Nuke Experts Deployed To Oil Spill
in [Physics]
|
From: bert on 16 May 2010 18:12 On May 16, 5:11 pm, "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, ComandanteBanana and Chief of Quixotic Enterprises" <nolionnoprob...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 16, 3:12 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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 > > That's why the maquiladoras settled down there, right? > > But the stream will bring the filth to Florida and other states.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Asked BP to call me. It will take three steps to stop the leak. Have not heard from New Orleans reality is they have their phones in New orleans blocked. I get BP in Texas and Illinois. 3 million gallons every day makes the Valdas a drop in the bucket. This begs the question will BP give free gas to all American for the damage they have caused? Or will Obama give BP stimulus money? TreBert
From: Brad Guth on 16 May 2010 19:02 On May 16, 9:35 am, "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, ComandanteBanana and Chief of Quixotic Enterprises" <nolionnoprob...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 16, 12:26 pm, "HVAC" <mr.h...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, ComandanteBanana and Chief of QuixoticEnterprises" <nolionnoprob...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > >news:e6c08a4a-00a3-4af4-bbba-13bfc590660d(a)v37g2000vbv.googlegroups.com.... > > This oil spill sounds like the worst sticky black blot in the dark > > history of the human race... > > > Get a grip dude. > > > I'm sure in the past many oil spills have occurred naturally. > > >http://www.livescience.com/environment/090520-natural-oil-seeps.html > > I heard of volcanoes erupting naturally, but not oil bursting out of > the place where they have been lying for 300 million years. There has always been lithosphere oil leakage (such as heavy oil/tar sands that used to be safely capped just below a relatively thin layer of topsoil, though not actually per se leaking), at perhaps no greater than 0.1% of what BP and other hydrocarbon extractors, transporters and processors combined manage to leak, spill, burn off or directly consume and subsequently pollute on site. If we include those raw natural gas volumes, its more like mother nature has been venting at most .01% (1/10000) as much as we accomplish artificially via drilling platforms, wellhead leakage, mine ventings and of course those bulk volumes of consumption that converts most of it into CO2, NOx plus contributing a number of rather nasty toxic elements that have no business escaping because, as far as we know theres no global environmental or biodiversity impact that isnt purely negative. Once weve extracted and vented a few trillion tonnes worth of our unrenewable hydrocarbons, and towards the end of our global reserves (conceivably 300 some odd years from now) consuming 90% in order to extract and deliver 10%, whereas its not going to be easy for anyone below the upper middle caste to survive without involving wars and various other forms of treachery and debauchery, unless renewable forms of clean energy become wide spread and well developed. The lower 90% caste of Earth will just have to fight among themselves because, itll be impossible for those without to fight other than to their deaths against those of us having the most strategic energy reserves and the most at risk thats well defended. Of course for the moment theres always a dozen or more active volcanoes that we know of, plus hundreds if not thousands of significant geothermal vents contributing (mostly water vapor plus sulphur, sodium and a number of less appreciated gasses and elements) as transferred into our surface and atmospheric environment, but thats an ongoing form of environmental trauma of exactly what offers us our natural give and take balance that all of Earths biodiversity needs in order to survive and evolve, that which hasnt changed significantly for the worse unless youd care to go way back before the last ice-age this planet w/moon is ever going to see. So, in 300 some odd years, what else besides a global deficiency of hydrocarbons is taking us to hell in a hand-basket? ~ BG
