PDA

View Full Version : Matt Simmons: Nuking oil leak ‘only thing we can do’



Quantum
31st May 2010, 04:07 AM
http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0529/energy-expert-nuke-oil-leak/

Energy expert: Nuking oil leak ‘only thing we can do’

By Daniel Tencer
Saturday, May 29th, 2010 -- 7:18 pm

BP 'totally in charge of the news' about oil leak, energy expert says

As the latest effort to plug the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico meets with failure, the idea of nuking the immediate area to seal the oil underground is gaining steam among some energy experts and researchers.

One prominent energy expert known for predicting the oil price spike of 2008 says sending a small nuclear bomb down the leaking well is "probably the only thing we can do" to stop the leak.

Matt Simmons, founder of energy investment bank Simmons & Company, also says that there is evidence of a second oil leak about five to seven miles from the initial leak that BP has focused on fixing. That second leak, he says, is so large that the initial one is "minor" in comparison.

Simmons spoke to Bloomberg News on Friday, before BP announced that its latest effort to plug the leak, known as the "top kill" method, had failed.

"A week ago Sunday the first research vessel ... was commissioned by NOAA to scour the area," he said. They found "a gigantic plume" growing about five to seven miles from the site of the original leak, Simmons said.

Simmons said the US government should immediately take the effort to plug the leak out of the hands of BP and put the military in charge.

"Probably the only thing we can do is create a weapons system and send it down 18,000 feet and detonate it, hopefully encasing the oil," he said.

His idea echoes that of a Russian newspaper that earlier this month suggested the US detonate a small nuclear bomb to seal the oil beneath the sea. Komsomoloskaya Pravda argued in an editorial that Russia had successfully used nuclear weapons to seal oil spills on five occasions in the past.

Live Science reports:

Weapons labs in the former Soviet Union developed special nukes for use to help pinch off the gas wells. They believed that the force from a nuclear explosion could squeeze shut any hole within 82 to 164 feet (25 to 50 meters), depending on the explosion's power. That required drilling holes to place the nuclear device close to the target wells.

A first test in the fall of 1966 proved successful in sealing up an underground gas well in southern Uzbekistan, and so the Russians used nukes four more times for capping runaway wells.

Simmons also told Bloomberg that the idea to use radical measures like a nuclear bomb to seal the leak is probably not being contemplated by decision-makers "because BP is still totally in charge of the news and they have everyone focused on the top kill."

Asked by a Bloomberg reporter about the risks involved in setting off a nuclear bomb off the coast of Louisiana, Simmons argued that a nuclear explosion deep inside a well bore would have little effect on surrounding areas.

"If you're 18,000 feet under the sea bed, it basically wont do anything [on the surface]," he said.

Joe Wiesenthal at Business Insider says the idea of using nukes will be getting a lot of attention now that the "top kill" procedure has failed.

Next, the so-called "nuclear option" is about to get a lot of attention. In this case, of course, nuclear option is not a euphemism. It's the real idea that the best way to kill this thing is to stick a small nuke in there and bury the well under rubble. ... By the middle of the coming week, it will be all over cable news, as pundits press The White House hard on whether it's being considered and why not.

The following video was broadcast on Bloomberg News, Friday May 28, 2010.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4whiKQgnp4w&feature=player_embedded

keehah
24th June 2010, 02:24 PM
Bloomberg interview from June 7th.
http://video.godlikeproductions.com/video/Simmons_Says_Nuclear_Device_Only_Option_to_Stop_Oi l_Flow

Well casing gone (blew through riser in mud below BOP?), relief wells then will not work (mud not contained).

Most of the oil forming an underwater layer covering much of the gulf.

120,000 barrels a day.

Nuking oil leak ‘only thing we can do’

keehah
24th June 2010, 02:50 PM
Washington Post: Each day, another way to define worst-case for oil spill (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/22/AR2010062205391.html?hpid=topnews)

By Joel Achenbach Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, June 23, 2010

An enduring feature of the gulf oil spill is that, even when you think you've heard the worst-case scenario, there's always another that's even more dire.

The base-line measures of the crisis have steadily worsened. The estimated flow rate keeps rising. The well is like something deranged, stronger than anyone anticipated. BP executives last month said they had a 60 to 70 percent chance of killing it with mud, but the well spit the mud out and kept blowing.

