26
   

The Gulf Oil Spill in a Nutshell

 
 
Ionus
 
  2  
Reply Sun 30 May, 2010 07:31 am
@High Seas,
The US has signed a test treaty ban; I dont know how that applies here, but turning the sea bottom into glass is not something the oil companies would want.

The US certainly has small and low yield weapons that would be suitable. I think the greenies would have a hissing fit....but after 3 years like the Russian example they might be willing to agree...

Quote:
No radioactivity above background levels was detected in subsequent surveys of any of the sites.
Background radiation is ALWAYS over stated by greenies...it really annoys them that it isnt more or that the number of genetic deformities caused by radiation are so low.

It is an interesting solution...well done for raising the point.
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 May, 2010 08:56 am
This whole thing sickens me.
- For one thing, it seems that BP made it a priority to find a way to recover the oil before it tried to stop the leak. It is true that I don't fully understand the methods they've used and have had at their disposal.
-Also, why does the Admin feel that BP can't do two things at once: stop the leak AND clean up the already drifting oil?
-Is there a lack of booming and clean up material? Are the reports that the materials are in the gulf area but not being deployed true?
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 May, 2010 01:51 pm
@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:

The US has signed a test treaty ban;.....The US certainly has small and low yield weapons that would be suitable.
It is an interesting solution...well done for raising the point.
(italics added)
Thanks. The catastrophe at surface level - dolphins, whales, tuna - is already so massive that I don't even want to waste the time to point out to the "greenies" (96% of them former "leftists", the rest of them just clueless idiots) that all that's left to do is the nuclear option. Nothing else will work.
0 Replies
 
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 May, 2010 02:04 pm
@Ionus,
hell, i bet you could get more miles to the gallon with petrol made from radioactive oil, i say bomb the gulf, then on to the middle east
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 May, 2010 03:50 pm
Here's a question: has there ever been a test of any nuclear device at a depth of 5,000 feet of ocean?

Oh yeah, and don't forget you're going to have to drill a hole for the device to be placed in.

Joe(boom)Nation
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 May, 2010 03:51 pm
@Joe Nation,
http://www.majorlycool.com/media/1/20080104-slim-pickens-rides-the-bomb-in.jpg

YEEHAW
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 May, 2010 06:14 pm
@Joe Nation,
Quote:
Here's a question: has there ever been a test of any nuclear device at a depth of 5,000 feet of ocean?
They had nuclear depth charges in the early heady days of the Cold War, but that is 158 times the pressure at sea level.
It is easy technology, and I dont think you would need to drill a hole.

If BP have to pay, how much is a thermo-nuclear device ? Just a small one, to go...
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 May, 2010 06:27 pm
"drill baby, drill"

what a crock of **** this is turning out to be.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  2  
Reply Sun 30 May, 2010 06:57 pm
@littlek,
I suspect the decision to use surfactants on the accumulating oil was based on the assumption that they would be quickly successful in closing the well. That turned out to be a bad assumption, and now we are stuck with no good options for mitigating the mess.

The surfactants preclude the compact accumulation of dense petroleum at the surface. and therefore eliminate the possibility of skimming large quantiites of oil on the surface into tankers where it could be accumulated, separated from the water and actually used. Now we have a well that's likely to remain open for some time and a greatly reduced potential for skimming up a large fraction of it on the surface.

I watched to an hour or so of the BP drilling engineer's testimony on TV. He appeared to have been rehearsed by the lawyers and was very cagey in his answers. However, the impression he left was that this deep well wasn't any different from an ordiunary one in shallower water (a remarkable assumption). I was very struck by his almost casual responses to questions pointing out that if the inserted cement didn't set properly there was no backup way to prevent the gas intrusion that actually occurred, killing 11 men and creating this disaster. He carefully evaded giving a clear answer to the obvious question why, given that risk, they proceeded without final confirmation that the cement has set properly, instead he obsfucatied by referring to "other possibilities".

BP has invested a great deal of money in reimaging themselves as a "Green Company", "beyond petroleum" ..... my ass.
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 May, 2010 07:43 am
@Ionus,
That's correct - underwater nuclear explosions go back a long time. E.g. WIGWAM (long-declassified, since it took place in 1955) tested a device at 2,000 ft in waters approximately 500 miles SW of San Diego. Ocean depth at that location is 16,000 ft. There have been many other underwater tests. It's my understanding that Russia has disclosed details of their related tests as well, though I'm not sure what may still be classified and in any event we're talking here about a purely civilian app. The late professor Teller ("father" of the US thermonuclear weapon) was a great believer in PNEs (peaceful nuclear explosions), though admittedly the late Dr Sakharov ("father" of the Soviet thermonuclear designs) thought Teller was nuts. Since those days however new designs have appeared, including miniature Teller-Ulam designs like the neutron bomb or the X-ray laser powered by a mini thermonuclear explosion. It seems to me that just by ablation ("blowing-off" a very thin surface layer of the ocean bottom) that BP gusher would be sealed for good. There's nothing classified about ablation - it's a very clearly understood process. Anybody has a better idea, don't keep it to yourself!
0 Replies
 
