Senator: Deepwater Well Integrity May Be Shot, Meaning Oil Could Be Leaking Straight Up From The Sea

[girl gone mad]

Source: MSNBC, The Business Insider

This may be the real nightmare scenario in the Gulf. Some have speculated that the inner integrity of the Deepwater well could be blown (not just the top) and that oil could be leaking out from the side, making it hard to imagine how you might go about plugging the thing.

On MSNBC today, Senator Ben Nelson said he'd heard such report, and is looking into such things. Let's hope not.


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/senator-deepwater-well-integrity-may-be-shot-meaning-oil-could-be-leaking-straight-up-from-the-seabed-2010-6

---

I hope these sources are mainstream enough for LBN. Video at link.

[fascisthunter]

1. kick... this needs attention

[breadandwine]

38. Nelson also said in the clip that the military should get involved.

Why aren't we hearing this from our wimpy, DLC corporate suck up White House?

Nelson is a Democrat, not an ax-grinding Republican. If he is saying the military should get involved, this gives the lie to all those who say we can't do it, the White House is already doing all it can, blah blah. Obama and his DLC suck ups to the corporations and GOP are acting like wimps.

[Dr.Phool]

51. The Nelson who said that was BILL Nelson (FL).

Who, just for the record, happens to be a DLC suck up, and a member of the Family to boot.

[Whisp]

64. lol! another one stepped in his own poop eh?

:rofl:

[lark]

70. He's right on this issue

Cracks me up, so many here pile on any politician regardless of his/her stance on a particular issue. We need friends on this and Nelson is taking point on pushing for more and better information and for effective clean up.

[European Historian]

71. I'm no fan of Bill Nelson

But he has always opposed drilling off shore in Florida.

[benddem]

65. and just what the hell

do you think the military should be doing? You and the Senator have no clue as to the military's functions, capabilities etc. Besides that they are WAY over extended.

[liberation]

86. *ahem* The Core of Engineers *ahem*

Not that I think Nelson, or any other DLC toadie knows much about anything...

[GReedDiamond]

92. Good point about the Army Corps of Engineers,..

...but weren't they (back during the Cheney misAdmin), replaced by the engineering "experts" from Halliburton/KBR? -- who have, ever since, done a tremendous job, raking in The Really Big Bucks. Privatize the profits, socialize the losses!

And I agree with you about the "DLC toadie" thing.

[Oceansaway]

2. K&R...n/t

[Mark D.]

76. YouTube

Go there everyone on DU. Search oil-eating bacteria. There is a kind available, now stored away with plenty to use that BP or the US government is not using or even exploring the use of. It has been used in prior leaks effectively. It only eats oil, it's 100% natural, the waste it gives off is safe and marine life eat it easily. Once it's done self-replicating and eating the spill, it dies off totally. It can be sprayed from boats with hoses, and it, along with some others, can be used on the shore, in marshes, on beaches, safely. Why isn't this more widely known? DU I need your help on getting the word out on this ASAP.

I have written MSNBC, TYT, Ring of Fire, you name it. We must get the word out, an all out effort to distribute this could make a huge difference. Write and spread the word to everyone you can. Some kinds don't work on water, this one does, it is proven and was used on a rig spill in the gulf already. Why isn't it being used now. Does BP want a dead gulf to 'reduce the need' for oversight and allow more plunder? Are they paying the government to 'look busy' but declare an all-out, no holds barred INTERnational emergency involving the UN, and every other company that can get involved in figuring out how to stop the leak?

[tabatha]

3. Thought this comment was pretty good.

"The most terrifying words in the English language are: 'Trust us. We're from private industry. We don't need any governmental regulation or oversight to make sure we're doing our jobs right."

[obxhead]

8. +1

[defendandprotect]

12. +1000%

[mikekohr]

42. The best movie line of all times is from "Animal House," It goes, "You fucked up. you trusted us."

It applies so well in this case as in so many other cases.

