it's a good idea nuking it, I'm asking you what's next if this fails?

I agree a nuke is NOT a good idea... but if all else fails, why not try it anyway?

reply to post by PuterMan

The Jones Act? I thought that was a myth as far as the reason for them being "turned down." Were they even really turned down? Who would know.

I read the act myself, when someone first mentioned it weeks ago, and it didn't makes sense as a reason. And then this week there was all this:

Experts agree: Jones Act has no effect on Gulf oil response

GOP's false talking point: Jones Act blocks Gulf help

New GOP oversight report on spill pushes ‘urban myth’

Hard to know what to believe anymore. More lies. From who for what reason?

reply to post by justadood


Well I am glad to hear that, but it is not what was said earlier.

---------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

The problem is that a lot of people, such as yourself, think that being realistic means loving "doom"...when it can't be farther of the truth.

Nope, that does not compute. I did not say that. Being realistic is what people should be, but in - as far as possible - an informed way. There are also those out there who are unrealistic and uninformed and these are usually the 'doom-mongers'

There is a very small chance that they will hit the target on the first try......It might take several tries and they might not hit it. This procedure could even cause more problems instead of solving it.

This is indeed a possibility.

So what you call "people who love doom" such as myself and some others are actually realistic and we know what we are talking about.

I don't think you will find that expression used by me anywhere in these posts. I have been around on this ball of mud long enough to recognise the differences in people and have always had you pegged as one of the sensible ones and hence picked as one of my 'friends'

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
BTW, you or someone else was complaining that you made an "op-ed" without much knowledge or understanding of drilling procedures and you want to complaint that you didn't get enough flags and stars?

Again, not me. Stars and flags are of no interest to me, only information. I am seriously beginning to think that you did not read the whole thread, although I don't really believe that.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
reply to post by WATCHER.1

 

Yeah apparently some people seem to think that the at least million of gallons of COREXIT, which is very toxic despite the lies from the EPA, they used to disperse most of the oil, and to keep it underwater so people can't see the real devastation this leak caused, plus all the methane, non-methane VOCs, H2S etc will all suddenly dissapear once they hit the target...which there is a very real possibility that they won't hit the target...

But hey these days and age it seems that being realistic = loving doom....

Why would these items disappear? 'Some people' are obviously stupid! I have already commented on your last statement. Having a bad day? Not a problem but don't take it out on me!

[edit on 3/7/2010 by PuterMan]

reply to post by ~Lucidity


Indeed.

It is a disinfo myth being perpetuated by the "Blame Obama" folks at Faux News.

Also, I think my question about just how many wells BP has out there might have gotten lost? I believe their applications to the MMS said two exploratory wells for each Tiber and Macondo. That would make six if they were drilled. Also now the two relief wells. That would make eight, again if the exploratories were drilled and the relief wells aren't on the same sites.

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
Also, I think my question about just how many wells BP has out there might have gotten lost? I believe their applications to the MMS said two exploratory wells for each Tiber and Macondo. That would make six if they were drilled. Also now the two relief wells. That would make eight, again if the exploratories were drilled and the relief wells aren't on the same sites.

There are a huge number of wells in the Gulf, but I don't know how many belong to BP, or how many wells have been drilled on this particular concession. I will see if I can find out.

reply to post by PuterMan


The problem is that the casing is blown out on this well. It is unlikely these releif wells will work, and may, in fact, compound the problem.

Originally posted by astrogolf
reply to post by PuterMan

 

The problem is that the casing is blown out on this well. It is unlikely these releif wells will work, and may, in fact, compound the problem.

can you expand on that very brief thought?

How may they compound the problem?

Originally posted by astrogolf
reply to post by PuterMan

 

The problem is that the casing is blown out on this well. It is unlikely these releif wells will work, and may, in fact, compound the problem.

Perhaps you can enlighten me as to where the casing is 'blown out'. I understood there may be problems in the upper half of the well where the casing is much wider - bearing in mind it reduces down the length of the well from 36" to 9.5"

IF that is the case then a bottom fill if they hit the target should (hopefully) resolve the problem.