Nuking Oil Well Gains Popular Support
Check out article and # 45.
[Thanks, Larousse2.]
Posted on 05/31/2010 11:05:19 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
I think we should bring in the guy who designed my upstairs toilet. That thing clogs up at every possible opportunity.
Have him attach my toilet to the top of the exposed pipe, and then try to flush down three squares of toilet paper. That bad boy will seize right up.
Yep, if my toilet can’t get this gusher clogged, nothing can... :)
Fletcher J
If it was a surface well ....yes.
Me thinks this nuke option is NOT gong to happen...
yep ....a whole lot of lying goin on.
Think your chili might be effective? ;-)
(Follow-Up) BP’s dispersant Corexit is harmful & dangerous: READ THE LABEL
I doubt it too. First off another bore has to be drilled and that couldn't happen any faster than the two relief wells being drilled. Then there's all the superstition/neurosis about nukes society has been inculcated with ...
Thank you. I get lucky at least once a decade. ;^)
And if there's going to be a chile cook off I want in on that too.
Yep, yet another potential side-effect-disaster. Or maybe it would just open up a quarter mile wide channel for leakage rather than the thirty inch bore we have now.
Sorry, why?
Nuking Oil Well Gains Popular Support
Check out article and # 45.
[Thanks, Larousse2.]
It would be placed 3 miles down. Small yield.
What was the "yield" of the initial explosion that opened the nearby fissures that are currently leaking? What certainty do you have that it won't widen the fissures that are currently leaking and not getting any attention at all? Has there been a professional geological assessment of the current conditions?
The first reason is it wouldn’t close the well bore unless it were far below the sea floor. The second reason is they wouldn’t want to ignite a gigantic volume of oil and gas.
“OTOH, the gulf is DONE as far as fishing and tourism, “
What do you base that on? Facts?
Like Prince William sound? Someone should tell the fisherman there.. and all the wildlife that is there now.
Just like the crowd that said Mt. St. Helen would cause the area to be a waste land. Life is thriving there now, and in amounts growing every day.
Or the same crowd who said Chernobyl would “sterilize” that part of Russia. It hasn’t. Again, just read or watch all the documentaries about the increase in wildlife that has already come back (in droves).. some like wolves and deer are there in numbers not seen even on the land when it was just previous Russian normal territory.
Eco systems know only one thing... grow and colonize every speck of available space! That is nature and it will always find a way.
So again, why your statement that “the gulf DONE as far as fishing and tourism goes?”
Please cite PROOF for your statement.
Based on what facts?
Incorrect. Sakhalin test was above ground, French test also above ground (atoll), many of our tests also above ground.
The dispersant kill the microbes. The oil is messy, the Corexit is the real killer.
Cite your proof that it’s not. :)
One thing for sure, it is severely damaged from the Corexit. This is spawning season the lobster and many fish. The GOM is one of 2 places that Blue Fin Tuna spawn. There in no way this will not affect the spawn. Are you aware of the number of dead sea life found so far? Have you been out there and checked out some of the deep reefs that are usually teeming with fish?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.