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 May, 2010 07:55 am
i believe there's one thing we can all agree on
http://www.buffalorising.com/assets_c/2009/08/Nuke%20A%20Gay%20Whale%20For%20Christ%20Button%20(0114)-thumb-505xauto-5348.jpg
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 May, 2010 08:08 am
@georgeob1,
You may remember I've done a lot of work in potential methane-to-methanol floating plants located in the Gulf of Mexico, as it's impractical to pipe the gas to shore. The geological composition of the ocean bottom is extremely well known and fairly uniform throughout the Gulf, though I'm not sure about the location of the specific BP well. Anyway, after doing some research on the ablation option I discovered others thought about it before me - always maddening when that happens, but in the interest of full disclosure here's an article from the Christian Science Monitor, May 13:
Quote:
Weapons labs in the former Soviet Union developed special nukes for use to help pinch off the gas wells. They believed that the force from a nuclear explosion could squeeze shut any hole within 82 to 164 feet (25 to 50 meters), depending on the explosion's power.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2010/0513/Why-don-t-we-just-drop-a-nuclear-bomb-on-the-Gulf-oil-spill

And it's likely that a mile underwater the pressure would be enough to proceed directly without digging another well. I think people who don't know better get spooked at the thought of something like this >
http://www.csmonitor.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/media/images/0513-nuclear-bomb-oil-spill/7886233-1-eng-US/0513-nuclear-bomb-oil-spill_full_380.jpg
> when something far different and less harmful is being proposed. I hope this disaster won't have to continue for years before calmer thoughts prevail.
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 May, 2010 08:36 am
@littlek,
littlek wrote:
-Also, why does the Admin feel that BP can't do two things at once: stop the leak AND clean up the already drifting oil?

If stopping the leak is the issue, and if ablation really is the only solution, that's easy to answer (see above). Cleaning up by using dispersants only displaces the visible horror on the beaches to the entire column of water - which keeps moving with ocean currents, destroying all marine life for years to come:
Quote:
One thing I think needs to be added to it, however, is the concept of volume rather than two-dimensional overlays. Imagine that the spill not only lay on the ground in those locations, but drifted from ground level to 5000 feet in altitude--killing and sickening wildlife wherever the oil was encountered. Then we begin, I think, to grasp some of the horror of what is happening. Most of it is where we can't even see it right now.

italics added http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2010/05/more-on-the-scale-of-the-gulf-spill/56583/
0 Replies
 
djjd62
 
  2  
Reply Mon 31 May, 2010 08:38 am
@High Seas,
High Seas wrote:
I think people who don't know better get spooked at the thought of something like this >
http://www.csmonitor.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/media/images/0513-nuclear-bomb-oil-spill/7886233-1-eng-US/0513-nuclear-bomb-oil-spill_full_380.jpg


and the rockets red glare
the bombs bursting in air


beautiful, brings a tear to my eye
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 May, 2010 08:43 am
i love the fact that BP hates this Twitter account

http://twitter.com/BPGlobalPR

some recent tweets

I've gotta say, at night the gulf really doesn't look that bad. #bpcares

Listen, we were just drilling into the Earth's crust a mile beneath the ocean with shoddy off switches. Don't blame us! #bpcares

We are very upset that Operation: Top Kill has failed. We are running out of cool names for these things.

KFC now offering the Top Kill sandwich! Bacon. Cheese. Mud. Sandwiched between two oily chicken slabs served on a plate of shame #bpcares
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 May, 2010 08:49 am
@djjd62,
I looked up this post and was reminded why this terminal idiot is on perpetual ignore - too stupid to even read captions to linked pictures, he doesn't know that this was a French test, on the Muroroa atoll in the South Pacific. See if you can read these lyrics of the French national anthem http://www.marseillaise.org/english/francais.html
Quote:

Français, pour nous, ah! quel outrage
Quels transports il doit exciter?
C'est nous qu'on ose méditer
De rendre à l'antique esclavage!
Quoi ces cohortes étrangères!
Feraient la loi dans nos foyers!

Quoi! ces phalanges mercenaires
Terrasseraient nos fils guerriers!

SmileSmileSmile
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 May, 2010 08:54 am
@High Seas,
not that interested in where the test was, i was moved by the image

believe it or not, i'm not your enemy, i don't always like your posts, but more often then not i agree with you, and the idea of a nuclear option doesn't bother me if they thought it would work

littlek
 
  2  
Reply Mon 31 May, 2010 08:56 am
Why does the bomb need to be nuclear?
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 May, 2010 08:57 am
Haven't noticed BP or the administration mentioning bombs.
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 May, 2010 08:59 am
@littlek,
biggest bang for the buck
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/21/2022 at 12:17:37