Shepard Smith had a fascinating segment on the catastrophic Gulf oil spill today, featuring an interview with a former nuclear-sub captain who argued persuasively that it was time -- past time, really -- to blow up that leaking oil well in the Gulf and put an end to the massive pollution that's resulted from its being open.
Smith originally brought on Christopher Brownfield to discuss the potential for using a nuclear bomb to stop the leak, and Brownfield said that yes, it was decided a viable way to stop it -- it has been done four times previously. But he gave many compelling reasons NOT to use a nuclear warhead for the job -- the biggest one being that the same job could be accomplished with conventional explosives.
So why aren't we talking about doing this? Well, Brownfield explained that too:
Brownfield: If we demolish the well using explosives, the investment's gone. They lose hundreds of millions of dollars, from the drilling of the well, plus no lawmaker in his right mind would allow BP to drill again in that same spot. So basically, it's an all-or-nothing thing with BP: They either keep the well alive, or they lose their whole investment and all the oil that they could potentially get from that well.
As Brownfield explains, "We need to seal this thing off." Desperately. But why hasn't anyone been bringing a complete shutdown of the well to the table?
Brownfield: Yes, I think -- stopping the spill immediately. And the reason why we haven't seen that option is because, frankly, BP is still at the helm. I think President Obama needs to take charge of this, bring all the assets of our military to bear, bring the U.S. Army Corps of engineers, bring the U.S. Navy, and bring in all the private-sector organizations that have the equipment for deep-sea operations to make this happen. Let's explode this, collapse the well, and put an end to it.
I don't know about the rest of you but this story seems like it should be the final straw:
Scientists are finding enormous oil plumes in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico, including one as large as 10 miles long, 3 miles wide and 300 feet thick. The discovery is fresh evidence that the leak from the broken undersea well could be substantially worse than estimates that the government and BP have given.
“There’s a shocking amount of oil in the deep water, relative to what you see in the surface water,” said Samantha Joye, a researcher at the University of Georgia who is involved in one of the first scientific missions to gather details about what is happening in the gulf. “There’s a tremendous amount of oil in multiple layers, three or four or five layers deep in the water column.”
The plumes are depleting the oxygen dissolved in the gulf, worrying scientists, who fear that the oxygen level could eventually fall so low as to kill off much of the sea life near the plumes.
If Brownfield is right, BP has had its chance to save its well. The time has run out.
If Brownfield is right, it's time for the president to seize control of the situation and blow this well up.
Wait. This logical discussion was on Fox News? Oh that's right, Sheppard Smith is their token human being over there.
Election 2012: Be Educated! Be Active! Vote!
www.phoenixjustice.com
http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/fastfacts/apd/...
the deepest at 10139 feet
sleep tight
all this smacks my memory of the movie
"solent green". instead of over farming the
seas/oceans we are killing them with wonton
stupidity and letting this oil rupture spread
to the point where it will deplete the oxygen
in the oceans and kill off all the life forms.
and with our leaders failure to act immediately,
we may find the world without vital life forms to
keep even the oceans alive.
He needs to move onto a better entity.
Goodnight, Frau Blücher
.
This DRILL SPILL is an act of ECO-TERRORISM!
.
Starve the WAR Beast...
... Feed Americans.
Even though this may sound silly but is it possible that the person screaming eco-terrorism might be right? I don't know, all I know is that question remains. What is worse, oil killing the fish and ocean plants or a nuclear bomb killing the fish and ocean plant life? I don't pretend to know all the ins and outs but a nuk? That seems too much.
Video poker games at this online casino are to be fun and profitable to some extent and these casino games fit all the criteria to be a great wagering spot. . online casino
...nuke the hell out of it?
Obama wil probly hire Halliburton to "blow it" for him?
(I can't wait to see how much it will cost to "blow it shut")!!!
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
if it can be done with conventional artillery, as the article says.
When and where was a nuclear bomb used to plug an oil well?
The post says it was done 4 times in the past
??
The Russians have done it on dry land. Personally, I think it's a godawfully stupid idea with either nukes or conventional explosives. The worst case scenario for both is that they not only fail to seal the well but also remove what flow restriction the BOP is providing and foreclose any other options for killing the well.
