This is what the Gulf of Mexico looks like now:
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/...n-the--004.jpg
Discuss.
Printable View
This is what the Gulf of Mexico looks like now:
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/...n-the--004.jpg
Discuss.
lets go surfing!:rofl:
Yes, go surfing, and have a nice time coming out covered in oil.
The Transocean Deepwater Horizon rig exploded, killed 11 workers and caused the worst oil spill in US history.The best way they could have stopped it was nuke it. But of course, he greedy shareholders don't want to lose their precious oil. Instead of nuking it, the idiots decided to make a cap, which didn't work, and wasn't expected too. Now the oil spill is ten times worse than the Exxon Valdez disaster. Heck it's probably 100 times worse. The oil spill is still leaking, what is it, 500 barrels a day or something like that. During the Exxon Valdez spill, millions of fish and fish eggs were killed, hundreds of thousands of seabirds, whales,, and pretty much every other marine organism. Since this oil spill is so much worse, who knows how much sea life it will kill?
Not only is the oil polluting the water, it is polluting the land. Waves and ocean currents are constantly pushing oil landward, causing a build-up of oil scum on the coast. Some oil sinks to the bottom, where it is almost harmless, but for the most part, it goes directly to the top, as it's desity is less than water.
EDITED
Seriously. About 80 days now.
Yes, please, nuke the Gulf of Mexico. It's not like any nuclear fallout would hit Florida, where I live. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Arathorn136
Also.
Here's one of the aerial views:
http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources...ges/ixtox1.jpg
It also looks like BP is going for good PR instead of actually fixing the problem.
This won't end well...
Of course it wont end well. Anybody with some sense can see that it won't end well. I need to get a job with an engineering firm that deals with oil spills.
What happens if that fails? There is now a crater, you can no longer stop the oil at all, relief wells wouldn't work, and every drop of oil in that well would leak into the gulf.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arathorn136
I applaud your foresight!
You forget that you can shape charges. All they would be doing is collapsing the pipe in on itself, and shifting the surrounding bedrock to fill the hole. I don't mean by nuke that we should just drop a nuclear bomb into the ocean, get out of the way and cross our fingers.
But you just have to look at Russia's success rate with this method. 80%. Isn't it work giving it a shot?
By the way, I'm asking that none of you go into politics with this thread. Else it'll get closed, just like every other good thread that gets made in OT.
(And there's still the 20% that needs to be worried about) :o
Lets try and keep this thread clean of any politics or any reference to what America should have done.
BP is owned by a British company.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost101
Hit, don't go into semantics.Quote:
Originally Posted by WN1 Hit
OK no more politics then. Anyways, as I was saying, the owners of the firm that directed it should have considered other methods, because currently, every bit of oil possible in that vein is trying to get through that rift in the ocean floor. It's not a small rift either.
About the 20%: 80% is one of the highest success rates for any method of oil clean up. The cap didn't work, and they haven't devised a method to eliminate the spill as of yet.
Hmm, is that what it really looks like there?
About the Russian nuke thing, when, where, and how many times has it been done? That may be a good thing for them to look at, but if all of them were done very far away from any coastline, that may be why it wasn't done with the BP spill.
I'm no physicist or anything, but I get the feeling that if it's close enough, the coastal areas of Florida would get hit with nuclear fallout, which wouldn't be too good.
Thats always a good thing :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by acer5200
It was done one time. Somewhere west from the US. This is the second time.
That is true. It could have been that the Russians executed it way out to sea to avoid a nuclear fallout, as well as a tsunami, or at a minimum, very very large waves.
and for how many times it's been done:
5 times, worked 4 times.
Well... why should I care? Imma Norwegian! I have NO knowledge of this happening anyways... (Btw, nuke it)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost101
depends, if you live in the florida area, it's a bad thing, for the rest of the world though, CELEBRATION TIME :D
Dunno about that fact though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arathorn136
In my books, 2 times. Cold War, Now this.
Here's a gallery of the current situation:
http://www.csmonitor.com/CSM-Photo-G...ure/(photo)/55
What happened the time it didn't work?Quote:
Originally Posted by Arathorn136
heres an article...
"Stop the presses~! The Russians have come up with a pretty snazzy way to deal with that oil spill: nuke it all! Why waste time freaking out when you can unleash the power of mass-to-energy conversion, and let Mr. Atom clean up the mess in no time at all?
The silly thing is, while I?m half-joking, the Russians are legitimately serious about the proposal. Turns out they used to do such a thing?nuke oil spills?back in the days of the Soviet Union.
Komsomoloskaya Pravda, the country?s best-selling daily newspaper (sorta like their USA Today, I guess), suggests that we nuclear bomb the area near the leak, with ?the underground explosion mov[ing] the rock, press[ing] on it, and, in essence, squeez[ing] the well?s channel.?