[fasttense]

45. The 5 most terrifying words in the english language:

Private industry can regulate themselves.

[Chan790]

67. I'm borrowing this.

It's just too good to rankle GOPers with for me to pass it up.

[mzmolly]

77. Awesome!

:toast:

[CountAllVotes]

4. K&R

:dem: :kick:

[RC]

5. The well is not leaking from anywhere except the top of the damaged BOP.

They have their ROV's down there. You can see for yourself, when the cameras are on.
I saw no new leaks this afternoon.

http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/homepage/STAGING/local_assets/bp_homepage/html/rov_stream.html

[defendandprotect]

13. Others have actually suggested three leaks from this well . . .

[tabatha]

16. Maybe they are out of camera range.

[Turbineguy]

17. In any event, the bottom kill would close a leak.

[marmar]

20. You trust BP's camera placement?

nt

[tango-tee]

33. That was my first thought as well.

[lonestarnot]

21. You have only seen what they are showing you, with whichever rover they choose to show you footage.

[lonestarnot]

22. oops

[nashville_brook]

24. said the observer at the far end of the sheet with the hole in it.

[lonestarnot]

30. Have you seen any footage of a rover running along the entire line of the well?

[RC]

44. Yes, yesterday. The water is clear until you see the oil coming out at the top of the BOP

Maybe people need to watch the feed for themselves. Those ROV's are working down there. They had 3 there yesterday. You could see the other two ROV's on the other side of the BOP. If the oil were leaking from the sea bottom around the well
You'd be able to see where the oil was coming from. There was none.

This is scare mongering by people that rejoice in other peoples misery.

[earth mom]

61. Bullshit! This is people trying to find out the truth because BP has proven to be liars

who only care about their profits!

Quit defending those bastards!!! :grr:

Who do you work for, eh?

[RC]

83. I'm just telling you what I saw and know.

School must be out. The kids are on their parents computer, unsupervised again.

It doesn't matter if BP are liars or not. The well was not leaking from the bottom of the BOP yesterday when I was watching.
Can you tell me You saw it leaking? No, because it wasn't. So what's your problem.

[liberation]

87. I will take the word of the experts with actual sensory data and models, if you don't mind.

"visual inspection" from a few minutes feed over the internet, sounds a tad too much like that whole "medical diagnosis via video tape"

[RC]

89. Actually no it isn't. And the "actual sensory data" are from the cameras on the ROV's.

Picture this. This is what I saw on June 7, 2010.
A ROV with the camera was on one side of the BOP.
The other two ROV's are on the other side of the BOP, spaced far enough apart so you see them on either side of the BOP. All have their lights on.
The ROV with the camera on is backing away from the BOP. You can see most of the BOP and the other two ROV's.
The only oil visible is what is coming out of the top of the BOP and the cap. If there had been any oil coming from the bottom of the BOP, it would have been visible when the one ROV backed away. Either, 1. because it would be seen in the lights from one of the other or both of the other two ROV's, or 2. shown up in the lights of the ROV with the camera. I saw no oil, except from the top of the BOP.

Anybody who wants to call me a liar had better come up with some video of oil coming from below the top of the BOP on the Horizon well!

I can't call anyone else a liar here because it is obvious most people on this thread don't know what they are talking about. To lie, you have to know the truth. And judging by the responses of a good share of the posters, chances are good they don't even know the URL of the 'Live feed' let alone watched any of it. So how are their qualifications better than mine here? I know what I saw - and what I did not see.

[Kermitt Gribble]

88. This is warranted concern

from a Senator who's state could be completely ruined by this disaster. I'm no Nelson fan, but he's on the right side of this issue. And, I would imagine a US Senator who's entire state is directly in the path of destruction has access to more information than BP sponsored teevee cameras.

Where do you get off trying to discredit this claim with no proof other than what you see on tv??

[TheKentuckian]

62. You see what they want you to see and never forget it.

They have certainly consistently been dishonest and listening to their lies will have costs.

