New DH Solution Proposed: Use of Nuclear Explosion to Block the Leaking Oil Well

[Veli Albert Kallio]

 
Energy expert: Nuking oil leak ‘only thing we can do’
 

By Daniel Tencer
Saturday, May 29th, 2010 -- 7:18 pm

 
 
BP 'totally in charge of the news' about oil leak, energy expert says
 
As the latest effort to plug the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico meets with failure, the idea of nuking the immediate area to seal the oil underground is gaining steam among some energy experts and researchers.
 
One prominent energy expert known for predicting the oil price spike of 2008 says sending a small nuclear bomb down the leaking well is "probably the only thing we can do" to stop the leak.
 
Matt Simmons, founder of energy investment bank Simmons & Company, also says that there is evidence of a second oil leak about five to seven miles from the initial leak that BP has focused on fixing. That second leak, he says, is so large that the initial one is "minor" in comparison.
 
Simmons spoke to Bloomberg News on Friday, before BP announced that its latest effort to plug the leak, known as the "top kill" method, had failed.

 

"A week ago Sunday the first research vessel ... was commissioned by NOAA to scour the area," he said. They found "a gigantic plume" growing about five to seven miles from the site of the original leak, Simmons said.
 
Simmons said the US government should immediately take the effort to plug the leak out of the hands of BP and put the military in charge.
 
"Probably the only thing we can do is create a weapons system and send it down 18,000 feet and detonate it, hopefully encasing the oil," he said.
 
His idea echoes that of a Russian newspaper that earlier this month suggested the US detonate a small nuclear bomb to seal the oil beneath the sea. Komsomoloskaya Pravda argued in an editorial that Russia had successfully used nuclear weapons to seal oil spills on five occasions in the past.
 
Live Science reports:

 
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. That required drilling holes to place the nuclear device close to the target wells.
 
A first test in the fall of 1966 proved successful in sealing up an underground gas well in southern Uzbekistan, and so the Russians used nukes four more times for capping runaway wells.

 
Simmons also told Bloomberg that the idea to use radical measures like a nuclear bomb to seal the leak is probably not being contemplated by decision-makers "because BP is still totally in charge of the news and they have everyone focused on the top kill."
Asked by a Bloomberg reporter about the risks involved in setting off a nuclear bomb off the coast of Louisiana, Simmons argued that a nuclear explosion deep inside a well bore would have little effect on surrounding areas.
 
"If you're 18,000 feet under the sea bed, it basically wont do anything [on the surface]," he said.
 
Joe Wiesenthal at Business Insider says the idea of using nukes will be getting a lot of attention now that the "top kill" procedure has failed.

Next, the so-called "nuclear option" is about to get a lot of attention. In this case, of course, nuclear option is not a euphemism. It's the real idea that the best way to kill this thing is to stick a small nuke in there and bury the well under rubble. ... By the middle of the coming week, it will be all over cable news, as pundits press The White House hard on whether it's being considered and why not.

 
 
http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0529/energy-expert-nuke-oil-leak/
 
 
 

---

Get a free e-mail account with Hotmail. Sign-up now.

[Alvia Gaskill]

Simmons, who was an advisor to George W. Bush is an alarmist and is wrong about the second leak.  There is no evidence of a second front in this war.  A nuclear or even conventional weapon could fracture the formation and create multiple conduits to the surface that could never be sealed off by drilling relief wells or any other means. 

 

His call for the government to take over the effort has been echoed by former Clinton Labor Sec'y Robert Reich who argued today that the 1990 Oil Pollution Act gives the government the statutory authority to seize companies in a time of an emergency like this and order them to do things, rather than passively stand beside them at news briefings as was the case until recently. 

 

Reich and others have also recommended that the U.S. Army or other elements of the military become involved either because of their sheer numbers or management experience.  The Administration has said this would be counterproductive as the Coast Guard is best equipped to handle the remediation and the military personnel, either regular active duty or National Guard would require training.  You mean like the fishermen hired by BP as haz mat workers?  The Gulf coast states also don't want to pay for any of this and thus, you probably won't see any soldiers or sailors mopping up oil.  Disgraceful.

