MAP OF THE DAY: The Most Frightening Oil Projection Yet

[MNeagle]

MAP OF THE DAY: The Most Frightening Oil Projection Yet

Link to Article (http://www.businessinsider.com/map-of-the-day-how-the-oil-spill-will-paint-the-east-coast-black-2010-6#ixzz0poRaVR9f)



An incredible simulation from the National Center for Atmospheric Research shows the oil slick getting caught in a loop current and wrapping around Florida -- and moving on to create a death cloud in the Atlantic.

If the oil keeps leaking until August or even Christmas, these flow patterns could describe a massive quantity of oil.



Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/map-of-the-day-how-the-oil-spill-will-paint-the-east-coast-black-2010-6#ixzz0poRsQK5g


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pE-1G_476nA&feature=player_embedded


EDIT: Changed long link to named link to prevent horizontal scrolling. -Gaillo

[sirgonzo420]

Isn't this just fantastic?

(sarcasm icon goes here)

[Large Sarge]

get a nuke on it

and break out the microbes!


enough of the "best and brightest" working hard on it....

go with "the sure thing"

[ximmy]

good lord!! say bye-bye Florida

[DMac]

get a nuke on it

and break out the microbes!


enough of the "best and brightest" working hard on it....

go with "the sure thing"




I've been wondering about the nuke option - What happens to the fault lines if they blow up a nuke underground?

[Ares]

get a nuke on it

and break out the microbes!


enough of the "best and brightest" working hard on it....

go with "the sure thing"




A nuke would make it worse, you won't seal up anything. You'll more than likely make the hole bigger.

Here's an example I'll use from my childhood. There was a small water gusher near a swamp that was close to my house. I stuck an M-80 down the hole and lit the fuse. The hole increased in size and the water came up much faster. I can only guess but I would think the results would be the same a mile under the ocean surface.

[DMac]

Similar article here:

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/03/oil-could-reach-atlantic-coasts/

[Large Sarge]

the russians have closed about a half a dozen wells with nukes

the nuke is actually put in another shaft, adjacent to the gusher, perhaps 15,000 feet down

it seals it up.

I posted an old russian video, of them fighting an out of control gas well, (trying top hats, etc) they spent months trying to get the thing contained.

finally dug another hole next to the well, dropped a nuke in, and the thing stopped in 23 seconds

regarding the "fault lines", its a risk we are going to have to take IMO

they are poisoning the oceans

[Large Sarge]

here is the archived video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpPNQoTlacU

[DMac]

get a nuke on it

and break out the microbes!


enough of the "best and brightest" working hard on it....

go with "the sure thing"




A nuke would make it worse, you won't seal up anything. You'll more than likely make the hole bigger.

Here's an example I'll use from my childhood. There was a small water gusher near a swamp that was close to my house. I stuck an M-80 down the hole and lit the fuse. The hole increased in size and the water came up much faster. I can only guess but I would think the results would be the same a mile under the ocean surface.

.

Not quite the same Ares. The goal of the nuke to close the well is to basically turn the sand down there into a hardened glass, which is what seals the leak.

[Heimdhal]

US population density:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/USA-2000-population-density.gif

[I am me, I am free]

A friend has an explosives/demolition background. He has advised me that they could close off that well using conventional explosives in a shaped charge, and he went into detail how it could easily be done in a very short period of time.

[7th trump]

get a nuke on it

and break out the microbes!


enough of the "best and brightest" working hard on it....

go with "the sure thing"




A nuke would make it worse, you won't seal up anything. You'll more than likely make the hole bigger.

Here's an example I'll use from my childhood. There was a small water gusher near a swamp that was close to my house. I stuck an M-80 down the hole and lit the fuse. The hole increased in size and the water came up much faster. I can only guess but I would think the results would be the same a mile under the ocean surface.

Umm.............Ares where was your intelligent logic when you stuck the m80 done the water hole? You dont put the explosive down the hole you put it next to the hole so the earth when compacted from the explosion pinches off the pipe.

[Heimdhal]

get a nuke on it

and break out the microbes!


enough of the "best and brightest" working hard on it....

go with "the sure thing"




A nuke would make it worse, you won't seal up anything. You'll more than likely make the hole bigger.

Here's an example I'll use from my childhood. There was a small water gusher near a swamp that was close to my house. I stuck an M-80 down the hole and lit the fuse. The hole increased in size and the water came up much faster. I can only guess but I would think the results would be the same a mile under the ocean surface.