[yella_dawg]

78. If the surface casing, or the cement seal failed,

If the surface casing, or the cement seal failed, oil will rise around the casing only until it hits a fissure, cavern, or other porous structure, then seek the path of least resistance. Rumor has it that leakage is occurring as much as five miles from the wellhead. If true, I doubt BP has a submersible parked on the outlet.

[bergie321]

6. Now BP

Will say it's natural and wash their hands of it.

[time_has_come]

7. That Mississippi Gov. is in denial. All he cares about is tourism PR, but the oil IS coming to Miss.

Instead of moaning about the media coverage affecting his tourism, he should be talking about response efforts. Dumb old white guy.

[KharmaTrain]

47. You Don't See/Smell Oil On A Gambling Boat...

That's all fat cat Haley cares about. He needs the tax revenues and kickbacks from the gambling boats at Gulfport and Biloxi and doesn't give a crap about the beaches or the wildlife.

[felinetta]

9. Typo: it is Sen BILL Nelson.

[OhioChick]

10. K&R n/t

[defendandprotect]

11. k

[The Backlash Cometh]

14. Slip on a cup?

Imagine putting a giant cup with a hole that slides down the pipe. Maybe a skirt would be better for visualization?

[Ozymanithrax]

15. This possibility was mentioned last week in and interview on NPR. n/t

[Paul E Ester]

18. One way to deal with this...

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c08_1275348235

[wtmusic]

19. Wow.

A possibility. :wow:

[phusion]

23. That only works...

I believe, because the explosion starves the fire of oxygen. They do this all the time on gas/oil FIRES, not underwater leaks. It seems to me that dropping a nuke at the deepwater clusterfuck well would destroy any chances of actually capping/plugging the leak. But who knows?

[boppers]

28. Uh, did you watch the whole video?

Oxygen and fires had nothing to do with it (they put those out first, hard to work in), the goal was to crimp the pipe and seal the hole below.

That being said, we don't have a whole lot of experience with putting nukes under 5,000 feet of water (and resultant pressure), so there'd have to be some serious work done on that.... unless Russia's done that, as well?

[wordpix]

54. no one's nuked anything 5000 ft down. KO science expert says it's Three Stooges with nukes