 

I am also still offended by retired Admiral Allen's continued reference to BP's actions as "we did this" or "we did that," especially in view of the fact that Pres. Obama dispatched Atty. General Holder to the Gulf to determine if BP's actions were criminal in nature.  Does Allen think "we" are criminals? 

 

The cap on the riser pipe is supposed to be in place later today, so we will see if this will reduce the flow.  As of this afternoon, from videos of the riser pipe, the oil flow was substantially greater than before, how much is unknown.  In hydraulics, Bernouilli's Principle predicts that until a pipe is more than 75% obstructed, the flow rate will remain unchanged.  This is the reason why one can have a 50% or greater blockage in a coronary artery and be asymptomatic unless the vessel is required to increase the flow rate as in the case of exercise during a treadmill test, for example.  That the oil/gas mixture is now blasting out even more rapidly than before indicates that the bend in the pipe was slowing it somewhat.

 

Energy Sec'y Chu (remember him?) is supposed to have assembled some 200 scientists to work on solutions to the well sealing and the cleanup, but I haven't seen or heard from him or anyone else that is working on this.  Various other organizations continue to compile solutions and attempt to communicate them to BP or its U.S. "partner," but all have said they are being ignored.  If this were Apollo 13 as some have suggested is the appropriate analogy, the astronauts would have long ago died from asphyxiation.  The end won't be so quick or painless for the residents of the Gulf coast I am afraid.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Climate Intervention" group.
To post to this group, send email to climatein...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to climateinterven...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/climateintervention?hl=en.

[Johnnie Buttram]

Dear Group;

Alvia Gaskill has taken the time to dot the (eyes) and cross the T's
when he stated

that in hydraulics, Bernouilli's Principle predicts that until a pipe
is more than 75%

obstructed, the flow rate will remain relatively unchanged.


May 2, 2010 and May 7, 2010, I sent to the Geoengineering blog and May
9,

2010, I sent to the Climate Intervention blog a solution (including
machine design)

to use hydraulic power to collaspe the casing pipe to rectify the
devastating

dilemma in the Gulf of Mexico.


Hopefully, this machine and a 24/7/365 rapid response team will
someday be

embraced by the Feds and off-shore drilling, before fuel reaches $5
dollars a

gallon and we financially implode upon ourselves.


I will say once again, that I appreciate that Alvia Gaskill will burn
the midnight

oil to shed light on situations that many of us take for granted.


Johnnie Buttram

On Jun 3, 2:53 pm, "Alvia Gaskill" <agask...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
> Simmons, who was an advisor to George W. Bush is an alarmist and is wrong about the second leak.  There is no evidence of a second front in this war.  A nuclear or even conventional weapon could fracture the formation and create multiple conduits to the surface that could never be sealed off by drilling relief wells or any other means.  
>
> His call for the government to take over the effort has been echoed by former Clinton Labor Sec'y Robert Reich who argued today that the 1990 Oil Pollution Act gives the government the statutory authority to seize companies in a time of an emergency like this and order them to do things, rather than passively stand beside them at news briefings as was the case until recently.  
>
> Reich and others have also recommended that the U.S. Army or other elements of the military become involved either because of their sheer numbers or management experience.  The Administration has said this would be counterproductive as the Coast Guard is best equipped to handle the remediation and the military personnel, either regular active duty or National Guard would require training.  You mean like the fishermen hired by BP as haz mat workers?  The Gulf coast states also don't want to pay for any of this and thus, you probably won't see any soldiers or sailors mopping up oil.  Disgraceful.
>
> I am also still offended by retired Admiral Allen's continued reference to BP's actions as "we did this" or "we did that," especially in view of the fact that Pres. Obama dispatched Atty. General Holder to the Gulf to determine if BP's actions were criminal in nature.  Does Allen think "we" are criminals?  
>
> The cap on the riser pipe is supposed to be in place later today, so we will see if this will reduce the flow.  As of this afternoon, from videos of the riser pipe, the oil flow was substantially greater than before, how much is unknown.  In hydraulics, Bernouilli's Principle predicts that until a pipe is more than 75% obstructed, the flow rate will remain unchanged.  This is the reason why one can have a 50% or greater blockage in a coronary artery and be asymptomatic unless the vessel is required to increase the flow rate as in the case of exercise during a treadmill test, for example.  That the oil/gas mixture is now blasting out even more rapidly than before indicates that the bend in the pipe was slowing it somewhat.
>
> Energy Sec'y Chu (remember him?) is supposed to have assembled some 200 scientists to work on solutions to the well sealing and the cleanup, but I haven't seen or heard from him or anyone else that is working on this.  Various other organizations continue to compile solutions and attempt to communicate them to BP or its U.S. "partner," but all have said they are being ignored.  If this were Apollo 13 as some have suggested is the appropriate analogy, the astronauts would have long ago died from asphyxiation.  The end won't be so quick or painless for the residents of the Gulf coast I am afraid.
>
>
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Veli Albert Kallio
>   To: Climateintervention FIPC
>   Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 2:40
>   Subject: [clim] New DH Solution Proposed: Use of Nuclear Explosion to Block the Leaking Oil Well
>
>   Energy expert: Nuking oil leak ‘only thing we can do’
>
>   By Daniel Tencer
>   Saturday, May 29th, 2010 -- 7:18 pm
>