This well will be abandoned regardless of the option used to kill it. Those are, according to the Oil Drum crowd, the regulations and standard practice in the US, and BP is currently under such close scrutiny that they will not be deviating from it.
The relief wells are the slow and certain way to end this. They will enable BP to put enough heavy mud in to stop the flow and then cap it with concrete from above. Everything else is at attempt to hurry it up, because those will take a while to finish.
is flow restriction an issue? the drilled hole is extremely long isn't it, it would collapse in on itself plugging itself, i don't think it would be like blowing the top off a volcano....
The drilled hole is lined with steel pipe fastened in place with concrete. It is not going to collapse.
I'm not sure you are right about the Russians doing this on dry land. If they let off a nuke on dry land there would the usually issues with the spread of radiation via the wind.
Not calling you out but I would like to see some links.
Nukes are still a dumb idea though, no matter what.
A nuclear explosion sufficiently far underground doesn't put any radioactive material into the atmosphere.
.
Likely not -- the radioactive material ends up retained in the cavity formed by the blast. However, I don't know exactly what the Russians are actually proposing.
So, the shock wave magically disappears under water? Sure! Good plan.
Bite my shiny metal ass.
http://www.startalkradio.net/
"Bless me father for i have sinned. Those crimes that i committed, well, i did 'em again. Empty my soul to empower yours. Lead me blind down the path to salvation's doors."
They lower a dome, a really big top hat, over the shock waves.
And don't forget the spats...
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Does the EPA have enough helicopters to transport such a massive top hat?
Bite my shiny metal ass.
http://www.startalkradio.net/
"Bless me father for i have sinned. Those crimes that i committed, well, i did 'em again. Empty my soul to empower yours. Lead me blind down the path to salvation's doors."
They dissipate in the rock. Rock is not without mechanical strength.
What the hell are you talking about? The blast is underwater not underground.
Bite my shiny metal ass.
http://www.startalkradio.net/
"Bless me father for i have sinned. Those crimes that i committed, well, i did 'em again. Empty my soul to empower yours. Lead me blind down the path to salvation's doors."
AIUI, the Russian use of nukes for the purpose involved underground blasts. If used here, they'd be detonated under the seafloor.
Right, under the sea floor. But not that deep!
At the depth the leak is it'll cause a massive shock wave even when buried under the "sea floor"
Hell, so an earthquake makes a tsunami, but a nuke is A OK?
BTW: give links!
Bite my shiny metal ass.
http://www.startalkradio.net/
"Bless me father for i have sinned. Those crimes that i committed, well, i did 'em again. Empty my soul to empower yours. Lead me blind down the path to salvation's doors."
Hi, its been a long time since I have posted to C&L - but did want to weigh in on this - I have a somewhat unusual perspective, as I used to work at the Nevada Test Site (NTS) (AEC-ERDA-DOE contractor) outside of Las Vegas, and particpated on about two dozen underground tests - we tested at between 50kT and 1 Megaton. I'm an electrical engineer and not a physicist, nor a geologist. We tested in both vertical shafts (Area 6, and Paiute Mesa) and down long tunnels (Area 12). For this to work you would need to drill or enlarge the hole large enough to emplace the device between 3k and 5k feet below the sea floor, then back fill the hole with the device at the bottom. Its possible to do that. But the real variable and unknown is how the rock strata would behave (geologists shold know this however) - and the oil is a plastic, non compressible fluid. Its possible that the device would create the requisite cavity which would then chimney (thus sealing the cavity). BUT - you are detonating below sea level - water will flash to steam within a few milliseconds after detonation. If you want to see what happens when water flashes at 0 time plus a millsecond or two, google on Baneberry (a sub-surface test that went December of 1969) and look at that vent cloud. You are talking about superheated and very radio-active steam. That steam will find any fissure. The gamma, and beta shot into the ocean would be pretty awful. Sea water can not absorb neutrons very well. You could not keep the hole either dry or within acceptable limits of moisture. Bottom line - I wouldn't want to be the one on the hook for ensuring a contained non-venting prompt criticality - I don't believe its possible in this environment. BTW, I have stood at the edge of Sedan crater, and its a very humbling experience. We humans are destroying the planet with ever larger paper cuts.......
