Spill here, spill now

[ElNono]

We're obviously not going anywhere with this.
I might be wrong. It might not be feasible. I sure would like to have all the information, instead of dismissing it outright because the general misconception that nuclear=bad.
Unfortunately that's how it works these days. Lack of information and fear mongering over actual informed decisions.
In the meantime, the spill keeps on going.

[MannyIsGod]

You mean packed-dirt. If it's not packed, it's useless. It's a matter of atoms with heavy nuclei.

When I say effective, I mean overall. A product of cost/shielding.

That's why water is more effective overall. It's much easier to produce 7 inches of water than 3 inches of packed-dirt to halve radiation.

If cost and availability wouldn't be a problem, then you can obviously use depleted uranium, lead or concrete, which are much better at stopping gamma radiation, but much more expensive to obtain. Sometimes you don't have an option. For example nuclear reactors normally shield their fuel using a mixture of concrete and water-cooled lead.
That said, used nuclear reactor fuel is actually kept in water pools, not packed-dirt sheds.

Dude they're kept in water because they're hot as . Once they cool they are put into dry cask storage or reprocessed.


Going back to our scenario, if we only account for half the depth of the well (2500 feet), the gamma reduction provided by the water shielding would make the resulting radiation 0.00046% of the original radiation.
(This doesn't take into consideration underwater currents which actually would make the radiation diffuse, and thus making the shielding more effective).[/QUOTE]

Tell me, what is the likely-hood of radioactive debris staying in the spot currently occupied by a high pressure high speed jet of oil?

[boutons_deux]

"Lack of information and fear mongering over actual informed decisions."

aka, the primary Repug/conservative/Fox News mode, which is also corporate mode.

Not setting off a nuclear blast within 100 miles of the US coast, 5000 feet down, as a first-ever "experiment" in deep-water nuclear drill hole plugging is cowboy thinking, the kind of neo-c*nt/Repug cowboy imprudence that fooled most people that invading Iraq was justified and good. The blocking efficiency is overwhelmingly suspect, and the side-effects are totally unknown. So, "Let's Do This Thing".

[MannyIsGod]

I thought you were pretty sure.

Ok. When your facts obviously suck, harp on the overuse of a stupid phrase. Nice job. Next time just be pretty sure about what you're saying.

On June 3, 1979, the 2 mile deep exploratory well, IXTOC I, blew out in the Bahia de Campeche.

Last I checked, 2 miles = 10,560 feet.

Last time I checked, 50m of water = about 150 feet. Here's a hint, most of that depth was rock.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/32237183/I...gest-Oil-Spill

I can provide more links, too. Whats funny is that you told me that I had some reading to do on this.

It doesn't support using a mini-nuke. It merely dispells the fear-mongering that placing a nuke underwater would create a new risk. The risks exists and existed for a long time now.

Placing? No. Exploding. Very different words with very different meanings.

Are you pretty sure?

I'm pretty sure I'm wiping the floor with you right about now.

[MannyIsGod]

We're obviously not going anywhere with this.
I might be wrong. It might not be feasible. I sure would like to have all the information, instead of dismissing it outright because the general misconception that nuclear=bad.
Unfortunately that's how it works these days. Lack of information and fear mongering over actual informed decisions.
In the meantime, the spill keeps on going.

I love how quickly you dismiss the feelings that nuclear explosions are bad. Where on earth would that general consensus come from? I'm a proponent of nuclear power so I know the side effects that nuclear weapons and nuclear accidents have on policy but this is not a controlled idea. This is the introduction of a nuclear explosion at a great depth with an marginal success rate prediction.

There are countless things that are not being considered because we don't have the time and resources to devote to that is almost right out of Armageddon 2: The Ghost of Bruce Wills saves the Gulf.

[ElNono]

Tell me, what is the likely-hood of radioactive debris staying in the spot currently occupied by a high pressure high speed jet of oil?

Very likely. That entire area will probably be radioactive for about 2 weeks (assuming a ~30 kiloton device). I don't see a problem with that though, do you?

[MannyIsGod]

Very likely. That entire area will probably be radioactive for about 2 weeks (assuming a ~30 kiloton device). I don't see a problem with that though, do you?

Very likely huh?

[ElNono]

Ok. When your facts obviously suck, harp on the overuse of a stupid phrase. Nice job. Next time just be pretty sure about what you're saying.

