I am sorry to report well is crippled down hole very long read

reply to post by switching yard

OPEC - would they really want such a damaging blow to the (already on it's knees) USA economy, the destablisiation of which is likely to simultaneously pose a massive threat to most of their other markets/economies as well?

Can't see that myself, surely they want all markets to retain/grow a strong demand for their oil? They may have a motive to deny USA access to alternative sources of oil, but not at the expense of the worldwide economic recovery and their shorter term USA demand as well?

Originally posted by nite owl
reply to post by SneakAPeek

 

What about the other leaks? What about the destabilization of the ocean floor, all that water has to go somewhere when the oil is out?

That's what I'm trying to figure out. I've not been able to find any pics or graphs that show the size and shape of the Tiber oil field or Macondo. From what I can calculate from the indication of the amount of oil in that reserve, it's still sketchy at best. If Tiber can produce 4 billion barrels of oil, it would somehow have to displace over 22 billion cubic feet of space. I don't know what we could visually associate 22 billion cubic feet to. It's hard for us to comprehend the immensity of the spill if we cannot associate it with a recognizable size. How big a cavern is required to hold 22 billion cubic feet of oil and gasses?
I've read in other threads that the cavern size is comparable to
Mt Everest (and as deep underwater as Everest is tall). So I cannot begin to imagine the consequence of billions of tons of water pushing down on a fragile seabed bearing the weight of Mt Everest atop a cavern filled with a slowly depressurizing fluid. So THAT, would be the size of the hole we could expect in the remote possibility of a sinkhole. Do we want to risk accelerating the sinkhole by nuking it? We can't say for sure, but I for one will not be standing on the gulf beach to find out.

Ι dont see a conspiracy here, simply because the "qui bono" question cant be answered in this situation, what we have here is human hubris that has gone really really wrong and could cost us our ecosystem and the future of our planet.

We (as humans) screwed up and have to pay the price. If we wouldnt have cars that need fuel, if we had plastic materials that arent made of petroleum, if we hadnt given up hemp as a supplier of fuel, as well as synthetics, we wouldn be in taht situation, everyone is guilty here (yes, me too)

Shouldnt they be drilling a third well for the nuclear option in case the
relief wells fail?

reply to post by OuttaTime


IF OP is onto something, then I think TPTB and some people with far greater minds and resources than me must be looking at a variety of outcomes and issues, of an almost unimaginable complexity and scale, and may well be running against a clock set by mother nature that won't wait for them to catch up and research the phenomena at the pace they are used to?

Hence, suspicion that they may publicly switch to emphasise preparation for evacuation or defence as opposed to current emphasis on attacking the phenomena?

reply to post by jeffrybinladen


You are speaking in cryptic messages... with undoubtedly 'insider' access...


(*which would be thrown off ATS not so long ago)

i will read your stuff... but don't expect for me to swallow your line of 'spin' without reflection...
good-day

Thank you JBL, so very much for your insight and your integrity. I wish all of humanity were as diligent and as intelligent as you, this planet and our species itself would have by now been far above top secret....

My impetous at this point is that the world's experts need to now insistantly converge, without invitation if need be, in the Gulf to support an all out effort to battle this pandora's box BP has opened for Mankind. Iran, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela... and any of you greys out there reading this thread.

Compassion for a sentient species existance, or loss of such there of, should be the main concern for every living, intelligent soul on this planet at this time.

The petty little anal retentive war in effect within the middle east needs to abruptly come to a GOD DAMN HALT, and America's troops sent home, to either help in this effort, of at least be with thier families as this event progresses, and ultimately matures into the extinction level event it promises to be.

WHAT IN THE HELL IS WRONG WITH OBAMA!? CONGRESS?!... THE SENATE?!...

End the circle jerk in the middle east, and bring America home...

Everyone here reading this should contact thier overlords, and TELL them to ACT NOW to bring American's home... Folks that have contacts with the military upper echelon in the middle east should forthright tell them the situation, and tell them to insubordinately end the war, and come home...

[edit on 13-6-2010 by Megiddodiddo]

Originally posted by coastalite

Originally posted by Cynic
The easiest way to cap it off would be to use heavy duty nuclear weapons and blow it shut! Just my opinion, let the flamers shoot me down in 3, 2, 1......[edit on 13-6-2010 by Cynic]

Atomic Bomb proposal for Gulf of Mexico blow out well a very bad idea for many reasons - by Geologist Chris Landau
www.opednews.com...

I read the article but I think he was jumping to conclusions without really knowing the topic. A conventional a-bomb works on fission, while an h-bomb works on fusion. Probably a big difference in that if they use a fusion bomb it will melt and fuse the surrounding hole shut rather than disperse earth and enlarge it!

