Skip to comments.
Matthew Simmons on CNBC: Only way to stop the gusher is a "small nuke"
CNBC "Fast Money"
Posted on 06/01/2010 2:20:58 PM PDT by drangundsturm
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-102 next last
Imagine the impact on tourism and fishing even if it is "relatively safe."
To: drangundsturm
Imagine the impact on tourism and fishing if the well isn’t shut off.
2
posted on
06/01/2010 2:22:18 PM PDT
by
thefactor
(yes, as a matter of fact, i DID only read the excerpt)
To: drangundsturm
Haha. Lets go with a plan lifted straight from the movie Armageddon.
SnakeDoc
3
posted on
06/01/2010 2:22:45 PM PDT
by
SnakeDoctor
("Shut it down" ... 00:00:03 ... 00:00:02 ... 00:00:01 ... 00:00:00.)
To: drangundsturm
I can imagine Iran also saying - we need nukes for our oil and gas industry also!
4
posted on
06/01/2010 2:22:59 PM PDT
by
PGR88
To: drangundsturm
This is stupid. A nuke would contaminate the oil still in the reservoir for tens of thousands of years.
To: thefactor
Well yes that thought crossed my mind, seems we’re damned either way.
I forgot to mention, Simmons also said BP should be kicked out of the operation and it should be handed over to the US Military. He said the big equipment manufacturers (Schlumberger, Haliburton) are the ones with all the know-how anyway and they would prefer to work for the military than BP.
To: drangundsturm
" explosion would occur 20,000 feet from the surface" Huh? Which surface? It's only in 5000 feet of water.
7
posted on
06/01/2010 2:25:07 PM PDT
by
avacado
To: Paleo Conservative
Imagine exploding a nuke, for any reason on Obama’s watch...ironic?
To: PGR88
We can tell Iran that we would be glad to nuke any of their oil wells anytime they need it done.
To: drangundsturm
What about setting up another platform and drilling a new welland suck out of that one at a higher pressure than the hole that is leaking? Too simple?
10
posted on
06/01/2010 2:25:41 PM PDT
by
deadrock
(Liberty is a bitch that needs to be bedded on a mattress of cadavers.)
To: thefactor
Imagine the impact on tourism and fishing if the well isnt shut off.Imagine the impact on tourism and fishing if the nuke fractures a major reservoir and spews billions of gallons of oil instead of the flow that currently exists. Imagine instead of one leak at the sea floor, hundreds. Imagine letting the engineers that know what they are doing alone so they can work without idiots wanting to nuke the gulf.
/johnny
To: drangundsturm
I have read that the reason a nuke may not work on this leak is that the seabed is very fragmented.
12
posted on
06/01/2010 2:27:09 PM PDT
by
DCPatriot
("It aint what you don't know that kills you. It's what you know that aint so" Theodore Sturgeon))
To: Paleo Conservative
This is stupid. A nuke would contaminate the oil still in the reservoir for tens of thousands of years.True but do you think the US Government is ever again going to let anybody drill there anyway? At least not in our lifetimes.
We should be drilling on land and coastal waters not out in the middle of the ocean anyway.
To: drangundsturm
A sea floor blast is actually worse than an atmospheric blast as far as contamination is concerned. Most of the areas used for above ground testing in Nevada are safe from radiation today. They set off an ocean floor test on Bikini Atoll in 1946. And the area is still "hot" and the plant and animal life on the island are still contaminated. So go ahead and do this only if you can guarantee that none of the fish shrimp or crabs that swim through the contaminated area in the next 60 years will stray into areas where they can get caught. Or if they know how to clean it up go clean up Bikini as a proof of concept.
14
posted on
06/01/2010 2:27:17 PM PDT
by
GonzoGOP
(There are millions of paranoid people in the world and they are all out to get me.)
To: OregonTide
The only other president that used nukes for effect was a democrat.
/johnny
To: Paleo Conservative
"This is stupid. A nuke would contaminate the oil still in the reservoir for tens of thousands of years." Probably not. The oil is still thousands (tens-of-thousands) of feet beneath where the well head is. The small nuke would theoretically collapse the well onto istelf, sealing the hole, but still a LONG ways from the oil itself.
And, here's a picture of downtown Hiroshima today. Just saying...
To: drangundsturm

-PJ
17
posted on
06/01/2010 2:28:25 PM PDT
by
Political Junkie Too
("Comprehensive" reform bills only end up as incomprehensible messes.)
To: DEADROCK
That’s the plan. But it will take until August to complete. I think the nuke idea will soon look better than watching the wellhead spew for another two months.
To: DEADROCK
"What about setting up another platform and drilling a new welland suck out of that one at a higher pressure than the hole that is leaking? Too simple?" That's precisely what the Relief Wells are that they're talking about...only problem is it's going to take about two months to get the equipment in place and operational to drill them.
19
posted on
06/01/2010 2:29:13 PM PDT
by
Joe 6-pack
(Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
To: drangundsturm
It just might come down to nuking the oil well. But sadly only after 2 more months of gushing and pollution and ruination. Nuking will only be done if the relief wells fail or work half assed
20
posted on
06/01/2010 2:29:49 PM PDT
by
dennisw
(History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid - Gen Eisenhower)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-102 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson