The Gulf Oil Spill in a Nutshell

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...

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.

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?

(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.

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

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

YEEHAW

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...

"drill baby, drill"

what a crock of **** this is turning out to be.

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.

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!

i believe there's one thing we can all agree on

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:

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 >

> 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.

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:

italics added http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2010/05/more-on-the-scale-of-the-gulf-spill/56583/

and the rockets red glare
the bombs bursting in air

beautiful, brings a tear to my eye

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

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

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

Why does the bomb need to be nuclear?

Haven't noticed BP or the administration mentioning bombs.

biggest bang for the buck