Last time I checked, 50m of water = about 150 feet. Here's a hint, most of that depth was rock.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/32237183/I...gest-Oil-Spill

I can provide more links, too. Whats funny is that you told me that I had some reading to do on this.

I don't know if you're silly or just flat out can't read. What I said:

You have a lot of reading to do. A good start would be the IXTOC I spill in 1979. Probably the most similar case, even though the actual well was even deeper than this one.

Was the well deeper than this one? Very simple question.

Placing? No. Exploding. Very different words with very different meanings.

So you don't think one of those subs can ever explode underwater? Why is that?

I'm pretty sure I'm wiping the floor with you right about now.

I'm pretty sure that every time you say you're pretty sure you're talking out of your ass.

[ElNono]

Very likely huh?

If the detonation succeeds, then you will have radioactive material. So yeah, very likely.

[ElNono]

I love how quickly you dismiss the feelings that nuclear explosions are bad. Where on earth would that general consensus come from? I'm a proponent of nuclear power so I know the side effects that nuclear weapons and nuclear accidents have on policy but this is not a controlled idea. This is the introduction of a nuclear explosion at a great depth with an marginal success rate prediction.

There are countless things that are not being considered because we don't have the time and resources to devote to that is almost right out of Armageddon 2: The Ghost of Bruce Wills saves the Gulf.

BP doesn't have nuclear weapons (last I checked), so it would have to come from the administration. Is this how we deal with problems now? Consensus?
As opposed to actual scientific research?

And if we're looking at solutions in mid August, then we sure as heck have enough time to make an actual impact study.

[MannyIsGod]

I don't know if you're silly or just flat out can't read. What I said:



Was the well deeper than this one? Very simple question.

Sure, but its irrelevant. The underground depth of the well is not what is hampering things, its the depth of the water. Its really funny because you didn't make this point when I brought up the water depth but only after you were obviously wrong.

So you don't think one of those subs can ever explode underwater? Why is that?

Who is advocating blowing one up? No one. No one is here debating on whether or not there is a risk with those subs so why do you keep brining this up? It is a total and complete non sequitur.

I'm pretty sure that every time you say you're pretty sure you're talking out of your ass.

Ok.

[MannyIsGod]

BP doesn't have nuclear weapons (last I checked), so it would have to come from the administration. Is this how we deal with problems now? Consensus?
As opposed to actual scientific research?

And if we're looking at solutions in mid August, then we sure as heck have enough time to make an actual impact study.

We've always dealt with problems this way because we don't have infinite resources. First, you use common sense to knock out the stupid ideas. Then you focus on the ones with promise and study them. Then you implement. This idea seems to have been phased out smartly in the first phase.

Where are all the engineers, physicists and other scientists who are championing this idea? We've had fringe reports of one guy in Russian who says it has an 80% failure rate and silence.

Where is the scientific and engineering community on this idea? The silence is rather telling.

[boutons_deux]

1997 Warning on Deep Blowouts: ‘Options Are Limited’

By ANDREW C. REVKIN

It should come as no surprise that experts in avoiding and stopping blowouts of oil and gas wells long ago saw the deep-ocean drilling frontier as particularly dangerous terrain.

Back in 1997, an offshore-drilling newsletter ran an article by Larry Flak, a veteran well blowout expert, at Boots & Coots at the time, listing a variety of paths leading to a seabed blowout and stated flatly that stopping one would be an enormous challenge.

His bottom line? “Options are limited, so prevention and fast action are critical.”

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/20...pagemode=print

[boutons_deux]

Magic Negro didn't have the balls to take over/Resolution-Trust the bankrupt Wall St Banksters, he won't have the balls to take Reich's solution and go Harry-Truman on criminal BP.

===========

The Huffington Post May 31, 2010


Robert Reich
Robert Reich

Former Secretary of Labor, Professor at Berkeley
Posted: May 31, 2010 01:46 PM
BIO Become a Fan
Get Email Alerts Bloggers' Index




Why Obama Should Put BP Under Temporary Receivership


It's time for the federal government to put BP under temporary receivership, which gives the government authority to take over BP's operations in the Gulf of Mexico until the gusher is stopped. This is the only way the public will know what's going on, be confident enough resources are being put to stopping the gusher, ensure BP's strategy is correct, know the government has enough clout to force BP to use a different one if necessary, and be sure the president is ultimately in charge.