The net effect is that nothing about this well seems crazy anymore. Week by week, the truth of this disaster has drifted toward the stamping ground of the alarmists.

The most disturbing of the worst-case scenarios, one that is unsubstantiated but is driving much of the blog discussion, is that the Deepwater Horizon well has been so badly damaged that it has spawned multiple leaks from the seafloor, making containment impossible and a long-term solution much more complicated.

Video from a robotic submersible, which is making the rounds online, shows something puffing from the seafloor. Some think it's oil. Or maybe -- look again -- it's just the silt blowing in response to the forward motion of the submersible.

More trouble: A tropical wave has formed in the Caribbean and could conceivably blow through the gulf.

"We're going to have to evacuate the gulf states," said Matt Simmons, founder of Simmons and Co., an oil investment firm and, since the April 20 blowout, the unflagging source of end-of-the-world predictions. "Can you imagine evacuating 20 million people? . . . This story is 80 times worse than I thought."

The bull market for bad news means that Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen, the government's point man for the crisis, is asked regularly about damage to the well bore, additional leaks and further failures. "Can you talk a little about the worst-case scenarios going forward?" a reporter asked Tuesday. "What happens if the relief wells don't work out?"

"We're mitigating risk on the relief well by drilling a second relief well alongside it," responded Allen, possibly the least excitable figure in this entire oil crisis.

He said he's seen no sign of the additional leaks that have gotten so many bloggers in a lather. But Allen's briefings offer plenty of fodder for the apocalyptic set. Allen repeatedly has acknowledged that there could be significant damage to the well down below the mud line. That's why, he said, the top kill effort last month was stopped: Officials feared that if they continued pumping heavy mud into the well, they would damage the casing and open new channels for hydrocarbons to leak into the rock formation.

"I think that one thing that nobody knows is the condition of the well bore from below the blowout preventer down to the actual oil field itself," Allen said last week. "We don't know if the well bore has been compromised or not."

And by the way, the blowout preventer is leaning, Allen said.

"The entire arrangement has kind of listed a little bit," he said. A government spokesman later said this development wasn't new.

Even the most sober analysts are quick to say that this is such an unpredictable well that almost anything is possible. Bruce Bullock, director of the Maguire Energy Institute at Southern Methodist University, said additional leaks are a possible source of deep-sea plumes of oil detected by research vessels. But this part of the gulf is pocked with natural seeps, he noted. Conceivably the drilling of the well, and/or the subsequent blowout, could have affected the seeps, he said.

"Once you started disturbing the underground geology, you may have made one of those seeps even worse," he said.

But Tadeusz Patzek, a professor who is the chairman of the department of petroleum and geosystems engineering at the University of Texas, argues that the discussion has been hijacked by people who don't know what they're talking about.

"There is a lot of fast talk, which has little relation sometimes to reality," Patzek said. "And there is jumping to conclusions by the people who have no right to jump to any conclusions because they don't know."

Much of the worst-case-scenario talk has centered on the flow rate of the well. Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), among the harshest critics of BP in recent weeks, generated headlines with a dramatic announcement Sunday.

"I actually have a document that shows that BP actually believes it could go upwards of 100,000 barrels per day," Markey said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "So, again, right from the beginning, BP was either lying or grossly incompetent. First they said it was only 1,000. Then they said it was 5,000 barrels. Now we're up to 100,000 barrels."

The 1,000- and 5,000-barrel figures (42,000 gallons and 210,000 gallons), however, were estimates of the actual flow; the 100,000-barrel figure (4.2 million gallons) in the internal BP document was based on a hypothetical situation. The document stated, "If BOP and wellhead are removed and if we have incorrectly modeled the restrictions -- the rate could be as high as {tilde}100,000 barrels per day." The blowout preventer and wellhead have not been removed.

Another undated BP document, released by Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) last week, has an even more dramatic worst-case scenario for the well's flow rate, but again one based not on the well as it is but on a theoretical formulation arrived at before the drilling. Under the heading "Maximum Discharge Calculation," the document states that, given the most "optimistic assumptions" about the size of the reservoir and the intensity of the pressure at depth and assuming a total loss of well control and no inhibitions on the flow, "a maximum case discharge of 162,000 barrels per day was estimated."

After the Deepwater Horizon rig sank, BP recalculated that estimate based on what was known about the well. BP executives in early May briefed members of Congress on their conclusion: that the absolute worst-case flow rate was 60,000 barrels, with a "more reasonable worst-case scenario" of 40,000 barrels a day, the document states.

