Commander: 1.5 mile "Seismic Run" to detect "anything that might happen with the sea floor"

reply to post by mars1

I think that someone at Helium has got their info a little twisted. An EPFCG is not a nuclear device, though it produces one of the effects that is created in a nuclear blast.

If you recall the film "The Day After" (and similar movies of the ilk), when the nukes went off, cars further away from ground zero suddenly had dead engines as their "black box" processors got fried by the nuke's EM pulse.

An EPFCG (explosively pumped flux compression generator) does the same sort of thing. It is actually a very simple device in principle, one that uses a small explosion within a set of electrified wire coils to generate a very powerful electromagnetic field over a fairly defined area. (There's more to it than that but there's basic idea.)

A small one (say small enough to fit in a carry bag) could be used to create a single but extremely strong EM field that would fry virtually all sensitive electronics within the general area -- perhaps even for a few blocks. A very powerful one could generate such a powerful pulse that it could melt metals.

I'm not sure how this would be effective in the damaged well scenario. I mean, the thing produces a load of heat (in a small area) as it generates its multi-ampere pulse, but whether that would be any use to seal a damaged well is hard to say.

However, I will say this: if you wanted to use one of these things in an attempt to seal that well, it would have to be very powerful. Therefore, seeing as these EM pulses can travel through almost anything except hardened and probably lead-lined bunkers, you'd want to make sure that you did not have any sensitive equipment in the vicinity. No ROVs (the cameras have computer chips in them and they'd be toast) or other robotics that use any computer gear, no delicate electronics. Too big a risk of frying it.

But the key thing is: an EPFCG is not a nuke, it simply produces some of the electromagnetic characteristics of a nuclear blast -- but on a much, much smaller scale. It is not radioactive, it contains no radioactive materials and produces no mushroom cloud. And unlike nukes, anyone with a fair knowledge of electronics, a modest home workshop and maybe a couple of hundred bucks could probably build one. They're actually quite simple devices and certainly don't require the sort of machining tolerances that a nuke does.

I certainly wouldn't recommend anyone making one and actually using it without being very sure of what they are doing. These things can produce momentary current in the range of Mega-Amperes and terawatts of power. In other words, they are like a lighting bolt in a small package.

The EPFCG has been around for quite some years now and there have been articles about it from time to time, mainly about its (potential) military or para-military electronic warfare uses. If you'd like to read up on them here's a link to the (unclassified) pdf on them from the Los Alamos Scientifc Laboratory.

If that document is too heavy going then wiki and various other light-reading places have articles on them as well. I think I first read about them in Popular Science some years ago.

Anyway, at the risk of being labelled a pedant, I'll repeat:

An EPFCG is not a nuke!

Mike

reply to post by JustMike


Thanks for clearing that up Mike i did say i don't know how reliable it was so thanks you answered that question.

What is your opinion of using any type of explosive device with all that methane down there you seem to know what your talking about so it would be nice to here your opinion

ThankYou

reply to post by mars1


Earth to Mars1 Come in Mars1 (static)

Hello Mars1, I just wanted to say thank you for stepping up and creating this thread and adding the videos you found, they were a good find!

Thanks,
Sweetliberty

S&F
Earth to Mars out

reply to post by sweetliberty


I hope your first line was meant in a fun way

And thank you sweetliberty for taking part explosion+methane what do you think

Thankyou

Just a thought: As I recall he mentions 'oil' being the problem if it has escaped around the well/into the surrounding rock - but didn't mention gas - am I right? To me they always appear to avoid/forget mentioning the gas side of things where they can?

But if as others have suggested, the more dangerous hazard is the methane/gases, some of which may have escaped/settled into a very unstable state, then it really will create a massive hurdle for them. They may not be able to drill into it without risking de-stabilising that gas/bubble/blister/anomaly...which could trigger other things...