If the government can take over giant global insurer AIG and the auto giant General Motors and replace their CEOs, in order to keep them financially solvent, it should be able to put BP's north American operations into temporary receivership in order to stop one of the worst environmental disasters in U.S. history.

The Obama administration keeps saying BP is in charge because BP has the equipment and expertise necessary to do what's necessary. But under temporary receivership, BP would continue to have the equipment and expertise. The only difference: the firm would unambiguously be working in the public's interest. As it is now, BP continues to be responsible primarily to its shareholders, not to the American public. As a result, the public continues to worry that a private for-profit corporation is responsible for stopping a public tragedy.

Five reasons for taking such action:

1. We are not getting the truth from BP. BP has continuously and dramatically understated size of gusher. In the last few days, BP chief Tony Hayward has tried to refute reports from scientists that vast amounts of oil from the spill are spreading underwater. Hayward says BP's sampling shows "no evidence" oil is massing and spreading underwater across the Gulf. Yet scientists from the University of South Florida, University of Georgia, University of Southern Mississippi and other ins utions say they've detected vast amounts of underwater oil, including an area roughly 50 miles from the spill site and as deep as 400 feet. Government must be clearly in charge of getting all the facts, not waiting for what BP decides to disclose and when.

2. We have no way to be sure BP is devoting enough resources to stopping the gusher. BP is now saying it has no immediate way to stop up the well until August, when a new "relief" well will reach the gushing well bore, enabling its engineers to install cement plugs. August? If government were in direct control of BP's north American assets, it would be able to devote whatever of those assets are necessary to stopping up the well right away.

3. BP's new strategy for stopping the gusher is highly risky. It wants to sever the leaking pipe cleanly from atop the failed blowout preventer, and then install a new cap so the escaping oil can be pumped up to a ship on the surface. But scientists say that could result in an even bigger volume of oil -- as much as 20 percent more -- gushing from the well. At least under government receivership, public officials would be directly accountable for weighing the advantages and disadvantages of such a strategy. As of now, company officials are doing the weighing. Which brings us to the fourth argument for temporary receivership.

4. Right now, the U.S. government has no authority to force BP to adopt a different strategy. Saturday, Energy Secretary Steven Chu and his team of scientists essentially halted BP's attempt to cap the spewing well with a process known as "top kill," which injected drilling mud and other materials to try to counter the upward pressure of the oil. Apparently the Administration team was worried that the technique would worsen the leak. But under what authority did the Administration act? It has none. Asked Sunday whether U.S. officials told BP to stop the top-kill attempt, Carol Browner, the White House environmental advisor, said, "We told them of our very, very grave concerns" about the danger. Expressing grave concerns is not enough. The President needs legal authority to order BP to protect the United States.

5. The President is not legally in charge. As long as BP is not under the direct control of the government he has no direct line of authority, and responsibility is totally confused. For example, listen for the "we" and "they" pronouns that were used by Carol Browner in response to a question on NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday (emphasis added): "We're now going to move into a situation where they're going to attempt to control the oil that's coming out, move it to a vessel, take it onshore ....We always knew that the relief well was the permanent way to close this .... Now we move to the third option, which is to contain it. If [the new cap on the relief well is] a snug fit, then there could be very, very little oil. If they're not able to get as snug a fit, then there could be more. We're going to hope for the best and prepare for the worst." When you get pronoun confusion like this, you can bet on confusion -- both inside the Administration and among the public. There is no good reason why "they" are in charge of an operation of which "we" are hoping for the best and preparing for the worst.


The president should temporarily take over BP's Gulf operations. We have a national emergency on our hands. No president would allow a nuclear reactor owned by a private for-profit company to melt down in the United States while remaining under the direct control of that company. The meltdown in the Gulf is the environmental equivalent.

This post originally appeared at RobertReich.org
=

[jack sommerset]

[ElNono]

Sure, but its irrelevant. The underground depth of the well is not what is hampering things, its the depth of the water. Its really funny because you didn't make this point when I brought up the water depth but only after you were obviously wrong.

I made the point that I intended to make: That your claim that there's no standard procedures to follow in these cases is a complete turd. At least two techniques used in that 1979 well were used or are going to be also used to try to plug this well. Why didn't you bring this up when you made your claim?

Who is advocating blowing one up? No one. No one is here debating on whether or not there is a risk with those subs so why do you keep brining this up? It is a total and complete non sequitur.

You can go back and read why I brought this topic up. You're the one that keeps arguing about it.

[ElNono]

We've always dealt with problems this way because we don't have infinite resources. First, you use common sense to knock out the stupid ideas. Then you focus on the ones with promise and study them. Then you implement. This idea seems to have been phased out smartly in the first phase.

As opposed to your hollywood dreams, this is not an idea. It's a technique that has been used numerous times in the real world.
The Ruskies didn't send Ivan Drago to plug their gas/oil wells.
I don't know how feasible it is in this case, and that's what I'm trying to find out. If your discussion of technical merits circle around checking the availability of Samuel Jackson or Bruce Willis, and what kind of 'compromise' we would need, then there's really not much more to add.

Where are all the engineers, physicists and other scientists who are championing this idea? We've had fringe reports of one guy in Russian who says it has an 80% failure rate and silence.

Link to the study from this Russian dude? I mean, I'm sure he didn't pull that number out of his ass. That's exactly what I'm looking for, an actual feasibility and impact study. Since you make your conclusions based on what this guy said, then I'm sure you have a read his study?
As far as failure/success rate of this technique, we simply can go look at the results whenever this technique has been used. It's well over 20% success rate.

Where is the scientific and engineering community on this idea? The silence is rather telling.

That's exactly what I want. The administration to seek help of the scientific and engineering community to create a study about the feasibility and impact of this technique. So far, BP has done all they normally do. It hasn't worked. They obviously don't have access to nukes, so they're not going to waste time seeking a solution there.

[boutons_deux]

"BP has done all they normally do. It hasn't worked."

bull . There is no "normal" of plugging very high-pressure oil+methane blowouts at 5000 under the surface. Experimenting with a nuke simply isn't the best, most likely to succeed approach.

I thought the approach of trying to capture the oil in tube leading the surface and into tankers was a good idea. I think if they cut off the well head to a regular shape and dropping a tube over it to scavenge the oil into tankers until the relief hole(s) permit plugging the original hole is the best way to go, from what I'm hearing from various experts.

BP is interested in minimizing its costs and maximizing its revenues. Do they really, seriously want to plug and abandon the $Bs in oil down there?

[ElNono]

"BP has done all they normally do. It hasn't worked."

bull . There is no "normal" of plugging very high-pressure oil+methane blowouts at 5000 under the surface. Experimenting with a nuke simply isn't the best, most likely to succeed approach.

I thought the approach of trying to capture the oil in tube leading the surface and into tankers was a good idea. I think if they cut off the well head to a regular shape and dropping a tube over it to scavenge the oil into tankers until the relief hole(s) permit plugging the original hole is the best way to go, from what I'm hearing from various experts.

BP is interested in minimizing its costs and maximizing its revenues. Do they really, seriously want to plug and abandon the $Bs in oil down there?

Hey, I don't discard that the nuke technique is not feasible or possible.
But in 10 pages so far into this discussion, I still haven't seen the technical merits for discarding it.

I'm 100% with you that BP has other interests in mind. I understand they much rather control the leak as opposed to just closing it and moving along.
Which is really a much more logical explanation of why they would be reluctant to approach a technique to seal the well if they could get access to a nuke.

[boutons_deux]

[DarrinS]

They should just give Michael Moore lipo and pump his fat into the hole.

[ducks]

"BP has done all they normally do. It hasn't worked."

bull . There is no "normal" of plugging very high-pressure oil+methane blowouts at 5000 under the surface. Experimenting with a nuke simply isn't the best, most likely to succeed approach.

I thought the approach of trying to capture the oil in tube leading the surface and into tankers was a good idea. I think if they cut off the well head to a regular shape and dropping a tube over it to scavenge the oil into tankers until the relief hole(s) permit plugging the original hole is the best way to go, from what I'm hearing from various experts.

BP is interested in minimizing its costs and maximizing its revenues. Do they really, seriously want to plug and abandon the $Bs in oil down there?

Experimenting with a nuke simply isn't the best, most likely to succeed approach.
deep
nobody has tested anything to pug a hole over 5000 feet in the whole

what would the great boutons_deux do?

just let natural take it course?


I suppose you would not drill for oil since it might leak.
do you ride a plane or train I would think you would not since it might crash

[ducks]

yeah boycotting them will fix the leak

do you buy things made from china

[ducks]

they should plug it with the presidents big mouth and his big promises he breaks

[EmptyMan]

Pretty sure underwater nuking is what created the cloverfield monster.