>   BP 'totally in charge of the news' about oil leak, energy expert says
>
>   As the latest effort to plug the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico meets with failure, the idea of nuking the immediate area to seal the oil underground is gaining steam among some energy experts and researchers.
>
>   One prominent energy expert known for predicting the oil price spike of 2008 says sending a small nuclear bomb down the leaking well is "probably the only thing we can do" to stop the leak.
>
>   Matt Simmons, founder of energy investment bank Simmons & Company, also says that there is evidence of a second oil leak about five to seven miles from the initial leak that BP has focused on fixing. That second leak, he says, is so large that the initial one is "minor" in comparison.
>
>   Simmons spoke to Bloomberg News on Friday, before BP announced that its latest effort to plug the leak, known as the "top kill" method, had failed.
>
>   "A week ago Sunday the first research vessel ... was commissioned by NOAA to scour the area," he said. They found "a gigantic plume" growing about five to seven miles from the site of the original leak, Simmons said.
>
>   Simmons said the US government should immediately take the effort to plug the leak out of the hands of BP and put the military in charge.
>
>   "Probably the only thing we can do is create a weapons system and send it down 18,000 feet and detonate it, hopefully encasing the oil," he said.
>
>   His idea echoes that of a Russian newspaper that earlier this month suggested the US detonate a small nuclear bomb to seal the oil beneath the sea. Komsomoloskaya Pravda argued in an editorial that Russia had successfully used nuclear weapons to seal oil spills on five occasions in the past.
>
>   Live Science reports:
>
>     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. That required drilling holes to place the nuclear device close to the target wells.
>
>     A first test in the fall of 1966 proved successful in sealing up an underground gas well in southern Uzbekistan, and so the Russians used nukes four more times for capping runaway wells.
>
>   Simmons also told Bloomberg that the idea to use radical measures like a nuclear bomb to seal the leak is probably not being contemplated by decision-makers "because BP is still totally in charge of the news and they have everyone focused on the top kill."
>   Asked by a Bloomberg reporter about the risks involved in setting off a nuclear bomb off the coast of Louisiana, Simmons argued that a nuclear explosion deep inside a well bore would have little effect on surrounding areas.
>
>   "If you're 18,000 feet under the sea bed, it basically wont do anything [on the surface]," he said.
>
>   Joe Wiesenthal at Business Insider says the idea of using nukes will be getting a lot of attention now that the "top kill" procedure has failed.
>
>     Next, the so-called "nuclear option" is about to get a lot of attention. In this case, of course, nuclear option is not a euphemism. It's the real idea that the best way to kill this thing is to stick a small nuke in there and bury the well under rubble. ... By the middle of the coming week, it will be all over cable news, as pundits press The White House hard on whether it's being considered and why not.
>
>  http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0529/energy-expert-nuke-oil-leak/
>

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­---

>   Get a free e-mail account with Hotmail. Sign-up now.
>
>   --
>   You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Climate Intervention" group.
>   To post to this group, send email to climatein...@googlegroups.com.
>   To unsubscribe from this group, send email to climateinterven...@googlegroups.com.

>   For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/climateintervention?hl=en.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -