Nuke Experts Deployed To Oil Spill
in [Physics]
|
From: HVAC on 16 May 2010 13:47 "Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpealmtje(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hsp6i0$s60$1(a)news.albasani.net... > > The questions remain how much a radiactive pollutes ocean would contribute > to the tourist industry in Florida. > For the next thousand years. It would make night boating far safer. I think we should nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
From: Brian Wraith on 16 May 2010 13:48 On 5/16/2010 10:47 AM, HVAC wrote: > "Jan Panteltje"<pNaonStpealmtje(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:hsp6i0$s60$1(a)news.albasani.net... >> >> The questions remain how much a radiactive pollutes ocean would contribute >> to the tourist industry in Florida. >> For the next thousand years. > > > It would make night boating far safer. > > I think we should nuke the entire site from orbit. > It's the only way to be sure. > > Great idea, as long as you are the one that does battle with the alien.
From: Brad Guth on 16 May 2010 15:09 On May 16, 10:22 am, Brian Wraith <brianwra...(a)newzealand.invalid> wrote: > On 5/16/2010 9:24 AM, Brad Guth wrote: > > > > > On May 16, 8:48 am, Brian Wraith<brianwra...(a)newzealand.invalid> > > wrote: > >> On 5/16/2010 8:13 AM, Brad Guth wrote: > > >>> On May 16, 5:50 am, HVAC<mr.h...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/7726.... > > >>>> And you all thought *I* was crazy...... > > >>> A good nuke bunker-buster might actually fuse it shut. However, > >>> nuking BP corporate would be a whole lot better long-term solution of > >>> preventing future blowouts. > > >>> A serious bunker-busting bomb load of Browns Gas could also be > >>> utilized to cause an implosion that could shut things down. At any > >>> rate, that 5 MT application would at least get their dysfunctional > >>> blow-off valve stack out of the way, so that a million tonne ball of > >>> solid iron could then be sued as a stopper. > > >>> Perhaps all of our existing spent nuclear fuel could be made into a > >>> very high density kind of plug, so that once their defective wellhead > >>> stack is nuked out of the way, the spent uranium plug of perhaps > >>> 100,000 tonnes would be deployed, as to seal off that hasty hole. > >>> There might still be some leakage, but at least not more than a few > >>> barrels per day, that a larger funnel could then safely manage. > > >>> ~ BG > > >> The best use of high explosives would be to bury large shaped charges in > >> a perimeter around the actual drill shaft, detonating them to create an > >> implosion type effect, hoping to seal off the shaft by compressing the > >> surrounding earth. > > >> This would be analogous to "pinching off an IV tube". > > >> One could use shaped nuclear warheads, but it would seem like overkill > >> considering the capabilities of some of the newer energetic materials > >> available. > > >> Using nuclear weapons in such a way would present the administration > >> with enormous political consequences, especially if it were to fail or > >> make matters worse. > > > You could be right, about causing a lithosphere implosion with shaped > > charges, pinching off that steel and cement reinforced hole so that > > little if any oily sulfur and the other ten fold more volumes of raw > > natural gas stops leaking out. Perhaps targeting with a surround of > > 10 each 1 MT bunker-busting bombs or rather torpedoes might either do > > the trick or fracture everything wide open. > > I am not sure if you have a concept of just how large of an explosion is > caused by a 1 MT TND, let alone 10 of them. This would be total > overkill, not to mention political suicide for the messiah. > > > > > However, as plan-B using our spent reactor fuel as made into a very > > large stopper, might not be such a bad idea. It could be coated on > > the bottom with a meter thick layer of something heavy and sticky, or > > simply having that special blowout prevention mud/cement pumped into > > pores that'll seal off the underside until that pocket of oily sulfur > > and gas is depleted by the second well, whereas then this same > > humongous stopper could be re-utilized for the next BP blowout that > > apparently can't be prevented. > > Why bother making a stopper out of DU?? That makes no sense. It would > make more sense to make a stopper out of lead, however, at one mile > below the surface, it is pretty damn difficult to do much of anything. > > The containment dome, properly equipped with heaters, agitators and > methanol dilution systems to prevent clogging by hydrates, is a really > great idea. Unfortunately, the politicians forced the engineers to > deploy the dome before they were able to build it properly. I'm sure that BP always has the best of belated intentions. Perhaps that's why they're being so defensive and otherwise nasty to their investors and to those families having paid the ultimate price for the greater good of their BP (offshore protected) corporate profits. At least I'm sure the Rothschilds and their Queen are each very proud that everything is going so well. ~ BG