They?ve done such a thing five times in the past, and it turns out that it has an 80 percent "
That is not actually what nuking it would do, the way nuking would work is the pressure and heat of the explosion to turn the bedrock into glass. Hopefully stopping the flow of oil.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arathorn136
Heres an even better one:
Nukes, a simple proven method to stop oil leaks
A leading Russian daily has come up with another option-nuke the spill. Though it sounds more like fiction and somewhat outlandish, the fact is that Soviet Russia had used controlled nuclear explosions to contain oil spills, on at least five different occasions.
The science is to drill a hole near the leak, set off the explosion and then seal off the leak-used in the soviet for an oil spill in the desert. If it is rocky surface the explosion would shift the rock which then squeezes the funnel of the well. The first underground nuclear explosion was done in Urt-Bulak in 1966 to control burning gas wells. The success ratio is quite high with only one of them failing to prevent a spill in Kharkov region in 1972.
There is an analogy between using nukes to stop the oil leak and using Chemotherapy on a cancer patient. Chemo nearly kills the patient in order to kill all cancerous cells. Yet it is the best known way to stop cancer. The same goes with using nukes underwater. Like chemo it is drastic yet has a 80% success rate, better than anything else.
Some analysts are against the use of nuclear explosions on fear of the effects on the environment. But the world has already done underwater testing of nuclear devices and if there was a huge environmental disaster as a result of it, we'd have known by now. Indeed, Commandant Cousteau, renowned biologist led numerous dives following French underwater nuclear explosions in the Mururoa atoll and noted very little impact on sea life.
using nukes to stop the leak is the most ecological alternative. Stopping the leak before too much oil leak is the key, speed is of the essence. Nukes would allow this to be resolved in a matter of days. This would save thousands of miles of shoreline, millions of animals by not allowing this toxic sludge to contaminate the shore.
One of the main issues with using nukes is public opinion. Even though it's the most ecological alternative, nukes have a huge public stigma hard to overcome, mostly due to ignorance. Nuclear bombs are not intended to be used for peaceful, ecological purposes and educating the public on this possibility is an uphill battle.
This technology was used by the Russians, the USA's sworn enemy at the peak of the cold war. Never mind the relatively high success rate of 80%, no politician in his right mind would sell a Russian solution to the public.
Of course, BP does not have nukes. The US military does, of which the Army Corps of Engineers would probably have to design a plan to use them on the leak. The United States has about 5,113 nuclear war heads, as revealed by Pentagon according to the Strategic Arms Reduction purpose. So, why not use them for peaceful purpose for once?
Are you talking about regular oil spills, such as tank shipment, etc. The gulf oil spill came from a platform. The first time was in the cold war.
Or creating a huge impact towards the gulf... we'll se...Quote:
Originally Posted by pialpha
(btw, nuke it)
@Arathorn: That actually sounds like a good idea.
@Lao: Please, if you don't have anything constructive to say, leave the thread. Your posts are making you look more and more like an ignoramus than anything else. If you really want to post on this subject, please, get educated about it first.
Look, why don't we let the UK nuke it? After all, we made the mess, so we should clean it up and stop the flow.
Maybe a Trident'll give us a stopped leak.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arathorn136
This is under ground, and what they would need to do in the Gulf, would be to stop in below ground, not from the pipe.
You cannot reliably get odds from a sample size of 5.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arathorn136
Nope. The supporter broke lose, causing the tank to explode. That time a pipe connecting to the underground oil was broken. They had to cut part of the pipe bigger to try an attempt, but failed. (Directed to Ara.)
Have you never heard of the Gulf Stream?Quote:
Originally Posted by LaoOmologo
What is happening in the Gulf of Mexico will eventually affect Europe and the UK as well and as all the oceans of the world are connected, the whole planet will be affected in the long run.
It seems these companies are very good at finding and extracting this stuff but when it comes to fixing their mistakes, not so good. As for repairing the damage they have caused, not a chance.
Nope, I have not... I have only heard of the oil insidence outside Langesund in Norway...Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodri
To get it underground, we'd have to dig, if we can get that far underground within a reasonable timeframe, we would already have the relief well done.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arathorn136
I hope you don't mind my asking, but exactly how old are you and what are they teaching you in school if not geographay?Quote:
Originally Posted by LaoOmologo
maybe so, but using those numbers to create a scenario where say, 100 oil spills are nuked, 80 work. The probability of it working will probably stay within 10%. One of the only scenarios that I can think of where it's repercussions would be even worse is if the spill occurs near the meeting of two tectonic plates, and the plates are already unstable (California, Juan de Fuca area). If the explosion somehow caused the plates to shift, it could cause major tsunamis or earthquakes.(Although i admit this to myself that this is highly unlikely) But seeing as this oil spill isnt near any rift in the plates, I'd say it is the best method available.
After all, the cap that they tried failed. And they aren't going to do it again for a simple reason: it will most likely fail again.
I don't mind, I am at the same age as Koops.Quote:
Originally Posted by acer5200
also, how do you think they accessed the oil in the first place? they dug. The Gulf of Mexico certainly isn't one of the deepest spots in the ocean. besides, this spill has already been going on for months, and they still haven't devised a way to fix it. if fixing it involves digging a hole....Quote:
Originally Posted by pialpha