Also he was assumming it would be detonated on the sea-floor, rather than a few thousand feet deep. That also makes a big difference! The sea floor cannot collapse if the well is 35,000 ft deep and they detonate nukes at various intervals.

If you think I am wrong, THEN PROVE IT, but don't come up with lame ass excuses as though we are 10 ten year old kids and expect everyone to swallow such BS!

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Thanks, that is what I was driving at. I said "heavy duty" nukes and fusion bombs detonated above the target would, IMHO, be a reasonable solution to the problem.

Turn the seabed into glass and forget about it for a while. It might even burn off some of the oil as an added bonus, instead of having the first seasonal hurricane whip it up and drop it in St. John's.

Just a thought.

[edit on 13-6-2010 by Cynic]

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Somewhere, some time back, a well informed sounding poster on another thread went overdrive about the generally unmentioned dangers of the qualities of the gases especially methane being both released by the gusher and contained/temporarily held in the seabed in this area...

My query is this, if a nuke - either kind went off, what could that trigger re: methane/hydrocarbons currently 'sleeping' in those cold and murky depths, at this specific site? Does anyone KNOW?

[edit:
Link to post - found it!

[edit on 13-6-2010 by curioustype]

Originally posted by curioustype
reply to post by OuttaTime

 

IF OP is onto something, then I think TPTB and some people with far greater minds and resources than me must be looking at a variety of outcomes and issues, of an almost unimaginable complexity and scale, and may well be running against a clock set by mother nature that won't wait for them to catch up and research the phenomena at the pace they are used to?

Hence, suspicion that they may publicly switch to emphasise preparation for evacuation or defence as opposed to current emphasis on attacking the phenomena?

It wouldn't surprise me if they were rushing their agenda. There is way too much chaos on this planet right now (all over the planet), and people are waking up on a grand scale. The elites have little choice now but to accelerate the grand plan. If they kept a slow pace, we would be able to slow it further, but this gulf mess is a runaway train with 2 engines. Speculation and 'what ifs' are rampant, and it is a natural process since they have given us little data to work with. That leads me to the conclusion that whatever they have planned is eminent, if not worse due to their miscalculations. That oil cavern may not empty for years as it is connected to migration channels from other oil fields. We would have little option after plugging up THIS hole, to consider closing off that migration channel.

Good, we must get the Amigos now! This an emergency like the Swine Flu, no worse, swine flu turned out be a HOAX of all HOAXES. We need to create a board of forums for this topic, NOW! This deserves our full attention.

reply to post by Whiffer Nippets

What about the other fissures? Shut one hole and won't it just then blow out at the other weak spots?

'' [...] If the sea floor does not collapse I am thinking a great area of it must be stabilized somehow.

But as I said - I don't understand much of this and even less of geology.

I suppose my point here is though - WHY aren't people looking for more creative and sane ways to fix this?

It seems to me they've just done a half assed job so far, don't know what they're doing, and thinking along too narrow of lines for solutions.[...] "


well there you go--- contain the gusher,
by cordoning off the Gulf waters from the Atlantic or Carribbean with a land-bridge from Florida-to-Cuba-to-the Yuccatan

reply to post by St Udio


"contain the gusher,
by cordoning off the Gulf waters from the Atlantic or Carribbean with a land-bridge from Florida-to-Cuba-to-the Yuccatan"

Sorry was that ironic? Even if technically possible to create such a structure, this would presumably interfere/kill the Gulf Stream, and I think it's generally acknowledged that if it were to fail, probably a deep ice-age would rapidly engulf most of the Northern Hemishpere....

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by coastalite

Originally posted by Cynic
The easiest way to cap it off would be to use heavy duty nuclear weapons and blow it shut! Just my opinion, let the flamers shoot me down in 3, 2, 1......[edit on 13-6-2010 by Cynic]

Atomic Bomb proposal for Gulf of Mexico blow out well a very bad idea for many reasons - by Geologist Chris Landau
www.opednews.com...

If you think I am wrong, THEN PROVE IT.

I personally think the nuke option is on the table as a very last resort - The Hail Mary. Throw the ball down the field and see what happens. Only problem is if they are waiting to see if the relief wells work (which I doubt they will), it might be too late by then to even consider using nukes. Furthermore, wasn't it that the Russians have only nuked wells shut on land? It has never before been tried under water, let alone DEEP water. A nuke might rupture the whole damned thing and unleash all 80 billion (pick a number as BP isn't saying) GALLONS of oil into the Gulf.

The solution the geologist in the article is arguing for is drilling 8 nearby wells into the same reservoir of oil in order to relieve enough pressure to be able to mud and cement the failed well. He claims intersecting relief wells will not work (pressure is too great).