Umm.............Ares where was your intelligent logic when you stuck the m80 done the water hole? You dont put the explosive down the hole you put it next to the hole so the earth when compacted from the explosion pinches off the pipe.



Yeah, but wheres the fun in that!?

[Serpo]

Renamed the Oilantic Ocean

[sirgonzo420]

A friend has an explosives/demolition background. He has advised me that they could close off that well using conventional explosives in a shaped charge, and he went into detail how it could easily be done in a very short period of time.


I don't have any explosives background, but I knew there HAD to be a way to use conventional explosives instead of nuclear explosives.

It just seems nuts that people would holler "nuke it!" when I see no reason why a non-nuclear explosive couldn't achieve the same objective.

[Quantum]

A nuke would make it worse, you won't seal up anything. You'll more than likely make the hole bigger.

Here's an example I'll use from my childhood. There was a small water gusher near a swamp that was close to my house. I stuck an M-80 down the hole and lit the fuse. The hole increased in size and the water came up much faster. I can only guess but I would think the results would be the same a mile under the ocean surface.


Please leave the real science to the adults, please.

[Quantum]

here is the archived video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpPNQoTlacU


That's awesome! Something anyone can understand. Exactly as I envisioned what could be done with Deepwater Horizon.

[StackerKen]

How long do you think it would take them to drill the hole for the Explosives..or nuke?

You think BP could handle it?

[Large Sarge]

A friend has an explosives/demolition background. He has advised me that they could close off that well using conventional explosives in a shaped charge, and he went into detail how it could easily be done in a very short period of time.


I don't have any explosives background, but I knew there HAD to be a way to use conventional explosives instead of nuclear explosives.

It just seems nuts that people would holler "nuke it!" when I see no reason why a non-nuclear explosive couldn't achieve the same objective.




you have to drill a hole 15-18 thousand feet deep, and then place the explosives down there

compare the size to power ratio of a nuke with say C4 or some other exotic conventional explosive

you would need a "cavern" full of conventional explosives to push the earth over, and seal it

versus one small nuke

the cavern for conventional explosives would need to be dug out 15 thousand feet below the ocean floor

[Quantum]

A friend has an explosives/demolition background. He has advised me that they could close off that well using conventional explosives in a shaped charge, and he went into detail how it could easily be done in a very short period of time.


I question the potential of conventional to be powerful enough to collapse the line. The charge shaft would be less than two feet, so the conventional explosive would have to be distributed over a long area. And we're talking tons of TNT as opposed to thousands of tons of TNT in explosive energy.

[Quantum]

How long do you think it would take them to drill the hole for the Explosives..or nuke?

You think BP could handle it?


No, it would have to be the Seabees.

[sirgonzo420]

A nuke would make it worse, you won't seal up anything. You'll more than likely make the hole bigger.

Here's an example I'll use from my childhood. There was a small water gusher near a swamp that was close to my house. I stuck an M-80 down the hole and lit the fuse. The hole increased in size and the water came up much faster. I can only guess but I would think the results would be the same a mile under the ocean surface.


Please leave the real science to the adults, please.


What chutzpah!

LOL.

I agree with you on quite a few things, but you can be quite condescending.

[Terry853]

I am curious as to why the people of American are not demanding the heads (literally) of all the people that made all the insane mistakes that led to this fiasco. Would make for a nice pile.

[Horn]

I wonder if the map assumes that there is a Gulf stream left to pump?

Or was it is based on some previous model, of when it was working as usual?

http://www.gulfstreamshutdown.com/

[I am me, I am free]

A friend has an explosives/demolition background. He has advised me that they could close off that well using conventional explosives in a shaped charge, and he went into detail how it could easily be done in a very short period of time.


I don't have any explosives background, but I knew there HAD to be a way to use conventional explosives instead of nuclear explosives.

It just seems nuts that people would holler "nuke it!" when I see no reason why a non-nuclear explosive couldn't achieve the same objective.




you have to drill a hole 15-18 thousand feet deep, and then place the explosives down there

compare the size to power ratio of a nuke with say C4 or some other exotic conventional explosive

you would need a "cavern" full of conventional explosives to push the earth over, and seal it

versus one small nuke

the cavern for conventional explosives would need to be dug out 15 thousand feet below the ocean floor




From what I gather, your last statement is incorrect. Conventional explosives could be used at a much more shallow depth to pinch off the well.

