Nuke that Oil Slick?

[Hatha Sunahara]

Obama has sent Steven Chu, the secretary of energy to Houston to help BP deal with the growing oil slick disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=ao_GFutnMAHY

This comes on the heels of Russian advice to plug the gusher with a nuclear blast:

http://trueslant.com/juliaioffe/2010/05/04/nuke-that-slick/

Considering the team that Chu has formed, they may be seriously considering the Russian suggestion.

This issue will press a choice between two evils: Allowing the oil to pollute the sea, or possible pollution from nuclear explosion byproducts.

I personally think the Russian idea is a good one. If they do it right, the oil leak will be plugged and hopefully all further efforts will be to contain the damage of the existing spill without further addition to it.

Hatha

[Ponce]

How thick is the Earth mantle at that point?.........will the nuke break up the crust and send trillions of gallons out? not only from that well but also from any other oil well that's connected to this one.

[Hellsbane]

Why would a MOAB not work?

[Vendico]

Too bad they don't call Chuck Norris. ;D

[madfranks]

Wouldn't bombing the site entail a risk of rupturing the leak further, possibly making it worse than it is now? Good God, I hope that's not their plan.

[Brent]

We need to let another country handle this. I wouldn't trust our retarded govt. to be able to handle setting off a nuke. Chances are they'd blow off part of Florida or something.

[Hatha Sunahara]

I only tuned into this option after I read what Dimitri Khalezov has to say about how the WTC tower were demolished. You can read a brief description of it here:

http://www.nuclear-demolition.com/index.html

If you want more details, and have about 4 hours to watch videos, go here:

http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/44972/Dimitri_Khalezov___WTC_Nuclear_Demolition_1_26/


I presume that if they placed a 150kt nuke where the oil is escaping, it would create enough disturbance in the immediate area to cause the hole that the oil is escaping from to be filled by molten glass and other nuclear debris so that the oil will have no way to escape from the earth. The site would be no more radioactive than the WTC site in lower Manhattan.

I think we now live in a world where nuclear blasts are viewed as positive events if they perform a constructive purpose. Such as demolishing skyscrapers and stopping up oil gushers. I'm all for it.

And Ponce--it won't fracture the earth and cause all the oil down there to come to the surface. No more than a small earthquake would.


Hatha

[Ponce]

My dear Hata, usually an earthquake is a rolling one where one motion will cover another one so that it could plug the hole......but........a nuke concentrates all its power in one single spot......down......I don't think that the laterall waves from the nuke will help any.

Remember that the power in the air of a nuke will send the force of the explosion also sideways but in water the water itself will help to push the force straight down.

In the army to blow up something big at floor level we used to set off two explosions.......... one at ground level and the other above it about ten feet, first we set off the one above and a micro second later the one at ground level.....the one above would work like when on land you placed sacks of sand on top of explosives to push the force down.

But hey, what do I know.................

Ponce <--------hes now an explosion expert :conf: hahahahahahahah.

[Apocalypto]

Nuke it.

This oil gusher is a slow and disastrous ecological nightmare. As each hour passes, more and more oil is pouring into those waters, polluting them and rendering that area a GONER. This is the biggest story in the U.S. right now, yet the controlled media is giving it short shrift. Too much going on with American Idol, Dancing With The Stars, NASCAR etc. Who gives a sh!t about the Gulf? It's nothing but a garbage dump, right?

The Soviets have used this method in the past to close up wells, and I see no problem in giving it a try. According to reports, the technique has an 80% success rate. Russians are smart people when it comes to these kinds of things. Most people don't know this, but it was a Russian who built the world's first oil well. His name was F. Semenov, and he built it near Baku in 1848, around 11 years before the first well was built in the U.S.

At any rate, I do believe that the reports of how much oil is spewing out are grossly under-reported. This is a classic case of the wealthiest and most powerful crapping all over the environment and not getting punished for it.

[mick silver]

i can see it now walmart saling nuke fish ... i hope they can find a better way to stop this oil leak

[woodman]

There have been nuclear tests in the ocean before. A small nuke would be a case of the lesser of two evils. Aren't Nagasaki and Hiroshima occupied now? Also, thermonuclear needs a small fission device to act as a catalyst. I wonder just how much lasting radiation is produced in the newer nukes.

[Heimdhal]

Why would a MOAB not work?


its a fuel air bomb. Theres no "air" in the ocean. So you'd just be dumping some more refined diesel fuel and magnesium into the ocean.

;) ;D

[gunDriller]

How thick is the Earth mantle at that point?.........will the nuke break up the crust and send trillions of gallons out? not only from that well but also from any other oil well that's connected to this one.


5 miles thick.

we don't know, we've never done this before.

the reservoir it's tapped into is about 1.5 billion barrels. it was expected to produce 500,000 barrels per day for 10 to 15 years.

[Quantum]

A nuclear weapon would almost surely seal the leak by collapsing the ocean floor upon the tube.

It would also result in a serious tidal wave inundating much of the Gulf Coast.

[Quantum]

I only tuned into this option after I read what Dimitri Khalezov has to say about how the WTC tower were demolished. You can read a brief description of it here:

http://www.nuclear-demolition.com/index.html

If you want more details, and have about 4 hours to watch videos, go here:

http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/44972/Dimitri_Khalezov___WTC_Nuclear_Demolition_1_26/


Only a lunatic believes a nuclear weapon was used on the WTC. Exotic weapons, yes; fission or fusion weapons, no.

[Hatha Sunahara]

Quantum You might benefit from discovering what those lunatics have to say. You can join them on this thread:

http://gold-silver.us/forum/conspiracy-theories/911-wtc-nuclear-demolition-dimitri-khalezov-01-of-26/

You might get some understanding about the effects of underground nuclear explosions.

Hatha

[striped_bear]

How thick is the Earth mantle at that point?.........will the nuke break up the crust and send trillions of gallons out? not only from that well but also from any other oil well that's connected to this one.


the reservoir it's tapped into is about 1.5 billion barrels. it was expected to produce 500,000 barrels per day for 10 to 15 years.


Where did you get the figure of 1.5 billion barrels from?

I'm asking because I spent some time today trying to find out how much oil is in the Mascondo field (the one Deepwater Horizon was drilling into). The only information I could find was a quote from a BP oil exec saying that it contained roughly 50 million barrels. Of course, it would be typical of them to underreport the seriousness of the catastrophe.

[Quantum]

Quantum You might benefit from discovering what those lunatics have to say. You can join them on this thread:

http://gold-silver.us/forum/conspiracy-theories/911-wtc-nuclear-demolition-dimitri-khalezov-01-of-26/

You might get some understanding about the effects of underground nuclear explosions.

Hatha


I'm well aware of the effects of nuclear explosions (I won't go into detail as to why).

There are no credible signs of nuclear weapons at the WTC.