Matthew Simmons: RW will fail; Nuclear device; Oil "LAKE"; 125,000 bbl/day

it just keeps getting worse by the day

The other reason you cant use a nuke,,,


[edit on 16-6-2010 by grom0007]

If, for the sake of argument, we were going to use a nuke to seal this thing off, I have a feeling we would not know about it unless and until it was done and succeeded. If it was done and failed, we'd never know about it. It's too risky politically to say openly beforehand that this is going to be done. It just sounds too crazy to too many people (and may well be - I haven't the technical knowledge to make that judgment, myself). I would not be at all surprised if we are drilling down right now to place a nuke alongside the well. Maybe if we see a little tremor taking place on the USGS earthquake maps we'll know that it's been tried.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
Both good answers. Thanks so much. Betting against the Oil Industries future or trying to protect its future. Is it not odd how two such diverse idea's can both lead to massive wealth. Sad really.

When I first heard the nuclear idea I thought it was insane. Now, knowing it has been done before, I'm not so sure it is a bad idea.

No way will Obama order it though. His voting base is to far to the Left to ever allow such a thing, even if it would save the Gulf. It just won't happen. I'd bet his Administration never even looks at it as an option.

This is from a barron's report. He knows it's going to zero.

"Simmons has a 4,000-share short sale on BP that he picked up when the stock hit $37. That’s in addition to a prior 4,000-share short sale he made at $48 a couple weeks prior. “It’s going to zero,” he says of BP stock. Simmons is not working actively with the firm he founded, and the firm recently upgraded BP to “Outperform.” Simmons & Co. does not have a position in BP shares, long or short."



[edit on 16-6-2010 by doublehelix]

Originally posted by Blaine91555
Help me out here. Simmons is an Investment Banker that caters to companies in the energy field. Any statement he would make would be to benefit his bottom line. He is not an expert in Oil Field Operations by any stretch of the imagination.

The conspiracy here would be why is making a statement at all? How will it benefit him? There must be a way his statements benefit him and his company?

If he goes negative as far as the Oil Industry it would seem to follow it would harm him financially. Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Did he suddenly find Jesus?

[edit on 6/15/2010 by Blaine91555]

He was introduced as an oil industry veteran of over 30 years...


And he seemed to understand how oil wells typically blow... He seems rather credible to me.

reply to post by grom0007


See grom this seems to contradict the fact that the Russians have used nukes in the past to solve this very thing....




[edit on 16-6-2010 by HunkaHunka]

If it was decided that the Oil Well was to be nuked, they'd have to get the nuke from some where.
And who ever supplys that Nuke would then be responsible for setting it off and the number of possible out-comes that may result in the detonation.

The question is, who ever does that in the event that the Well was nuked, can they live with the consequence's?

What if the Nuke superheated the suspected build up of Methane gas and what ever else may be down there?

It could multiply the strength of the exploshion and who knows what the outcome of that would be...

Maybe the blame would be shifted from B.P?

Who-ever's making the decisions, really has their work cut out.

Star + Flag.

reply to post by Blaine91555


Even if what your saying about toxicty is true, the fact is that nearly 2 decades later the areas affected by the Gulf war spill are still suffering as are the areas where other oil spills have occured , years and years later. All the info on ongoing problems is on the net if you look.

Plus if the area of the reservoir imploded for some reason (numerous possible causes have been discussed all over the threads) that's a massive hole in the sea bed and this is likely to set of a chain reaction of events in an area miles around it,......? The area the well is in is called the LOWER TERTIARY TREND....there are umpteen reservoirs all over the place there with the estimated total oil volume at 15 billion barrels. There are also volcanoes and a fault line in the area....I checked it all out yesterday and started a thread on it here

I've read all sorts of posts all over the net and alot of the ones posted by people with some science background all seem to be aware that this COULD get as catastrophic as some of the speculation suggests. It's not a given but it's definately possible

Originally posted by Blaine91555
Help me out here. Simmons is an Investment Banker that caters to companies in the energy field. Any statement he would make would be to benefit his bottom line. He is not an expert in Oil Field Operations by any stretch of the imagination.

The conspiracy here would be why is making a statement at all? How will it benefit him? There must be a way his statements benefit him and his company?

If he goes negative as far as the Oil Industry it would seem to follow it would harm him financially. Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Did he suddenly find Jesus?

[edit on 6/15/2010 by Blaine91555]

Personally I think they might have accepted that doing nothing will hurt them more than plugging it up. They might be waking up and realizing they are not in controll andthat is freaking them out so there pulling out the last straws.

Even to consider a nuke on such a uninformed oil leak shows there is more to this than they are stating. I think they also see dooms day.

Originally posted by grom0007
it just keeps getting worse by the day

The other reason you cant use a nuke,,,

[edit on 16-6-2010 by grom0007]

That video just said at the very first of it

"IT WILL NOT EXPLODE IN WATER --- ONLY IN THE AIR"

Therefore your reasoning is moot. Because it is all way underwater.