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37508386

OLBERMANN: An honor to once again be joined by the host of “Sci Fi Science” on the Science Channel, author of “Physics of the Impossible,” and physics professor at city college here in New York, Michio Kaku.
Welcome back, sir.
MICHIO KAKU, “SCI FI SCIENCE”: Glad to be on, Keith.
OLBERMANN: Nuking an underwater oil well, what could possibly go wrong with that?
KAKU: What could go right?
OLBERMANN: Yes.
KAKU: I mean, you‘re talking about radioactive cesium, iodine, strontium being injected into the food chain, and they last for not just decades, but centuries. And when hurricane season comes, all the tar balls could wind up radioactive and landing in people‘s swimming pools.
Could you imagine radioactive oil being spread all over the Gulf States by a hurricane? And it would last, again, for centuries, this radioactive material.
OLBERMANN: So, this would then—this has the potential of becoming a nuclear oil spill?
KAKU: Yes, this is a nuclear oil spill on top of everything else. When you detonate a hydrogen bomb underground, what happens is it creates a sphere. It vapor rises a sphere of dirt and then glassifies the surface of the sphere.
OLBERMANN: Right.
KAKU: That‘s what they want to do, use the glass to choke the well.
OLBERMANN: OK.
KAKU: OK? However, it‘s unstable. What happens is, after a day or so, the ground collapses on the glass and you have a gigantic hole. Now, this is great for gouging out canals, which is why the Soviets considered it back in the ‘60s.
OLBERMANN: OK.
KAKU: But an oil well, it would make it worse. It would widen the hole and the glassified seal would break as a consequence.
OLBERMANN: And, is there anything to the idea that that oil would still be leaking out because the process to tap it or to control it would have broken, this somehow, the oil would now provide fuel for whatever went wrong with the nuclear device? Could these two things now combine into something we don‘t even know about?
KAKU: Well, there‘s no such thing as a runaway chain reaction with oil. You need uranium for that.
OLBERMANN: OK.
KAKU: But the problem is, this could open up other fissures, other holes, other gaps, and that you have not just one leaking fire hydrants of oil, you have many leaking fire hydrants of oil—all of which have to be capped, all of which have to have a top kill, and we start all over again.
OLBERMANN: Are there geological implications, too, at that depth? I mean, we‘re talking a mile-plus down. Do we know—would—if you—if you detonated some, quote-unquote, “controlled nuclear device,” like there was such a thing, at that depth under that water pressure, could there have be geological consequence?
KAKU: This is a huge science experiment.
OLBERMANN: Yes.
KAKU: A colossal science experiment. We‘ve never done that. We‘ve detonated bombs underwater. We‘ve detonated bombs under the land, but never under a mile under the surface of the ocean. We‘ve never done that before. We‘re in totally uncharted territory.
OLBERMANN: So, this is now—we‘ve moved from the analogy we used last time which is, this looked like a three stooges movie—this would be a three stooges movie where in the middle that, they suddenly threw out anything resembling a script and just made it up now with using real guns and hammers.
KAKU: Imagine the three stooges with nukes.
OLBERMANN: Yes.
(LAUGHTER)
KAKU: That‘s what we‘re talking about, totally uncharted territory.
OLBERMANN: I think that might be the line of the thing so far, the three stooges with nukes. All right, take the nuke out of it. Is there something to the idea of blowing something up so it will seal off?
KAKU: Some people have talked about conventional explosives.
OLBERMANN: Yes.
KAKU: But again, you don‘t have the glassification taking place with ordinary explosives. And, again, you could be rupturing other holes, other holes down there. So, all of a sudden, not just one leak, but many leaks. And come hurricane season, the solution to pollution is not going to be dilution.
OLBERMANN: That‘s right. We have a nuclear oil hurricane now. A combination of all three.
So, I‘m thinking you‘re disagreeing with this supposed expert who said all the best scientists consider it plausible.
KAKU: I think this is fabricated out of thin air. I‘d like to meet some of these people. My adviser, Edward Teller, was the one pushing this, but he pushed it for canal digging, never for sealing a well a mile under water where we don‘t know what the geography is like, we don‘t know the long-term implications. And, like I said, who needs radioactive tar balls in their swimming pool?
OLBERMANN: We could read at night.
Michio Kaku, professor of physics, host of “Sci Fi Science” in the Science Channel—once again, great thanks and great thanks for leaving us with the image of the three stooges with nukes. Appreciate it.

[TheEuclideanOne]

26. okay, let me ask a stupid question

Won't a nuclear blast release radiation into the ocean or land? I am guessing that it won't, but I don't know why.

[wtmusic]

31. At the end of the vid they claim there is no radiation released

If the explosion is deep enough it wouldn't vent, however...without any experience doing it under a seafloor, on top of a huge oil reservoir, the risks would be enormous - not only for radiation, but the possibility it could cause the entire reservoir to rupture and release millions of barrels of crude into the Gulf at once.

Yipes. :scared:

[TheEuclideanOne]

32. Also, keep in mind that BP would be in charge of it

They might accidentally nuke Texas in their efforts. Then again, that would be another upside. Also, even if they do say that no radiation is release, I am still curious to know why. I always think of a big mushroom cloud with every in it's path full of radiation when I think of nuclear weapons.

[TheMadMonk]

41. No mushroom cloud. The entire force of the explosion is contained...

...underground as is all the nasty stuff.

