Sheriff Calls in ICE in Wake of Oil Spill

[Nina~ 431]

Yes, it has been used in deepwater wells. It takes more bang for those. Surface wells have been turned off with relatively small charges of dynamite. Red Adair was doing it for years before he died. Too bad we don't have him around anymore, eh?

The rest of your post is excuses for Obama's lack of...anything. It is not a $2 idea, it is well known. Oil companies are not allowed to pack around MOABs, sorry. It will HAVE to be the government that does this. They know about it, it has been briefed to them. The Russians did it 40+ years ago, then found out nukes weren't even needed.

It will eventually be used to stop the well. Nothing else will work, Obama knows it, BP knows it and now you know it.

Funny how before I was just the guy getting signals from outer space and now you squirm to make excuses.

What would be wrong with the government using one of their bombs to shut down the oil well? Maybe just try it, eh? What harm will it do?

I am not giving any excuses for anybody or any corporation. But it would be nice if you rubbed your 2 brain cells together and realize that if things were just so simple,the well would have been nuked and plugged ages ago. You need to realize that engineering is not an exact science.. There are a lot of variables like ocean current, wind, wave, tide, ocean temperature, seabed profile, formation pressure, etc need to be taken into consideration before making any decision. What works in Russia will not necessarly work in GOM. If it did, I am sure it would have been done a long time ago.

If you are truly a liberatrian that you claim to be, you would be barking up BP's tree making sure that they clean up their own mess instead of the government butting in.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I am not giving any excuses for anybody or any corporation. But it would be nice if you rubbed your 2 brain cells together and realize that if things were just so simple,the well would have been nuked and plugged ages ago. You need to realize that engineering is not an exact science.. There are a lot of variables like ocean current, wind, wave, tide, ocean temperature, seabed profile, formation pressure, etc need to be taken into consideration before making any decision. What works in Russia will not necessarly work in GOM. If it did, I am sure it would have been done a long time ago.

If you are truly a liberatrian that you claim to be, you would be barking up BP's tree making sure that they clean up their own mess instead of the government butting in.

I am an engineer.

BP should reimburse the government for the bomb. They will.

Why are you so sure it would have been done by now...you know, from an engineering standpoint?

[Nina~ 431]

I am an engineer.

BP should reimburse the government for the bomb. They will.

Why are you so sure it would have been done by now...you know, from an engineering standpoint?

So am I

[^_^ 5,021]

you're a ballerina!

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I am not giving any excuses for anybody or any corporation. But it would be nice if you rubbed your 2 brain cells together and realize that if things were just so simple,the well would have been nuked and plugged ages ago. You need to realize that engineering is not an exact science.. There are a lot of variables like ocean current, wind, wave, tide, ocean temperature, seabed profile, formation pressure, etc need to be taken into consideration before making any decision. What works in Russia will not necessarly work in GOM. If it did, I am sure it would have been done a long time ago.

If you are truly a liberatrian that you claim to be, you would be barking up BP's tree making sure that they clean up their own mess instead of the government butting in.

You are a hoot! A pathetic hoot to be sure, but a hoot nonetheless. Your first post referred to me receiving signals from outer space, then excuses...now more excuses (which you know nothing about) You reallyhave no clue about which you speak do you? At least not this topic.

But I agree with you, in general, that the government should not "butt in", this is your third post suggesting that...I AGREE, OK? Obama should not have shut down all other oil drilling...I AGREE with you. Obama should not try to impose new tax and regulations on the oil business...I AGREE with you. But that is not the issue.

When the acts of any company, government, private individual or any other entity threaten the borders and coasts of our country THAT is when it IS the Federal government's responsibility to step in. If you study anything about libertarianism, you would learn that in chapter ONE.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

So am I

Engineers give solutions. You give nebulous excuses using words you do not understand. Now you ran out of excuses.

[ScottThuy 140]

The Russians have done it in undersea operations on 13 ocassions, for what they refer to as "petrocatastrophy", it worked on the first try all but once. One leak required two blasts andt they even considered using a nuclear weapon, but it wasn't necessary. It is also a known technique for shutting off a gusher on land. The only ones with a bomb powerful enough is the government and that will be the technique eventually used to turn it off. AFTER Obama gets his tax passed.

When I was in my congressmans office two weeks ago we were discussing this very thing.. he noted that it had worked at least a half dozen times in the soviet Union... he described the effect as creating a layer like glass on top of the oil since the heat would turn the sand to a glasslike substance from the heat involved.....

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

So am I

If you could even spell "engineer" you would never have said the things you did or asked the questions you did, you wouldn't have needed the posts to support what I say (which is why I don't give links, you are a perfect example. People that KNOW don't need them. Deniers will deny in any case. Why should I waste my time?)