What about blowing up the well using conventional explosives? Do you think that would work, as the article says it would? What would be the possible drawbacks of doing that?
Also underground waterways and in the very soil we farm on.
Even fish probably eat some plant life that grows in that ground.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
There are very few fish at 5000 ft except around hydrothermal vents. And this wasn't near one of those.
ETA: No plants grow 5000 ft down, either, on account of the complete lack of light.
Not sure. There are extremophiles down there and I'm sure they play an important role in the ecosystem.
The extremophiles are tightly clustered around the hydrothermal vents. The parts of the ocean in permanent darkness and not near the vents are some of the most barren places on Earth.
We shouldn't let that go to waste. maybe we can keep oil down there and the ocean wont notice.
The food chain starts at the single-cellular level, and very few places are now known to exist without something along those lines that help start that food chain...
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
plankton lives on the ocean surface and they feed on sunlight. thats where the food chains start, with the sun... no sun at the bottom of the ocean, it wouldn't be that dangerous.
Organisms at the bottom of the ocean subsist either on thermal vents or on stuff that falls down the water column.
they are almost completely isolated... our ecosystems are quite separate and its the sun that sustains 99% of life on earth. the point is cutting our environmental losses, better to nuke a thermal vent colony than allow more oil on the surface of the ocean
here is a link http://www.kp.ru/daily/24482/640124/
Yes, they had to nuke these things before.
Ever feel like you are living in a nightmare?
A living nightmare...
It's been widely reported that the Soviets did this, and announced it publicly at least 5 times. Four times it worked.
But I agree, it's a foolish idea. The one thing that has dramatically improved in the drilling business during the last 20-30 years is directional control of the well, which should enable the relief wells to come close enough to be able to plug them.
Russia came out with this suggestion last week. They say they have done it but not in the same exact circumstances.
I'm not saying it's a good idea but it is well known that Russia plays faster and looser with their nukes than we do so I don't doubt their claim. Plus it does make some sense if you don't worry about the repercussions, thankfully we do worry about such things.
The US gov't looked into using nuclear explosives for civil engineering under Project Plowshare. The US gov't decided that it wasn't worth it, for a variety of reasons. The USSR looked at it and decided it was a great idea, and used nuclear explosives in civil engineering projects 169 times.
It is good that we worry about such things
but since this thread has turned into the merits and drawbacks of using NUKES to do this, I would like to remind everyone reading that the article clearly says there is no reason to use nukes because the same thing can be accomplished using conventional explosives.
.. they had used it five times, and it worked four of them. No info on factors leading to outcome in article I saw either.
If it does fail then we're in a nice pickle afterward.
...bloody damned well eat it.
I'm just superstitious enough to hedge my bets.
...bloody damned well eat it.
I'm just superstitious enough to hedge my bets.
They are going to eat it anyways. This hole is going to end up plugged with concrete, one way or another.
Maybe the well is where Bin Laden has been hiding.
Time ran out for BP the moment the rig exploded and the massive leak started. they should have sent the nuke the very next day. they lose the privilege of getting the oil back if they skip safety steps drilling it and fuck it up. basically, they let the oil spill grow to massive proportions for days so they could save THE OIL and THEIR PROFITS. That is criminal in and of itself.
I don't believe the claims that they can close the well with regular explosive. Explosive are good at opening holes... closing them? Not so much.
ETA: The actual oil patch folks I've seen writing on this issue are unanimous in the opinion that this well will be permanently killed and abandoned, no matter what solution finally works.
explosives are used to close holes every day. Explosives have been around for a long time and there are a great many things that can be done with them. Yes they are great for opening holes but also just as great at closing them. It's simply a matter of using the right kind in the right locations.
[Corey, in the future please flag comments like that instead of responding to them. That way we can keep it to a minimum. Thanks, Site Monitor]
Sometimes I wonder if Rupert is going to "Disappear" Shep for not towing the company line.
Good for Shep though, he seems to be the only man on Fox that has balls.
He left no trace. Strangely appropriate.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
We'll see now, maybe. Corporations or the government.
LOL! (as if)
...do you actually think they are separate?
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
.
So why are you always arguing for more laws than regulations,
When laws tend to work retoactively, and can take a long time to pass through the system
And according to you it would be in effect the government passing laws against itself...?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
I would be concerned that a powerful explosion, be it nuclear or conventional (MOAB or FOAB?) could cause more problems. Possibly fracturing of the sea floor that would then allow the current hole to disperse the petroleum and gas over a wider area.
I'm with you. The biggest problem is that if it fails, it will likely have foreclosed slower and less spectacular (but more certain) approaches to killing the well.
blow a big enough hole so it can all go back down...
(even if it takes some water and fish and stuff with it)
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
The oil reservoir is under enormous pressure -- any flow will come up. It's something like 18,000 ft below the sea floor, which implies a pressure relative to the ocean of at least 18,000 psi, and possibly higher. You blow a big hole, and the oil goes up, not down.
The pressure is pushing in on the tunnel from above and the sides. if they didn't build the reinforced pipe theres no way the hole would maintain and it would simply collapse, not blow wide open because of the pressure from below.
Otherwise its a wonder oil doesn't spring leaks on the ocean floor more often and blow wide open.
Oil does leak out through oil seeps on land and the ocean floor surprisingly frequently. They used to find oil that way, and the first offshore discoveries were derived from marine oil seeps. There's one under the Santa Barbara Channel that flows 50-100 bbl/day. Arco got tired of being blamed for the tar balls washing up, so they put a collection dome over it. Payed for itself in a couple of years at 80s oil prices.
then we have nothing to worry about, it will transform into a natural leak
The pipe pressure will depend not only on gravitational forces of the water column and the earth but will also be influenced by the geology. It's the natural gas that is driving the oil and how fractured or porous the formation is will greatly influence how how fast the hydrocarbons vent.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
I agree. We don't know what would happen with a bomb of any time. I cannot believe that it would seal anything. Bombs make big holes, they don't plug them.
In my opinion, Shep's guest is an idiot. When the Russians used nukes, they buried them miles underground first. Also, when the oil industry uses explosions, they are to put out fires, not to seal the wells themselves.
Here's a question: What is the risk to "blowing a well shut"? Is this a sure thing, or is there a chance that, instead of blowing it shut, you in fact just blow it open? Is that, the bigger the opening, the lower the pressure? How much control is needed in "blowing it shut" and how much can we get that far down?
...consult Halliburton about all that "technical stuff" when he hires them to fix it for U.S.
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
i might be wrong but the hole is extremely extremely deep and skinny. i would think the explosion would cause the hole to splinter and collapse in on itself.
plumes are formed?
the oil well is a pin needle in the earths crust. its a very long distance from the bottom of the sea floor to the oil and very thin. if the nuke could blow open the oil then it would do so anyway with or without the tunnel there. but even nukes aren't that strong.
i say that with only what i know about the power of nukes and the scale of the earth. i'm not an expert, so take it as you wish, but i don't think theres much to worry about. but maybe there are other bad things to happen than a bigger oil hole. i jsut can't see that being one of the side effects.
Yeah, but it's what happens up top that's the problem. What I see as a possible outcome of that is a large zone of shattered rock around the top of the well, and a breached well casing. The result would be oil flowing into the GoM through a region of shattered rock hundreds of meters across.
like this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1K12x_4aytw
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
I still can't see it happening like that, the source is a ways down and the pressures are enormous on the walls of the tunnel. wouldn't it just pancake in on itself once its destabilized?
In a word, no.
there is no way to destabilize the strength of the shaft?
Not really. When it's plugged, it's going to be filled in with extra-heavy drilling mud and concrete from bottom to top.
We don't know the geology of the well site. Like I said a few days back in a thread where this came up. It might be theoretically possible.
How probable would need a Geo.Engr. that has access to the sites geology maps, in detail. Many good ones with a working knowledge of using charges for fraccing is probably readily available to BP. Of course, they want to anti-frac, or well do a very targeted collapse. A good Geo.Engr. with access to that data could tell you the probable part of the theoretically possible. All I know is that it is pure guesswork for my kind of engineer to try to tell you even if I had maps. =P
And nukes come in a range of sizes now all the way from XXS to XXL! Not that nuke is the best charge for the job, just one possible explosive.
http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Ge-Hy/Hot-Sp...