From: Brad Guth on 16 May 2010 20:59 On May 16, 3:12 pm, bert <herbertglazie...(a)msn.com> wrote: > On May 16, 5:11 pm, "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, ComandanteBanana > and Chief of Quixotic Enterprises" <nolionnoprob...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 16, 3:12 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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 > > > That's why the maquiladoras settled down there, right? > > > But the stream will bring the filth to Florida and other states.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Asked BP to call me. It will take three steps to stop the leak. Have > not heard from New Orleans reality is they have their phones in New > orleans blocked. I get BP in Texas and Illinois. 3 million gallons > every day makes the Valdas a drop in the bucket. This begs the > question will BP give free gas to all American for the damage they > have caused? Or will Obama give BP stimulus money? TreBert Most of that upwelling is sulphur and raw natural gasses. The oily sulphur is actually a wee bit more dense than seawater, so that most of it doesn't surface. Should be real interesting to see if they have any viable plan that'll recapture more than 10% of what has been vented (of course none of the gas or acids stay put). ~ BG
From: Brad Guth on 16 May 2010 21:36 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...... Here's crazy: 1.6e9<2.4e9 barrels/day http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/17/us/17spill.html The announcement by BP came on the heels of reports that the spill might be might much worse than estimated. Scientists said they had found giant plumes of oil in the deep waters of the gulf, including one as large as 10 miles long, 3 miles wide and 300 feet thick. That one large submerged cloud or plume of heavy sour crude (oily sulphur) is only worth upwards of at least 40e9 barrels thus far, and 25 days worth of spillage is an average of only 1.6e9 barrels/day. So, more than likely if adding all those underwater plums and whats on the surface is perhaps worth something near 2.4e9 barrels/day. You know, its almost as though not one soul in BP knows hardly a damn thing about their own business, other than how to continually lie their oily butts off and smile at the same time. Perhaps if we force all BP executives, subcontractors and their crews plus each of their extended families to stay onboard their support ships with very long straws, and required to suck their guts out until every last barrel of that muck is recovered, as such might get the message across. There has always been lithosphere oil and gas leakage (such as heavy oil/tar sands that used to be safely capped just below a relatively fertile layer of topsoil, though not actually per se leaking any substantial amount of hydrocarbons), taking place at perhaps no greater than 0.1% of what BP and other hydrocarbon extractors, transporters and processors combined manage to leak, spill, burn off or directly consume and subsequently pollute on site. If we include those raw natural gas volumes, its more like mother nature has been venting at most .01% (1/10000) as much as we accomplish artificially via drilling platforms, wellhead leakage, mine ventings and of course those bulk volumes of consumption that converts most of it into CO2, NOx plus contributing a number of other rather nasty toxic elements that have no business escaping because, as far as we know theres no global environmental or biodiversity impact that isnt purely negative. Once weve extracted and vented a few trillion tonnes worth of our unrenewable hydrocarbons, and towards the foreseeable end of our global reserves (conceivably 300 some odd years from now) by then consuming 90% in order to extract and deliver 10%, whereas its not going to be easy for anyone below the upper middle caste to survive without involving wars and various other forms of treachery and debauchery, unless renewable forms of clean energy become wide spread and well developed. The lower 90% caste of Earth will just have to fight among themselves because, itll be impossible for those without to fight other than to their deaths against those of us having the most strategic energy reserves and the most at risk thats well defended. Of course for the moment theres always a dozen or more active volcanoes that we know of, plus hundreds if not thousands of significant geothermal vents contributing (mostly water vapor plus sulphur, sodium and a number of less appreciated gasses and nasty elements) as transferred into our surface and atmospheric environment, but thats an ongoing natural form of environmental trauma of exactly what offers us our give and take balance that all of Earths biodiversity needs in order to survive and evolve, that which hasnt changed significantly for the worse unless youd care to go way back before the last ice-age this planet w/moon is ever going to see. So, in 300 some odd years, what else besides a global deficiency of hydrocarbons and perhaps at least 3 meters of greater ocean level is taking the bulk of us to hell in a hand-basket? ~ BG
From: Tim McGaughy on 17 May 2010 01:04
HVAC wrote: > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/7726142/Barack-Obama-sends-nuclear-experts-to-tackle-BPs-Gulf-of-Mexico-oil-leak.html > > > And you all thought *I* was crazy...... And where exactly in that article did you see a reference to nuclear weapons? |