A Disaster Of Mega Proportions Brewing In Gulf

[mikegideon]

95,000 barrels/day! As of right now, this 'spill' is putting as much oil in the gulf every 2.5 days as the entire Exxon Valdez spill!

Gulf oil spill leak now pegged at 95,000 barrels a day | McClatchy

...if you believe one guy. The official number hasn't changed

[Oh Shoot]

I can hardly even comment any more I'm so exasperated, flabbergasted, discombobulated, and just downright sick over the whole thing.

The oil is bad enough but now the lies, spin, subterfuge, stonewalling ...

Hell, wait and see if down the road the damn variety of dispersants alone will prove to have horrible effects, like two headed grouper ... and children.

- OS

[strickj]

Hell, wait and see if down the road the damn variety of dispersants alone will prove to have horrible effects, like two headed grouper ... and children.

- OS

If this oil spill causes kids....I'm staying the hell away from the coast

[G27]

The oil is bad enough but now the lies, spin, subterfuge, stonewalling ...

Yep.

And BP has already proved they cannot be trusted to tell the truth.

Hell, wait and see if down the road the damn variety of dispersants alone will prove to have horrible effects, like two headed grouper ... and children.

Indeed - the EPA formally told BP today they had to stop using the dispersants they were using. Not a great sign.

This thing is just bad news after bad...

[Guest jackdm3]

Back to the idea of using hay. Damn P & G.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Cheer up, OS

[Guest Jamie]

Look at the bright side; maybe after this, we really will be able to run our vehicles on sea water.

J.

[Oh Shoot]

Cheer up, OS

Well, I am almost giddy.

- OS

[Oh Shoot]

Look at the bright side; maybe after this, we really will be able to run our vehicles on sea water.

J.

Yep.

Won't need sun screen anymore down there either, just hit the water for instant even coating.

Pan won't have to be greased to cook fish, either.

May turn out to be a big improvement over all; guess I need to look on the bright side.

- OS

[saintsfanbrian]

I can hardly even comment any more I'm so exasperated, flabbergasted, discombobulated, and just downright sick over the whole thing.

The oil is bad enough but now the lies, spin, subterfuge, stonewalling ...

Hell, wait and see if down the road the damn variety of dispersants alone will prove to have horrible effects, like two headed grouper ... and children.

- OS

More reasons for Big Brother to be looking out for us. Don't hesitate to use any disaster to their favor.

[mikegideon]

Yep.

And BP has already proved they cannot be trusted to tell the truth.

Indeed - the EPA formally told BP today they had to stop using the dispersants they were using. Not a great sign.

This thing is just bad news after bad...

I take back what i said earlier. BP finally had to admit that it's way more than their estimates.

BP: Oil gusher bigger than we estimated - CNN.com

[mikegideon]

More reasons for Big Brother to be looking out for us. Don't hesitate to use any disaster to their favor.

We WANT big brother in this. Lack of big brother is one of the things that made this so ugly.

[Guest jackdm3]

BP's damage control is spiralling Al Lewis - MarketWatch

[Guest jackdm3]

Just a friendly tip to you guys, I have worked in this industry for 10 years, and if you want to buy stock buy Transocean now, I Guarantee they will rebound from this as BP will end up paying the bills

Transocean stock is still sinking like a stone. I'm TOO familiar with holding this stock.

[Guest SUNTZU]

As BP prepares to lower a four-story, 70-ton dome over the oil gusher under the Gulf of Mexico, the Russians — the world’s biggest oil producers — have some advice for their American counterparts: nuke it.

Komsomoloskaya Pravda, the best-selling Russian daily, reports that in Soviet times such leaks were plugged with controlled nuclear blasts underground. The idea is simple, KP writes: “the underground explosion moves the rock, presses on it, and, in essence, squeezes the well’s channel.â€

Yes! It’s so simple, in fact, that the Soviet Union, a major oil exporter, used this method five times to deal with petrocalamities. The first happened in Uzbekistan, on September 30, 1966 with a blast 1.5 times the strength of the Hiroshima bomb and at a depth of 1.5 kilometers. KP also notes that subterranean nuclear blasts were used as much as 169 times in the Soviet Union to accomplish fairly mundane tasks like creating underground storage spaces for gas or building canals.

@import url("http://diacache.daylife.com/_sgstatic/release-56034/v2/css/smartgalleries/smartgalleries_embed.css");

These kinds of surgical strikes to shut off underground leaks, however, were carried out only five times, with the last one occuring in 1979. And there was only one misfire, near Kharkov, Ukraine, where a nuclear blast was unable to stanch a gas leak.

Happily, with a track record like that, “the chances of failure in the Gulf of Mexico are 20%,†KP writes. “The Americans could certainly risk it.â€

Nuke that slick - Julia Ioffe - The Moscow Diaries - True/Slant

[mikegideon]

Nuke that slick - Julia Ioffe - The Moscow Diaries - True/Slant

What about the radiation?

[Mike.357]

What about the radiation?

might be getting to the point of picking your poison

[mikegideon]

might be getting to the point of picking your poison

Russia is a little looser with that kinda poison than us .

[Guest SUNTZU]

What about the radiation?

Ask the Russians. Its been done by them a few times and the U.S. used to test underwater as well.

[Guest SUNTZU]

From '07. Don't know if anything has progressed with this discovery.

Russian scientists discover radiation- absorbing mineral - RT Top Stories

[mikegideon]

Ask the Russians. Its been done by them a few times and the U.S. used to test underwater as well.

Hey Mr. Russian, what about the radiation?

[Guest SUNTZU]

Hey Mr. Russian, what about the radiation?

Wow, that's a lot of water!!! How many feet underwater would you say that is, Mike?

[Mike.357]

I dunno how you can compare Chernobyl with using small nukes underwater.

Why not post a pic of Three Mile Island too.

[mikegideon]

Wow, that's a lot of water!!! How many feet underwater would you say that is, Mike?

Point is, their safety standards may be different than ours, like building a reactor with no containment.

The product of a nuclear blast is going to be ionizing radiation, which does a pretty good job of modifying DNA. Something like this Chernobyl baby...

[mikegideon]

I dunno how you can compare Chernobyl with using small nukes underwater.

Why not post a pic of Three Mile Island too.

Three mile island didn't kill anybody. It's about the Russians.

After rereading the post, they weren't using "small" nukes. They mentioned 1 1/2 times the Hiroshima bomb, which was around 20 kilotons. I also gather that they're sinking the bombs into the ground next to the well. A depth of 1.5 km was mentioned. That would probably work like a champ, and the radiation would probably contained too.

The whole problem with this thing, to begin with, is that the water pressure at that depth is better than 2200 psi.

Edited May 24, 2010 by mikegideon