It's a start. If anyone knows why the plumes are forming in the oil spill area specifically, please tell me.
little fractionation tower. The lower the plume is in the water column the higher the density of the oil will be.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
?
long, 3 miles wide, containing oil 300 feet thick? Is the oil over the vent or below it? I'm trying to get a picture in my head.
the plumes they are talking about are masses of hydrocarbons from the leaks drifting with the prevailing currents. Like a smokestack plume and not like thermal vents from the seabed.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
not know what the plumes consist of. Some scientists have taken samples, and will analyze them back on shore. The good news is that they are letting scientists out there now. Curiouser and curiouser.
They know there's oil, they know there's natural gas (methane). But watching film of the plume shows its color changing from black to white, from frothy/bubbly to rolling black smoke/oil. So they don't know what the percentage of each is at any given time.
[I may just have stuffed cotton for a brain, but even I know this is just wrong...]
The way you described the hole, I thought you were going to suggest sending Obama down it...
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Do you really think dense BS would do the job? :)
[I may just have stuffed cotton for a brain, but even I know this is just wrong...]
The hole is reinforced. As part of the drilling process, heavy steel pipe is inserted into the pipe and cemented into place. Also, there is enormous pressure underground pushing the oil out. Just blowing shit up is not going to work. Well-engineered application of explosives might, but as I said, I am highly skeptical and fear that such an approach is more likely to make the problem worse.
Explosives would be the mother of all Hail Mary plays and we know how they usually work out.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
Ever since Obama dispatched his Macgyver team to address the spill, I figured bombing it closed was definitely on the table. Two of the scientists are nuclear physicists. One was the architect of the H-Bomb.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/201...
Have you covered the story yet of Jonathan Katz being a "homophobe" and global warming denialist"??
http://www.onenewspage.com/news/Politics/2010...
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
And the way it came out was SO Russian... Not in so many words, but it was basically,
"So, we have similar problems years ago. Well leaking like crazy. So, we set nuclear bomb on it. solved problem. No more leak. We did that five times, only fail once!"
Must get moose and squirrel...
It's called the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it.
-George Carlin
Chernobyl.
Gesundheit...
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
.
just wondering
David Neiwert, you're not serious are you? If you are, then you're a nitwit.
I'm sure glad that thousands of smarter, more level-headed people are trying to solve the problem.
This knee jerk suggestion sounds like something Limbaugh will be spouting. Maybe ha already has.
LOL. Limbaugh's idea was a little more rational than David's. He said let the ocean take care of itself.
You have to admit though it has been a long time since we got our nuke on. (or off?)
That only works if no one fucks with the ocean. Ah, there's the problem of Limpbaugh's well "thought" out plan.
Bite my shiny metal ass.
http://www.startalkradio.net/
"Bless me father for i have sinned. Those crimes that i committed, well, i did 'em again. Empty my soul to empower yours. Lead me blind down the path to salvation's doors."
If we hadn't messed with Mother Nature, there wouldn't be a problem.
What we need is a large, heavy, dense mass to plug the ... wait a minute ...
Oh, Limmy! Could you come over here a moment?
[I may just have stuffed cotton for a brain, but even I know this is just wrong...]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHUiCYAE2DY
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
thanks!
It's called the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it.
-George Carlin
Won't happen.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
A Nuke will cure a hurricane too.
Maybe we can set one off every time a hurricane threatens to spatter oil on the coast.
Europe will never notice it what with all the ash from the volcano and everything.
Nukes provide solutions,
Only when you use'm
Too bad we don't have the lasers like in the movies where perhaps we could bomb the rig, and then melt the ground back over the hole it produces, in effect cauterizing the opening.
And with either bombing or some futuristic Buck Rogers lasers, what kind of sea-life casualties are we looking at?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Frickin' sharks with lasers mounted on their heads!
The Republicans will brazenly shift the entirety of blame off BP/Halliburton to the US Government. If he takes control Obama owns the responsibility for any failures closing this well. Imagine if it can't be contained and is a total disaster. Sarah Palin will talk about Exxon and how the socialist-stlye big government was too slow to respond. And she knows, too. Because of Exxon. Drill, baby, drill. The longer Obama waits to militarize the operation the more the Republicans will claim negligence, akin to a Bush-style Katrina response as they're already saying right now.