Originally posted by curioustype
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

Somewhere, some time back, a well informed sounding poster on another thread went overdrive about the generally unmentioned dangers of the qualities of the gases especially methane being both released by the gusher and contained/temporarily held in the seabed in this area...

My query is this, if a nuke - either kind went off, what could that trigger re: methane/hydrocarbons currently 'sleeping' in those cold and murky depths, at this specific site? Does anyone KNOW?

[edit:
Link to post - found it!

[edit on 13-6-2010 by curioustype]

Lets get real here, ok? Crude oil posses a much more significant risk to the enviroment than methane or co2. With methane gas millions of fish will not die, except for fish in the immediate vicinity.

With 250,000 barrels of oil being dumped every day, the oil slick will eventually engulf the entire gulf of mexico and then the atlantic. If it keeps going for years, as some say, then all the oceans will die!

Do you see my point? It should be obvious! The worst that can happen if the nukes fail is a slightly larger diameter hole which will happen anyway even if nothing gets done about it due to oil pressure eroding the pipes and soil.

Its really a no brainer! Ok maybe a little radiation in that immediate vicinity. So what? Chernobyl suffered an entire melt down in the urkraine a few decades ago yet not so many people died as a result.

Sometimes you gotta take calculate risks because the alternatives are worse...in this case much worse! How many a-bombs and h-bombs have been dropped in nevada, utah, new mexico? How many people died as a result??? Not many!

50 miles of the coast and 5,000 feet deep means SMALL RISK!

Originally posted by Dynamitrios
Ι dont see a conspiracy here, simply because the "qui bono" question cant be answered in this situation, what we have here is human hubris that has gone really really wrong and could cost us our ecosystem and the future of our planet.

We (as humans) screwed up and have to pay the price. If we wouldnt have cars that need fuel, if we had plastic materials that arent made of petroleum, if we hadnt given up hemp as a supplier of fuel, as well as synthetics, we wouldn be in taht situation, everyone is guilty here (yes, me too)

Sounds logical to me. I think it was pure complacency on the behalf of a handful of corporations, banks, and govt 'officials'. But since they are all capitalists, I can see the motive as to WHY it is allowed to go on. Just like every other catastrophe, they will stall for time while they figure out how to optimize their profit from it. Humanity is an afterthought. Remember, Rahm Emanuel (Obamas top advisor) was quoted as saying 'Never let a good disaster go to waste".
We gotta step back from this for a minute and anylize our 'status quo'. We're killing our planet, and she's mad as hell and retaliating! Stop buying plastics and aluminum products. It's time we put the U and Unity back in commUnity. Stop the oil wars, bring our troops home, and seal off the borders. We need to have some protectionism for a while and take care of our own.
And while you're at it, watch Avatar too

They've already announced the nuke option is off the table. I don't think using a nuke is a good idea at all. A nuke would poison the gulf just as bad as anything. Also, I don't really see how you could reliably expect it to seal anything.

They need to apply a huge, heavy compress over the whole problem area as I've posted. The compress is something they could try and if it didn't work, no harm done.

Somebody's in a car crash and he's got blood gushing out of an artery or vein in his arm. An ambulance is on the way but not there yet, so what can you do? Apply pressure in the form of a compress over the wound. First Aid 101.

Why people don't see this is beyond me.

[edit on 13-6-2010 by switching yard]

Originally posted by RRokkyy
Shouldnt they be drilling a third well for the nuclear option in case the
relief wells fail?

Early on BP(doug suttles actually commented on this) & POTUS who must have been briefed decided against the nuclear option. With so many surface ships in the area around the MW area it would be impossible to move another rig into position, not to mention the time required drilling down to an appropriate depth. BP is also bringing in a Floating, Production Storage and Offloading (FPSO)vessel and a shuttle tanker, the Loch Rannoch, from its station off Shetland to the Gulf further complicating surface traffic due to Admiral Allens order that BP must collect and process more of the leaking oil.

edit; Keep in mind that until Dr. Chu showed up with the xray equipment needed to test the BOP BP had no clue as to it's structural integrity. Otherwise they would have performed a topkill/junkshot long ago. In fact the evidence coming to light now is a direct result of that failed operation.





[edit on 13-6-2010 by jeffrybinladen]

reply to post by coastalite


I didn't say that I favor the idea, but sitting and waiting and trying to develop new ideas when obviously they are fresh out (or never had any to begin with) is just foolish.

Is it risky? Yes.

Is waiting and engaging in further rounds of navel-gazing engendering a false sense of security? Yes.

If it collapses and releases all the oil, I'd say we're pretty much hooped.

If waiting, only to have it collapse and release all the oil, I'd say we're pretty much hooped.

Only the former, if successful, offers a firm chance of working out. The latter simply postpones the inevitable.

Will that be 100 or 200 kiloton?