26
   

The Gulf Oil Spill in a Nutshell

 
 
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Mon 31 May, 2010 07:06 pm
@High Seas,
Neither approval by this Administration nor our readiness to use such a device in time is remotely likely.
High Seas
 
  0  
Reply Mon 31 May, 2010 07:17 pm
@georgeob1,
I thought as much. Concern for marine life - and down the line human life as well - isn't this administration's strongest suit.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 May, 2010 07:23 pm
@High Seas,
I never meant to imply they might lower it on a cable and manage to miss. Just not sure they can set one off 100% of the time.
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 May, 2010 07:56 pm
@roger,
This discussion is purely theoretical, as George just pointed out. A fizzle wouldn't hurt anything btw, there's got to be replacements wherever the first one came from. It may be we (not to mention dolphins, whales, other innocent victims) will have to test our tolerance limits. It is said that London only got a sewer system after centuries of dumping everything into the Thames when a stationary pool of excreta formed just outside the Houses of Parliament, causing what was graphically named "The Big Stink". Hurricane season is upon us, the Gulf currents are running strong - maybe if the goop hits Palm Beach we'll see action. But having the nuclear option out there places the responsibility squarely where it belongs - inaction by the admin will be seen for the cowardice that it is. Eventually - maybe a historian among us can tell us how long The Big Stink lasted? It sure got prompt, effective reaction.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Mon 31 May, 2010 08:05 pm
It has not been proven that a nuclear bomb can stop an oil leak. It has never been done before. The Russians stopped a few gas leaks that way (they drilled and then placed the explosive), but they also failed. The failure rate for a gas leak was set at 20%. Oil is gushing out with much more force than gas. There is no proof it can work.
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 May, 2010 08:09 pm
@edgarblythe,
True, we don't know if it will work.

Your 20% number is misleading though (the way I read it), although true. There was 1 failure out of 5 attempts.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 May, 2010 08:11 pm
@maporsche,
One failure could lead to mostly failures or mostly successes. And nobody on the planet really knows which in advance.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 May, 2010 09:57 pm
@djjd62,
Quote:
i have a hard time taking things seriously, but i'll try
You stay just the way you are, you wuvable lill rougue, you ! I get your humuor, and it has been a source of mirth.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 May, 2010 10:03 pm
@littlek,
Nuclear bombs have been constructed to survive damage in plane crashes, failed missile launchers, etc so if we are to trust a weapon I would trust a nuclear one There is a narrowing gap between the size of the largest conventional explosion and the smallest nuclear explosion which may mean a conventional explosion does not seal the hole but open it more.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 May, 2010 10:09 pm
@hamburgboy,
Quote:
which government official/politician would become the fall-guy if it
" backfires " - so to speak ?
The President has already annouced he is taking full responsibility for it. This is political speak for clearly it is not my fault but I dont want to be seen as dodging responsiblity by arguing...now you have nowhere to go with it.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 May, 2010 10:13 pm
@High Seas,
Quote:
Theater commanders in wartime do have considerable latitude with nuclear ammo (used by 205mm guns),
That project was abandoned in the 50's. It was 280 mm from memory.
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 May, 2010 10:14 pm
@roger,
Quote:
Just not sure they can set one off 100% of the time.
They are VERY reliable.
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jun, 2010 12:56 am
@Ionus,
Right, I was thinking of DU. My mistake. I think the Russians still have some, or had until recently, and they do have some odd calibers. No matter, it's irrelevant to the thread. What I find most puzzling on this thread is the irrational fear of nuclear power used in any form. "Risky"? Compared to what?
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jun, 2010 03:39 am
@High Seas,
The communists did such a good job of infiltrating the "peace " acivists and dregs of our society that we still have the legacy. They argued the neutron bomb was immoral because it didnt destroy buildings so its deployment was cancelled and we were left with bombs that DID destroy buildings. The greenies have repeatedly argued that radiation bad, non-radiation good. I hate to tell them what they are bathing in when they are in the sunshine.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Tue 1 Jun, 2010 04:37 am
The only person on the thread firmly against a bomb is me, so far as I can tell. It is not based in irrational fear, for I would readily agree to it, if I saw a decent chance of success. Saying, "Bomb the sucker; case closed" sounds way too simplistic to me. Since it is obvious the powers that be don't want to use it, it is easy to claim they lack the grapes, but to me it is common sense to perfect such a technique in controlled experiments before going after one of the biggest leaks in history with nothing substantive to go on.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jun, 2010 04:42 am
When I used the word 'risky' I referred to the potential to create an even bigger hole to gush oil.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jun, 2010 06:54 am
@edgarblythe,
Edgar, I too am not in favor of a bomb. I think the folks here are being way to blithe about it. Ah, yes, just lower a nuke over the spew and let loose. hmm. They offer that the Russians have had some success with GAS wells on LAND. Very nice for the Russians but it little or nothing in common with the Deepwater situation which is in deep water.
What is the thinking behind thinking that blowing a bigger hole in the sea floor will close a smaller one?

The relief wells that are being drilled at this moment have a much better chance of succeeding.
Suck up as much surface oil as you can.
Track the big undersea globs.
Get as many booms as can be manufactured shipped and in the water as quickly as possible.

And I'd say try that multi-outlet containment box that was in the video above.

Bomb? No.
Joe(there are no simple solutions to complex problems.)Nation
dadpad
 
  2  
Reply Tue 1 Jun, 2010 06:56 am
BP are starting to lokk a lot like Wylie E Coyote.

i see a package marked Acme pipe closer in their future
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jun, 2010 06:58 am
@edgarblythe,
Quote:
but to me it is common sense to perfect such a technique in controlled experiments
Caution is always wise, but the reason the USA signed the test treaty ban was because computer modelling plus all the real information they have from tests means all they have to test is the trggers and containment explosions, which they can do quite easily without the big bang.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jun, 2010 07:00 am
@Joe Nation,
Quote:
Track the big undersea globs.
You mean the ones BP denies any knowledge of ? Who put them in charge.
Quote:
Bomb? No.
Most oil fires are extinguished with explosives.
 

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 08/12/2022 at 08:39:34