From: Brad Guth on 16 May 2010 15:12 On May 16, 9:29 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On a sunny day (Sun, 16 May 2010 08:13:13 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Brad Guth > <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote in > <388b4fc9-d45a-46bf-beb6-cbf3add99...(a)k17g2000pro.googlegroups.com>: > > > > >On May 16, 5:50 am, HVAC <mr.h...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/7726.... > > >> And you all thought *I* was crazy...... > > >A good nuke bunker-buster might actually fuse it shut. However, > >nuking BP corporate would be a whole lot better long-term solution of > >preventing future blowouts. > > >A serious bunker-busting bomb load of Browns Gas could also be > >utilized to cause an implosion that could shut things down. At any > >rate, that 5 MT application would at least get their dysfunctional > >blow-off valve stack out of the way, so that a million tonne ball of > >solid iron could then be sued as a stopper. > > >Perhaps all of our existing spent nuclear fuel could be made into a > >very high density kind of plug, so that once their defective wellhead > >stack is nuked out of the way, the spent uranium plug of perhaps > >100,000 tonnes would be deployed, as to seal off that hasty hole. > >There might still be some leakage, but at least not more than a few > >barrels per day, that a larger funnel could then safely manage. > > > ~ BG > > The questions remain how much a radiactive pollutes ocean would contribute > to the tourist industry in Florida. > For the next thousand years. It's pretty much a forever dead zone anyway, because this isn't the last Gulf area blowout or spill. Remember, there's also Mexico that isn't always tight and clean. ~ BG
From: Brian Wraith on 16 May 2010 15:39
On 5/16/2010 12:09 PM, Brad Guth wrote: > On May 16, 10:22 am, Brian Wraith<brianwra...(a)newzealand.invalid> > wrote: >> On 5/16/2010 9:24 AM, Brad Guth wrote: >> >> >> >>> On May 16, 8:48 am, Brian Wraith<brianwra...(a)newzealand.invalid> >>> wrote: >>>> On 5/16/2010 8:13 AM, Brad Guth wrote: >> >>>>> On May 16, 5:50 am, HVAC<mr.h...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/7726... >> >>>>>> And you all thought *I* was crazy...... >> >>>>> A good nuke bunker-buster might actually fuse it shut. However, >>>>> nuking BP corporate would be a whole lot better long-term solution of >>>>> preventing future blowouts. >> >>>>> A serious bunker-busting bomb load of Browns Gas could also be >>>>> utilized to cause an implosion that could shut things down. At any >>>>> rate, that 5 MT application would at least get their dysfunctional >>>>> blow-off valve stack out of the way, so that a million tonne ball of >>>>> solid iron could then be sued as a stopper. >> >>>>> Perhaps all of our existing spent nuclear fuel could be made into a >>>>> very high density kind of plug, so that once their defective wellhead >>>>> stack is nuked out of the way, the spent uranium plug of perhaps >>>>> 100,000 tonnes would be deployed, as to seal off that hasty hole. >>>>> There might still be some leakage, but at least not more than a few >>>>> barrels per day, that a larger funnel could then safely manage. >> >>>>> ~ BG >> >>>> The best use of high explosives would be to bury large shaped charges in >>>> a perimeter around the actual drill shaft, detonating them to create an >>>> implosion type effect, hoping to seal off the shaft by compressing the >>>> surrounding earth. >> >>>> This would be analogous to "pinching off an IV tube". >> >>>> One could use shaped nuclear warheads, but it would seem like overkill >>>> considering the capabilities of some of the newer energetic materials >>>> available. >> >>>> Using nuclear weapons in such a way would present the administration >>>> with enormous political consequences, especially if it were to fail or >>>> make matters worse. >> >>> You could be right, about causing a lithosphere implosion with shaped >>> charges, pinching off that steel and cement reinforced hole so that >>> little if any oily sulfur and the other ten fold more volumes of raw >>> natural gas stops leaking out. Perhaps targeting with a surround of >>> 10 each 1 MT bunker-busting bombs or rather torpedoes might either do >>> the trick or fracture everything wide open. >> >> I am not sure if you have a concept of just how large of an explosion is >> caused by a 1 MT TND, let alone 10 of them. This would be total >> overkill, not to mention political suicide for the messiah. >> >> >> >>> However, as plan-B using our spent reactor fuel as made into a very >>> large stopper, might not be such a bad idea. It could be coated on >>> the bottom with a meter thick layer of something heavy and sticky, or >>> simply having that special blowout prevention mud/cement pumped into >>> pores that'll seal off the underside until that pocket of oily sulfur >>> and gas is depleted by the second well, whereas then this same >>> humongous stopper could be re-utilized for the next BP blowout that >>> apparently can't be prevented. >> >> Why bother making a stopper out of DU?? That makes no sense. It would >> make more sense to make a stopper out of lead, however, at one mile >> below the surface, it is pretty damn difficult to do much of anything. >> >> The containment dome, properly equipped with heaters, agitators and >> methanol dilution systems to prevent clogging by hydrates, is a really >> great idea. Unfortunately, the politicians forced the engineers to >> deploy the dome before they were able to build it properly. > > I'm sure that BP always has the best of belated intentions. Perhaps > that's why they're being so defensive and otherwise nasty to their > investors and to those families having paid the ultimate price for the > greater good of their BP (offshore protected) corporate profits. At > least I'm sure the Rothschilds and their Queen are each very proud > that everything is going so well. As you completely ignored all of the technical comments I made in my previous post and gone off on a tangent. I guess we are done. |