[havbrush]

72. Force of nuke explosion contained

How can anyone possibly know the explosion and radiation would be contained if this has never been done before. Let's get real hear and just think. A nuclear explosion atop a spewing oil well 5000 feet under the surface of the ocean? Just thinking of it sounds crazy. No one knows what will happen if they do that. Repeat, no on knows what will happen. And anyone willing to take that chance should be nowhere near the decision making process.

[TheMadMonk]

81. It's not done on top of the well.

It's done off to one side, deep enough that the mass of rock/etc. above the bomb is more than the force (large as it is) of the explosion can lift and close enough to the bore that the shockwave colapses a long section of the borehole. At the very least it should reduce flow rates in the upper section of the bore to levels where it would be possible to replace the failed blowout preventer entirely.

This much is known from the Soviet attempts at well control, and experiments conducted in the fifties and sixties with an eye to using nuclear explosives for civil engineering and mining.

The unknowable is in the 1500m or so of water on top. On the one hand it adds positively to the force (weight) containing the explosion, theoretically alowing the bomb to be exploded at a shallower depth. On the other, it also adds to forces pushing down on the oil resevoir increasing the pressure that has to be kept contained in perpetuity. Or at least until it has been sucked dry.

The danger is that the shockwave could weaken the impervious strata that caps the whole oil and gas bearing formation enough for the very high pressures down there to rupture it.

[kenfrequed]

91. This is nonsense

The military has carried out underground and underwater nuclear testing for decades. Projections and computer simulations can be made. Running around saying "no one knows what will happen" is alarmist nonsense.


The device would be put to the side of the main oil well and would crush it both with the explosive blast and with the resulting collapse caused by the the area of thermal vaporization at the blast site. It would be sealed.

Things it would not do:
-create hundreds of cracks in the earth over thousands of miles under the ocean causing oil to leak all over the place. Sorry but the mass of rock and eart would still sink and pinch off an cracks. Additionally the size of the tactical device would be rather small. Earthquakes and undersea volcanoes would release a greater amount of energy in terms of seismic effect.

-Cause a methane burp that would bring on the apocalypse by rendering all methyl hydrates in the ocean unstable and bubbley, thereby suffocating all life on earth.
No, again on the surface of the ocean there would be some disruption and collapser, possibly gassifying a portion of methyl hydrate though the cold and pressure of the ocean still would apply and though enough might bubble up to sink a few ships in the absolute immediate vicinity, it would be less damaging environmentally than the oil leak and certainly not as threatening. Clue: one of ther reasons the hat failed is because these methyl hydrates released from the floor by the oil built up on the thing and collected as solids created by pressure and cold. This suggests that the hydrates would probably not completely bubble and that much of it oculd remain dissolved in the water at that depth.

-explode outward in a caldera of fire and nuclear-radioactive burning oil.
The fact this is being fronted as a possible theory proves that we have worked hard and earned our place as 21st in science throughout the world. The entire oil field would not ignite, again there isn't enough oxygen present. The blast would not have enough force at that depth to detonate off of the surface. A study into explosives, energy, pressure, and density of the matter there ought to tell anyone that.

-Turn your shrimp into Shrimpzilla or kill them all with radiation.
The first part was a joke, as to radiation leaking and killing all the shrimp the raw amount of earth between the blast and the bottom of the ocean would minimize radiation getting out. Almost no fallout shelter or nuclear shelter in the world ever had 5000 feet of solid material between it and the blast. As to radiation leaking afterwards it would be miniscule, and thanks to mass and pressure of the material above it, there would be no reason and method by which it would leak out.

[Dr.Phool]

52. Not only that, but if the wellfield walls are already breached,

An explosion would probably make it worse.

And I prefer my grouper stuffed with crabmeat, not Godzilla.

[kenfrequed]

58. Uh...

The nuke would be all the more effective and likely the only solution if the walls are compromised. It would put pressure agaisnt the entire shaft and pinch it shut, not just the pipe. Actually any solution that tries to work at sealing the pipe is a complete waste of time.

Again the radiation leak would be miniscule comparatively speaking and would not result in Godzilla. The cost benefit to the environment needs to be considered. The radiation from a nuclear explosive is comparably short in persistance compared to nuclear waste and most of the persistant material is in radioactive fallout. In this case that would be contained as there is little chance any material would escape the well.

The reactions to using a nuke are somewhat knee jerk and I suspect many are being whipped into this frenzy by BP as they are more concerned with keeping some access to this site than closing it and a nuke would seal all of the wells (main and relief) cutting them off from access to it permanently as no one would reauthorize their drilling in this location.

[kenfrequed]

57. Highly unlikely

A controlled and sufficiently small tactical nuke would pinch off the hole and collapse the whole works. Radioactive leaks would be minimal and compared to the oil spill, very localized. Additionally radiation released by a nuclear explosive tends to be a lot less persistent than that produced by a nuclear reactor.

The talk about wild cracks that move across the ocean floor or super oil explosions ignore physics and basic scientific principles that people should have learned in high school chemistry and physics.

The explosion would be contained deep and pose minimal risk to the public and the ocean and would not result in a doomsday scenario.

[havbrush]

73. Highly unlikely?

It hasn't been done before. You don't really know what you're talking about so pls stop pontificating about high school physics.

[kenfrequed]

75. Uhm

Ok, lets start with the appearance of an underground nuclear blast. Have you ever seen one? There is always a collapse of soil, rock, and earth. I have never seen video of an deep underground blast that produced a massive surface explosion.

Now there is the pressure of water at that depth and the amount of water atop that also puts pressure down on the earth at the depth where the nuclear explosion would be triggered. Do you think that magically it would explode outwards and upwards? No.

And 'pontificating' really? Do you really think I'm being that autocratic about my opinion or stating some kind of existing position authoritatively? I can't help that you bothered to throw that two dollar word out after abbreviating 'please.' Very strange.

And by the way, none of this changes the Fact that the well is still gushing and poisoning the sea. Why you would think that we can just wait for another relief well (or whatever other petrol friendly stupid solution that BP has in mind) is beyond me.

[havbrush]

79. Uhm?

Noboby wants the well to continue spewing oil into the ocean but a nuclear explosion to stop it? Come on! Too many variables, too many unforseen things that can go wrong and make the spill even worse. I don't claim to be an expert but if BP would stop with all the attempts to retrieve oil and even make money off this disaster instead of just plugging it we'd be that much closer to stopping it. Their priority seems to be to "get the oil."

[kenfrequed]

80. Perhaps...

You could explain a few of these "things that could go wrong." Or perhaps you could express some of these variables in a more complete context. I really would like to know what you think could go wrong.

[Devil_Fish]

85. I got one, What if the Nuke ignites the natural gas that is in that oil reserve.

I suppose we humans will kill this planet one way or the other, so we might as well blow our selves to bits rather then drink the slow poison.

[kenfrequed]

90. Well there is a problem with this...

For it to ignite, a fair amount of oxygen is required. Trust me, the temperature of the oil is already hot enough to possibly do so if it could maintain that temperature when it arrived at the surface. It might be incinerated by the nuclear blast but it would not be likely that it would explode.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

29. Could work, could blow the shit out of everything too.

Children, playing with matches...

[havbrush]

74. Amen

Someone with common sense. A nuclear explosion 5000 feet under the ocean's surface, newver done before and some are actually advocating it with 5 dollar words of assurance that they know what will happen . . . that the leak will be pinched off, the explosion contained and no radiation released. What planet are they on.

[AtheistCrusader]

84. Specifically what variable are you worried about here?

This HAS BEEN DONE by the Russians in the 'olden days' on the surface. Without release of radiation.

Assuming you perform the same steps, IN THE OCEAN FLOOR, as if it were the surface, and you used the proper sized nuke, what does adding 5000 feet of water on top of the ocean floor do to make this more dangerous? Aside from needing to use remote technology to feed the nuke into the hole, because humans can't go that deep.