[Horn]

How long do you think it would take them to drill the hole for the Explosives..or nuke?

You think BP could handle it?


With their track record it would set off the New Madrid fault... ::)

[Large Sarge]

A friend has an explosives/demolition background. He has advised me that they could close off that well using conventional explosives in a shaped charge, and he went into detail how it could easily be done in a very short period of time.


I don't have any explosives background, but I knew there HAD to be a way to use conventional explosives instead of nuclear explosives.

It just seems nuts that people would holler "nuke it!" when I see no reason why a non-nuclear explosive couldn't achieve the same objective.




you have to drill a hole 15-18 thousand feet deep, and then place the explosives down there

compare the size to power ratio of a nuke with say C4 or some other exotic conventional explosive

you would need a "cavern" full of conventional explosives to push the earth over, and seal it

versus one small nuke

the cavern for conventional explosives would need to be dug out 15 thousand feet below the ocean floor




From what I gather, your last statement is incorrect. Conventional explosives could be used at a much more shallow depth to pinch off the well.


it has to do with the geology, not the explosives

there is oil leaking from the ocean floor (5-6 miles away)

the same thing happened in that video (russian nuke video)

the oil gets above a certain level, and all the rocks are "porous" to the oil, and it starts flowing sideways, etc

you need to seal the well below that "porous" zone

watch the russian video, they went through the same thing, with natural gas

they had NG coming out all over the place.

[I am me, I am free]

A friend has an explosives/demolition background. He has advised me that they could close off that well using conventional explosives in a shaped charge, and he went into detail how it could easily be done in a very short period of time.


I don't have any explosives background, but I knew there HAD to be a way to use conventional explosives instead of nuclear explosives.

It just seems nuts that people would holler "nuke it!" when I see no reason why a non-nuclear explosive couldn't achieve the same objective.




you have to drill a hole 15-18 thousand feet deep, and then place the explosives down there

compare the size to power ratio of a nuke with say C4 or some other exotic conventional explosive

you would need a "cavern" full of conventional explosives to push the earth over, and seal it

versus one small nuke

the cavern for conventional explosives would need to be dug out 15 thousand feet below the ocean floor




From what I gather, your last statement is incorrect. Conventional explosives could be used at a much more shallow depth to pinch off the well.


it has to do with the geology, not the explosives

there is oil leaking from the ocean floor (5-6 miles away)

the same thing happened in that video (russian nuke video)

the oil gets above a certain level, and all the rocks are "porous" to the oil, and it starts flowing sideways, etc

you need to seal the well below that "porous" zone

watch the russian video, they went through the same thing, with natural gas

they had NG coming out all over the place.




I'm not saying that there's not oil venting miles from the wellhead, but in order for that to happen the well would had to have been damaged, otherwise every other well would be subject to 'leaking' in the same manner.

[Large Sarge]

they said all along "the oil is carrying fine sand, etc" acts as a sandblaster

been blowing out 125,000 BPD for over a month, no end in sight

thats a lot of sand blasting

probably parts of the pipeline are gone

the only way the oil gets over there, is if there is a leak in the pipeline.

I do not think a new oil volcano suddenly erupted nearby, all on its own

[Quantum]

A nuke would make it worse, you won't seal up anything. You'll more than likely make the hole bigger.

Here's an example I'll use from my childhood. There was a small water gusher near a swamp that was close to my house. I stuck an M-80 down the hole and lit the fuse. The hole increased in size and the water came up much faster. I can only guess but I would think the results would be the same a mile under the ocean surface.


Please leave the real science to the adults, please.


What chutzpah!

LOL.

I agree with you on quite a few things, but you can be quite condescending.


I dispense with bullsh*t...particularly when it's dished out to me with a smirk.

Ares has a big mouth along with a big ego, and tried to "teach me a lesson" in another thread on a subject he has zero actual knowledge of. Here, he posts nonsense that is not scientifically sound...based on "childhood research." LOL

I challenge you or Ares to cite ENGINEERS who claim that a nuclear explosive would not quickly and safely stop the oil spew. Opposition to use of nuclear explosives is based on stupidity and politics...actually, those are not mutually exclusive. While such stupidity reigns, essentially permanent damage to the ecosystem of the Gulf exponentially increases.

Again, I dispense with bullsh*t. That's why I've supported the "nuclear option" for weeks, when it was clear "easy" solutions cannot work.