So I guess we'd have a very high pressure main vent (generating some heat), surrounded by escaped gas and oil, possibly accumulating (frozen) under the (unstable) seafloor, (didn't that contain additional naturally occurring trapped (frozen) gas before any drilling occured?) the main vent currently escaping through a badly damaged pipe/riser/BOP, through unstable, fractured rock, in an area with complex geological faults, onto a steeply inclined canyon bank very deep under water, on a deep unstable sediment sea-floor, receiving fresh deposits from the mississippi, in Hurricane season and all managed by a committee of government and PB representatives, with opposing interests... perhaps I'd better just calm down and get back into MSM?

reply to post by Lil Drummerboy
I think this is true. They are just putting on a show to appear as if they are doing something....there are huge cracks in the seabed and oil coming out of them. I am reallty nervous about the next few hours.....CNN just said President Obama has given the green light to BP to go ahead with their plan within the next couple of hours

Why does the President have to give the green light for TESTING??!! Maybe they are going to nuke it? I have an uneasy feeling.....

I wonder when he is doing his next press conference will be interesting to watch but this video of him you would think with him been in the military he would be used to talking to the press.But here he looks too nervous.

Thankyou

I just saw a thread that says BP is now testing and there is coverage on CNN.. I checked the ROV feeds and the highest psi I saw was 2000psi.. not very high.. then the feeds were cut off.. still can't find psi readings on the feeds.

reply to post by mars1


Im going to try this again, the first reply I tried to send to you didn't take, there seems to be server issuse.

I do believe the methane hydrants are something to that needs to be discussed more, to hear from the experts in that field. Not just the opinion of one expert but of at least a half dozen.


And yes I was being silly in the first sentence. Im glad you took it that way.

reply to post by Morpheas


Check out this thread www.abovetopsecret.com... StarTraveller
has just put some videos up about this.

Wonder if this is why he looked very scared

Thankyou

reply to post by sweetliberty

Hi Sweetliberty,

as it's getting late here (after midnight already) I'll have to get back to you on those questions, if you haven't already dug up the answers in the meantime. I can only say that I don't recall any other Commander for this crisis, but that doesn't mean there wasn't one.

I'll have to check back on the other questions as right now I don't recall all of them. Sorry about that...

reply to post by mars1

Hi mars1,

thank you for your comments. Much appreciated. I'm not an expert on this stuff by any means; some of what I know I gleaned from a family member years ago who was working in weapons research. (Electronic warfare.) Only unclassified stuff, though.

However, the question about using any kind of explosives down in the well vicinity is really a matter of two main considerations: the (geological) stability of the region where explosives might be used, and what might happen if the stability is compromised and hydrocarbons are released.

In other words, will an explosion fracture the sea floor, and if that happens, what next?

First off, there is no way that an explosive device would ignite any methane gas. There's not enough available oxygen. (I say "available" oxygen because of course there is lots of oxygen down there at the sea floor -- as evidenced by the fish swimming around -- but luckily it's in the water itself and not available in a form that will allow gas to burn.) So, we're not going to get a gigantic explosion of methane gas.

Well, we wouldn't anyway because the gas at that depth (pressure) and cold temperature is still in its hydrate form and is not even gas.

But some say that even if the gas can't burn/explode at that depth, then it can when it reaches the surface, and that even if it doesn't "explode" as a fireball, it will be released in such a vast quantity that it will be like an explosion -- and that will trigger a catastrophic tsunami that will race towards land at the speed of sound and wipe out millions of people.

Now, apparently this chain of events is theoretically possible, but in order to know if it's a real risk, we need solid information about how many cubic miles of gas hydrates would have to be released and then expand to form a huge bubble. Yes, cubic miles. Anything much less would not have a huge impact in a body of water the size of the GOM. It might create a tsunami, but not one that would race across the ocean at high speed and many feet high and engulf hundreds (or thousands) of miles of coastline.

I even have serious doubts about the "speed of sound" tsunami statements anyway. Think of it like this: if you see gas rising in water, how fast does it rise? Does it travel at several hundred mph? The rate of rise and the volume of displacement are the key factors in determining if there'd be any significant tsunami. Energy out (tsunami) cannot be greater than energy in.

However, there's the other side of this. If the sea floor were disturbed by an outrush of gas/hydrates (and oil), it could lead to a collapse in that region, which would be effectively like a subduction effect. Rising gas does not have quite the same effects as a large chunk of subsea real estate being subducted (as happened off the coast from Banda Aceh and more recently off Chile). There could be a significant tsunami from a collapse of the sea floor, but it would need to be a massive collapse and very sudden. If the collapse is not massive or is relatively slow (even over a few hours), then any tsunami will be far less than that caused by a very rapid collapse.