Today the official government estimate of the flow, based on multiple techniques that include subsea video and satellite surveys of the oil sick on the surface, is 35,000 to 60,000 barrels a day.

In effect, what BP considered the worst-case scenario in early May is in late June the bitter reality -- call it the new normal -- of the gulf blowout.

gunDriller
24th June 2010, 03:34 PM
Matt Simmons knows a hell of a lot more about the industry than the BP managers who were running the most reckless deepwater drilling operation in history.

i wonder if there's anything the USGS knows about the fault lines in that area that is keeping them from using the nuke solution.

i perceive Obama is very concerned about politician stuff like approval ratings.

and this Gulf oil disaster is sending his approval ratings down, down, down.

if only Presidents, Mining Agency Personnel, and oil company execs. were held personally responsible for their mistakes.

they would have been a lot less reckless, and we wouldn't be talking about a Gulf oil disaster.

Large Sarge
24th June 2010, 03:45 PM
Jim McCanney has come out against the nuclear option, I respect his judgement a lot

he has said all along "its just a containment/harvesting issue"

Basically he said if they collected all that oil, the oil price would plummet, and folks would realize oil is not even scarce.


McCanney comments below

NOTICE ... IF THE MORONS IN CHARGE OF THE GULF OIL DISASTER FOLLOW PLANS AND EXPLODE A NUCLEAR DEVICE IN THE PIPE OF THE OIL WELL ... IT WOULD BLOW A HOLE DEEP INTO THE EARTH AND OIL WOULD COME GUSHING OUT AT UNKNOWN RATES POSSIBLY FILLING THE ATMOSPHERE WITH RADIOACTIVE OIL ... IF THIS HAPPENS YOU MAY NEED A PRE-WATER FILTER TO GET THE RADIOACTIVE OIL OUT OF YOUR WATER BEFORE YOU PUT IT INTO YOUR DOULTON WATER FILTER ... THIS COULD BE AN EVENT OF WORLD WIDE DISASTER PROPORTIONS ... TO PRE-FILTER THE RADIOACTIVE OIL LADEN WATER ... FIRST PASS THE WATER THROUGH A BUCKET WITH A CLOTH AT THE BOTTOM AND DIRT IN THE BUCKET (BLACK DIRT NOT CLAY) ... SO PUNCH SOME HOLES IN THE BOTTOM OF A BUCKET ... PLACE A COTTON CLOTH IN THE BOTTOM AND FILL HALF FULL WITH BLACK DIRT ... USE THIS PRE-FILTER BEFORE PUTTING INTO YOUR DOULTON WATER FILTER IN CASE OF EMERGENCY ... IF YOU DO NOT YET HAVE A DOULTON WATER FILTER GO TO THE SECURE WEB ORDERING PAGE BELOW AND GET PREPARED CAUSE THESE MORONS ARE TALKING NUCLEAR BLAST AND THE RESULT COULD CERTAINLY BE CATASTROPHIC TO THE ENVIRONMENT ... jim mccanney

EE_
24th June 2010, 04:00 PM
Why are we worring about the oil disaster?
It's barely in the news anymore. I guess it just isn't much of a concern?

MAGNES
24th June 2010, 04:04 PM
All the baffoons are running the show, yes men,
and I believe from reports online, very credible,
they are deliberately not cleaning it up, and hampering
those that try, they pulled crap like this during Katrina,
will the clowns listen to teams of experts that know
what they are talking about and doing ? What's wrong
with getting some Russians in to look at the situation and
advise, apparently they have
experience ? BP being in charge is a joke.

gunDriller
25th June 2010, 02:16 PM
All the baffoons are running the show, yes men,
and I believe from reports online, very credible,
they are deliberately not cleaning it up, and hampering
those that try, they pulled crap like this during Katrina,
will the clowns listen to teams of experts that know
what they are talking about and doing ? What's wrong
with getting some Russians in to look at the situation and
advise, apparently they have
experience ? BP being in charge is a joke.


i think part of their plan might be to fuddle around until hurricane season is over. then they can tie up all the personal injury lawsuits for years as their paid expert witnesses argue about the effect of the hurricane on the disaster ... they'll try and pass off some of the liability to Mother Nature, or they will use the subject to help create "reasonable doubt" when this gets to a courtroom trial situation.