Nor would an engineer suggest another person was receiving signals from outer space for suggesting a massive, induced, localized seismic event could turn off a well bore. Of course it can.

In non-engineer speak, (so you will understand)this is a small hole drilled in the earth from which a liquid pressurized by a gas is flowing at a rapid pace. They cannot put a cap on it, no more than you can put a cap on a 1/2" water pipe flowing at normal house water pressure. They need to close the hole. That is all. Detonate a really large bomb over the hole, directed by a container that guides the charge into the precise area and you will cause a serious, massive seismic event localized to that area. The well bore will be collapsed on itself and the oil will be as contained as it was before the hole was drilled.

The method has been used (explosives) so many times to provide precise destruction of objects, above and below ground, above and under water, that to question it is really bizarre. You mean to tell me you think they can drop Texas Stadium in a parking lot with a few well placed charges and they can't close off a 20" hole in the ground? Be serious. Really, be serious.

[^_^ 5,021]

Wow, her telling you she's an engineer has really set you off, huh?

I wonder why.

[ScottThuy 140]

I would think that BP would have been on board for blowing it from day 1 of the accident.. they have lost 80 million in oil not to think of the loss in share value and the 20 B they agreed to yesterday...

An explosion down below would have been the best bet all around...

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

When I was in my congressmans office two weeks ago we were discussing this very thing.. he noted that it had worked at least a half dozen times in the soviet Union... he described the effect as creating a layer like glass on top of the oil since the heat would turn the sand to a glasslike substance from the heat involved.....

A nuclear blast would do that, but a nuclear blast (or any huge shock wave) really converts the surrounding material into a kind of plastic like substance that can be molded and shaped, or is subject to being changed in shape. A nuclear blast also generates enough heat to turn sand to glass (for Nina...glass is made by heating sand, simple explanation) Anyone who has witnessed an undergroud nuclear test could never argue a 20" hole would survive. Not possible. The entire earth changes shape and rolls around like jello. When the blast passes, what is left is a pretty homogenous blob of earth. Imagine a bucket full of thick mud. Insert a pipe and pull it out...you know have a well bore. Now shake the mud in a paint shaker (a very mild slow motion explosion) and what happens to the hole? Bye bye hole. A massive explosion can and does do the same thing with rock.

Understand now, Nina?

One could argue whether it is the change of consistency that results in the hole being closed or the resulting heat formed "glass plug" but really...who cares? It works.

The nuclear idea may be floated, but later tests showed nuclear blasts were not needed. "Too much gun" so to speak. But let's face it, we were all testing underground nukes at the time and it was an excuse for the Russians to kill two birds with one stone. So to peak. A nuclear blast one mile deep in the ocean would have no bad affects on the environment of any lasting measure. The oil spill is far worse (nuclear fuel rods are stored in water, for example) This is why no one worried when nuclear submarines sunk in deep water. No harm done.

I would think that BP would have been on board for blowing it from day 1 of the accident.. they have lost 80 million in oil not to think of the loss in share value and the 20 B they agreed to yesterday...

An explosion down below would have been the best bet all around...

And where will they get the bomb?

Wow, her telling you she's an engineer has really set you off, huh?

I wonder why.

Not at all. Have you anything further to say on the subject or are you here to critique people that contribute?

[^_^ 5,021]

Not at all.

[ScottThuy 140]

Our military has plenty that would do the trick...

yes we did specifically talk about a nuclear blast.. he indicated that russia had used nukes on oil wells in the past... did they not?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Our military has plenty that would do the trick...

yes we did specifically talk about a nuclear blast.. he indicated that russia had used nukes on oil wells in the past... did they not?

Yes, they certainly did and they worked perfectly. Of course we have bombs, even nukes. Lots of them. But the Commander in Chief has to give the order.

Oh, where for art thou, Obama?

Thanks, you answered the question.

[^_^ 5,021]

Much of the enthusiasm for an atomic approach is based on reports that the Soviet Union succeeded in using nuclear blasts to seal off gas wells. Milo D. Nordyke, in a 2000 technical paper for the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, Calif., described five Soviet blasts from 1966 to 1981.

All but the last blast were successful. The 1966 explosion put out a gas well fire that had raged uncontrolled for three years. But the last blast of the series, Mr. Nordyke wrote, “did not seal the well,” perhaps because the nuclear engineers had poor geological data on the exact location of the borehole.

Robert S. Norris, author of “Racing for the Bomb” and an atomic historian, noted that all the Soviet blasts were on land and never involved oil.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/03/us/03nuke.html?pagewanted=print