Early on progressives should make it clear that ultimate responsibility for this mess resides in the private institutions who caused the explosion and resulting damage. As the other side has no shame and are ruthless liars it is obvious what they will try as a defense.
Limpburger looked around his radio studio and said something like: "The Democrat Party is blowing this out of proportion. The ocean is huge and will take care of itself. The oil spill is so small I can't see it. Do you see any oil?"
He's now being quoted by his echo chamber in the Government.
[I may just have stuffed cotton for a brain, but even I know this is just wrong...]
That in itself says they have no fricken clue as how to fix this.
Never mind a nook. Don't even consider that. It's an impossibility.
Way too many things to consider.
The fishing industry. The wave from a nook underwater. Yeah, similar to a tidal wave. Nook is not a reality. Blowing it up is ludicrous.
And the 75 mill cap is just as ludicrous.
This is a classic example of what happens without proper regulation.
Same with the coal mines.
And who was the dipshit who called for more deregulation? Yeah, that's a great idea.Isn't this enough proof?
What is your conceptual, continuity?
Send in the Washington Interns
They know how to handle leaking erections...
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Obama wil probly hire Halliburton to "blow it" for him?
...than the one who made it leak in the first place?
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
Does anyone know the proximity of the rig to any lava cavities or tectonic plate lines?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
plate lines...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kq2ueyWu34c
p.s. ...the rig was of the floating type..and now it is in close proximity to the ocean floor.
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
?
a German suit of armor plates.
(had to settle for British)
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
A Landsknecht could chop those knights up with ease. :p
Bite my shiny metal ass.
http://www.startalkradio.net/
"Bless me father for i have sinned. Those crimes that i committed, well, i did 'em again. Empty my soul to empower yours. Lead me blind down the path to salvation's doors."
language. "Tectonic" means structural as relates to the earth's crust.
What are you talking about?
Teutonic ;)
edit nvm :s
Bite my shiny metal ass.
http://www.startalkradio.net/
"Bless me father for i have sinned. Those crimes that i committed, well, i did 'em again. Empty my soul to empower yours. Lead me blind down the path to salvation's doors."
Actually German plate armour is what we're mostly familiar with. For most of the knighthood period they had to worry about the glancing blow of swords and flights of arrows, so they were gradually tightening the links of the chain mail, which was the extent of their armour along with helmets and perhaps bracelets. They also used leather and gradually some overlapping metallic miniplates (making them look a bit like armadillos), and balls
German plate armour only came out after the cannon was introduced to battlefields in the late 13th century, and lasted only a couple of hundred years. One has to remember that the cannons shot not balls but all kinds of smaller sharp objects, sometimes referred to as "cannon lances." They were still using the trebuchets and catapults as siege engines for attacking the forts, castles and city walls by slinging large stones.. And the cannons which were made by the casters of church bells, so they had the shape of their church bell molds, and more often then not blew up on the cannoneer, making the assignment basically a suicide one.
Essentially, the armour was broiling hot, heavy, and still couldn't quite withstand the force of gunpowder.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
The good ol' days huh?
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
What do the judges say?
Hasa Diga Eebowai
Teutonic plates vs. Tectonic plates ...
Sample Teutonic Plate
Sample Tectonic Plate
//was highly amused!
in my defense, "teutonic" is an archaic word from, probably the 19th century, at least. Milquetoast mentioned it first, and he probably simply misspelled it. So if I had a vote, it would be "no." Not a Godwin.
Just too oblique.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hIcKkKID8k
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
...or tectonic plate lines.."
oh yeah, I wonder if any of those boobs have even considered those senarios...
I don't know enough about it to be sure.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6u43OSxNXqE
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchang...
Bite my shiny metal ass.
http://www.startalkradio.net/
"Bless me father for i have sinned. Those crimes that i committed, well, i did 'em again. Empty my soul to empower yours. Lead me blind down the path to salvation's doors."
The well is not near any tectonic plate boundaries or magma chambers. Though I cannot comment on proximity to Teutonic features.
The casing is suspect as is the cementing job. The BOP is damaged and defective. The money spent drilling is a lost cause and yet a tiny fraction of what it will cost to clean up this mess. Mr Brownfield's arguments make little sense to me. I suppose one could use a symmetrical shaped charge to collapse the the pipe but if that failed it could make the problem exponentially worse. Bringing all possible expertise to bear on stopping the leak is sensible but the use of explosives was pulled directly out of his ass.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
I predict BP will siphon off enough oil with the current tap that it will give them time to drill a couple more tangent holes. These will intersect the original well and finally close it. It’s a guess, but this should take at least 6-10 weeks. I seriously doubt the risk of exploding the ocean floor 1 mile deep (conventional or not) is being considered. The operation is difficult enough on land.
The amount of oil and gas, by that time (1-2 months), should be enough to cause a near extinction event in the Gulf. The problem is the O2. It’s just a matter of time before the oil hits the currents. As has been reported, the oil is not resting at the surface. As it spreads beneath the waves, the Gulf has the potential to be one big dead zone. There is no known clean-up for this. This isn’t Alaska. The effect will last 25-60 years.
If it takes 6-10 weeks to close it out, this will likely result in less oil spilled than the IXTOC I blowout, over on the Mexican side of the GoM in 1979. That was not an extinction level event -- why do you expect this one to have a higher environmental impact?
The IXTOC I spill drifted directly to the Texas shoreline. This is closer to the Loop Currents. I’m not privy to the differences in the type of oil between the two, but there appears to be more methane on this site. Some reports have the methane output at 3000x the oil spill.
Worst case scenario would be one large dead zone under water.
Good point on the currents. The methane probably is not a serious environmental hazard in the immediate area -- what doesn't precipitate out as clathrates will dissipate quickly in the atmosphere. It's a serious greenhouse gas, but that's a global rather than local concern.
The plumes are an interesting phenomenon. The oil should rise to the surface. Something is affecting the density of either the water or the oil that’s keeping it suspended. It’s worrisome, and might have something to do with the methane. Of course it will all eventually be dispersed. How much plankton- kill happens by that time is the million dollar question.
that might even be true but it is irrelevant. The gas will do less ecological damage than the oil. The gas will dissipate much faster. Those plumes of oil are well down in the water column where biological activity is excruciatingly slow. I wouldn't be surprised if they hung around for centuries.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
.
You know what you doing.
move zig
for great justice
Bite my shiny metal ass.
http://www.startalkradio.net/
"Bless me father for i have sinned. Those crimes that i committed, well, i did 'em again. Empty my soul to empower yours. Lead me blind down the path to salvation's doors."
...was also only 164 feet beneath the surface, and it still took nearly ten months to seal off. This one is at a significantly lower depth -- a depth to which not even a modern submarine, never mind a diver, can descend without a major risk of lethal accident.
Never trust anyone who insists that patriotism requires you to blindfold yourself with the flag.
Hudson: Let's just bug out and call it even, OK? What are we talking about this for?
Ripley: I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Hudson: Fuckin' A...
Burke: Ho-ho-hold on, hold on one second. This installation has a substantial dollar value attached to it.
Ripley: They can *bill* me.
I was in the process of submitting a post referencing the very same line from Aliens. Seems very appropriate here............
It was the first thing I thought of when I read this:)
I am reminded of the final scene in War Games when the computer cycles through all scenarios to find a winning outcome to the thermal nuclear war game. All results ended in – Winner: None.
But it learned.
How many times must we cycle through these catastrophes before we learn? Our present course is not the answer. BP might have followed proper procedure when capping the well (use the damn Mud), and if they had, they probably would have averted this one. But this won’t be the last. And in the end, what do we have? More oil profits for BP - and less oil?
It’s time to start playing a new game.
There's going to be a nice tsunami. Get your surfboards doods! It's going to be a killer wave. \m/
Bite my shiny metal ass.
http://www.startalkradio.net/
"Bless me father for i have sinned. Those crimes that i committed, well, i did 'em again. Empty my soul to empower yours. Lead me blind down the path to salvation's doors."
that no one really knows what to do in this case? I do however know one thing.........FUCK the investment, and being able to drill again on the site. That shouldn't even be a consideration! Chances are this spill will bankrupt BP anyway.
Drill baby, drill! Hopefully this puts that nonsense on hold.
Too big to flail?
Comments are closed on this entry