It's like the difference between slowly lowering yourself into a bathtub full of water or slipping and falling in: the amount of water you displace is about the the same, but the sudden displacement causes a far more violent effect on the water, because there is more energy of motion that can be converted to make the big splash.

We've all seen the documentaries about large objects impacting the earth and wiping out dinos, etc etc. Now, if you take a rock half a mile across and slowly lower it into the ocean, nobody over the horizon would even notice, because the displacement of the water happens slowly. But send that rock into the water from space at several thousand mph and you get the mother of all tsunamis, because there is a huge amount of kinetic energy available.

The same goes for an ocean floor collapse.If it's slow, then the sea just sort of fills in the space and we'd likely be none the wiser. Well, at least we'd have nothing much to worry about from a tsunami. But if it collapses in a big hurry then that's a big worry.

All I'm trying to say is that there are so many factors here that we can't just say "this will happen and then this, and then this..." It simply doesn't work that way, so when we see websites that proclaim the "order of events" as if they're a given I can only say that they are not a given. To make such statements with any certainty we need to have a lot of very specific data and we don't have it. We don't know how unstable the sea floor is there, we don't know how much gas/hydrates might be lurking just below the surface or in cracks and fissures from lower down, we don't know the true volume of any gas/hydrate pocket or reservoir, we don't know how fast if would be released (or how much of it would be released), and we don't even know over what area of sea floor such a release might occur.

But we do know this: common sense -- a valuable commodity -- says you don't let little kids play with matches. Not because you know what will happen, but because you know what might happen could be even worse than what you ever imagined was possible.

I think that using explosive charges in an area with poorly-contained hydrocarbons of unknown but large quantities under very high pressure, in an area with uncertain geological stability, is like letting kids go and play with matches in a tinder-dry forest on a hot day -- when there could be tornadoes heading that way.

Best regards,

Mike




[edit on 14/7/10 by JustMike]

reply to post by sweetliberty


No worries i agree i had the same issue thought it was my computer

Looks like there testing something now oil coming out of different places.

Thankyou

reply to post by mars1

Why even bother posting this stuff its all lies there not going to tell the truth they never do. No offense to you the poster.

reply to post by JustMike


Mike first let me say very good post wish i could come up with a post like that that's a lot to take in but i do understand a little.

There is so many ways this can end that its not possible to point to one outcome am i on the right track because as good as your post was its a lot for an average joe like me to take in.

Thankyou

reply to post by kodiak60


Whats the point are you serious we know they don't tell the truth that's why we post things so we can talk about them find more info.

We get more out of ATS than we do from MSM whats the point unbelievable.

Thankyou

Suttles "I can't change yesterday but I can change tomorrow"



"there needs to be one plan"


www.cnn.com...#/video/us/2010/07/14/sot.bp.doug.suttles.cnn?hpt=T1

Im hoping someone could post this video, I haven't figured out how to do it yet.

Thank you

[edit on 14-7-2010 by sweetliberty]

reply to post by mars1

Yes, my posts tend to get a bit wordy. Sorry about that. Working with words is my job most of the time.

Basically you've got it: there are lots of things that could happen, and frankly I doubt that even BP and their cohorts really know. They'd just better be very, very careful.

In the meantime we ought to take the worst "doom and gloom" scenarios with a large grain of salt. I don't mean we dismiss them out of hand, though. Everything is worth considering.

Another poster just asked why we should even bother posting as it's all lies. Well -- while I don't agree that it's all lies -- even if it is, lies quite often carry grains of truth. So, we glean what we can from what we get.

It's better than nothing.

Best regards,

Mike

reply to post by JustMike


Thanks again Mike its nice to know i understood a bit like i said wish i could do posts like that but as long as people can read my posts that's good enuff for me

Got to go late here have fun all.

Thankyou

I have a family member who has been out of the USCG for about a year now. He just got a notice telling him to be ready for a recall for mobilization for the oil spill.

Now I'm not trying to infer anything. But if the USCG is recalling inactive members who are still under their contract, it tells me that they want to have all their ducks in a row if this well kill doesn't work.

reply to post by darkelf


It could also be to relieve the one's that are working out there.

You have got to remember there is a lot of them probably working night and day so that's a possibility.

If you find out more keep us ATSers informed if you can plans change so fast its hard to know whats going on sometimes.

Thankyou