Originally posted by april1
like i said in another thread. the most stupid thing will be to put a nuke on that.

if you consider the already disrupted seabed and possible volcanoes beneath it, it becomes clear why. a nuke there will lead to a huge explosion & catastrophe. it will pump out all oil, gas, water+vapor, volcanoe-stuff at once. i dont need to mention the effects of a radiated + contaminated gulf stream by plutonium and stuff, do i?

nuke the well = end of america

only solutions are sucking and cleaning up for ages id say.

[edit on 15-6-2010 by april1]

[edit on 15-6-2010 by april1]

Uhh, you're wrong. Huge explosion? Yeah nukes do that but it's not like the oil is going to explode as well. It's not like we'd have to throw a Tsar Bomba down there to get the job done. 1 megaton might do it, but no one on this forum really knows.

I agree they definitely wouldn't tell the public. The word nuke alone would probably get people really riled up. Plus if it didn't work, even if it didn't make the situation any worse, people would be upset for really no justifiable reason. Fox would probably make it out to be a huge deal, spin it so to get the public furious with Obama.

[edit on 16-6-2010 by ghaleon12]

Originally posted by Blaine91555

Yesterday I found out there are many who actually think this oil is in a giant underground cavern and the roof may collapse. Should I take them seriously if they can't even look up the basics?

[edit on 6/15/2010 by Blaine91555]

I think it is probably more like a sponge, and the oil is found within the porous cavities.

I am just guessing at this because I actually do not know.

reply to post by muzzleflash


From what I understand it's a giant channel which was tapped...

There's enough down there for a long time....

Usually that is the case. The petroleum is trapped in the porous spaces.

However, underground lakes are possible.

I can't find any geological stuff about this section of the Gulf that would indicate what they were drilling through. The "ceiling" of such an underground "lake" under the sea would need to be pretty damn dense.

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by Blaine91555

Yesterday I found out there are many who actually think this oil is in a giant underground cavern and the roof may collapse. Should I take them seriously if they can't even look up the basics?

[edit on 6/15/2010 by Blaine91555]

I think it is probably more like a sponge, and the oil is found within the porous cavities.

I am just guessing at this because I actually do not know.

Usually

Originally posted by doublehelix
Simmons is not working actively with the firm he founded

They've released a letter distancing themselves from his statements. There's a lot of fluff in the letter but the summary of it can be seen in the quote below.

Several of the recent statements on the part of Mr. Simmons relating to the Macondo blowout and the implications for the industry and the individual companies involved in this incident are discordant with the views of Simmons & Company International.

...

While our respective views, historically, have often been in harmony, over the past year they have significantly diverged on some important fronts.

www.simmonsco-intl.com...

Please guys be aware that Matt Simmons is absolutely clueless about the subject, he's a banker for crying out loud. Good God he estimated the pressures at 40,000 to 50,000 psi. If it was that high it would have been blowing out before a well was ever there. BP report says they controlled it w/ 14#/gallon mud, this equates to around 13,000 psi.

The rate of escape using Darcy's equation for fluid flow through porous media and and some educated guesses result in an estimate of between 20,000 and 40,000 bopd.

For those of you that think the oceans going to sink, chill out. Oil comes from the tiny spaces between sand grains, not a big cavern. The only place that there ahs been subsidence from hydrocarbon production was in Longbeach and it wasn't a big deal. I think it was with much higher pressure gradients also that 14#/gallon mud, closer to 18#/gallon, where the pore pressure was supporting the overburden.

Ok, someone needs to rebuttal here.

Some say a nuke will cause more damage than good. I say nay!

Natural gas is a far more volatile substance.

Just a thought...

The RW are designed to EASE the flow from the broken well.....!?!

Maybe the 2 RW's are being drilled in such a way that a low yield tatical nuke could be used in an obliqyue angle fashion to slide the rock below the seabed..

Maybe this has been mentioned before.... if so sorry..
Regards

PurpleDog UK

reply to post by Gold_Bug


Dude relax the rate of flow is limited by Darcy's equation for fluid flow through porous media. The relief wells will handle it although later than anyone is happy with. The casing is still there and is not necessary for the bottom kill anyway.

As far as Nukes, I've worked in the oilfields in Russia as a petroleum engineer. I can assure you their level of technology is not something we want to emulate. Remember Chernobyl, the oil field is not much better.

And for God's sake please do not pay any attention to that idiot Simmons, he's a banker for Christ's sake and doesn't have any clue what he is talking about.

reply to post by Morpheas


I think it would be a good idea.

they can control the yield of nukes. all they need is just enough explosive power to crush it shut.

were talking about just a few tons of TNT of nuke power, not a Megaton war head like a hydrogen bomb. something thats like 1/8th of what the USA used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[edit on 6/16/2010 by ugie1028]