[OrderedChaos]

34. I don't trust BP with

the technology they currently are using. The last thing on earth I would want to do is hand them a nuclear weapon to seal the leak. They would fuck it up, and then we would all be really screwed.

[complain jane]

37. +1,000

[Prof Lester]

25. It has to leak

The boffins, though pressured by BP and it's whores in the government, said it's sand down there. Not solid rock. Compressed sand. The oil will burrow out if restricted and pop up elsewhere. The boffins also said it's leaking miles away, far from camera range, and in fact in places where BP isn't even looking.

So who's wrong.. disinterested scientists.. or paid whores of corporate thieves? Huh? You tell me.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

27. Leviathan,

unleashed by greed and avarice.

[DallasNE]

35. I've Been Looking At The Wellhead Pictures On CNN

Today and it sure looks to me like more oil is gushing out now than before the cut the riser pipe. That means that the 11,000 barrels a day BP is now capturing is less than the increase resulting from cutting that riser pipe. I have also heard that this 11,000 barrels a day is close to the maximum capacity BP has in their capture process. If that is the case then we could see a very significant leak past the end of the year -- not just until mid-August when the relief wells are completed.

Lastly, it may not be just the "top kill" effort that is causing the pipe to be leaking below the wellhead. The sand that is mixed in with the oil is very abrasive on the pipe so that problem can only get worse as the sand eats away at the pipe.

[niceypoo]

36. This country is experiencing one corporate apocalypse after another

Just let the market sort it all out

[amborin]

39. K&R scientists think the gushing is worse & BP keeps stonewalling:

ny times article quoted scientist who said it's now worse, and BP continues to stonewall

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/08/us/08flow.html?ref=us

[azul]

40. Meaning, oh hell, it may be too late.

"you gotta help me keep the devil
way down in the hole"

-Tom Waits

[onestepforward]

43. K&R n/t

[quaker bill]

46. The point of "bottom kill"

is that the condition of the well casing does not matter. They are attempting to seal it at the top of the deposit, by forcing the oil back down into the reservoir, and then grouting the well solid. At 16,000+ feet down, the condition of the pipe does not matter as outside of the pipe is solid rock.

[pjt7]

48. I'm starting to think we should blow this

gusher shut.

[Vinca]

49. Except if the well has lost its integrity, that might cause

a larger fissure in the sea floor and cause even more oil to escape. It's a nightmare.

[wordpix]

56. how? Three Stooges with nukes?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37508386

OLBERMANN: An honor to once again be joined by the host of “Sci Fi Science” on the Science Channel, author of “Physics of the Impossible,” and physics professor at city college here in New York, Michio Kaku.
Welcome back, sir.
MICHIO KAKU, “SCI FI SCIENCE”: Glad to be on, Keith.
OLBERMANN: Nuking an underwater oil well, what could possibly go wrong with that?
KAKU: What could go right?
OLBERMANN: Yes.
KAKU: I mean, you‘re talking about radioactive cesium, iodine, strontium being injected into the food chain, and they last for not just decades, but centuries. And when hurricane season comes, all the tar balls could wind up radioactive and landing in people‘s swimming pools.
Could you imagine radioactive oil being spread all over the Gulf States by a hurricane? And it would last, again, for centuries, this radioactive material.
OLBERMANN: So, this would then—this has the potential of becoming a nuclear oil spill?
KAKU: Yes, this is a nuclear oil spill on top of everything else. When you detonate a hydrogen bomb underground, what happens is it creates a sphere. It vapor rises a sphere of dirt and then glassifies the surface of the sphere.
OLBERMANN: Right.
KAKU: That‘s what they want to do, use the glass to choke the well.
OLBERMANN: OK.
KAKU: OK? However, it‘s unstable. What happens is, after a day or so, the ground collapses on the glass and you have a gigantic hole. Now, this is great for gouging out canals, which is why the Soviets considered it back in the ‘60s.
OLBERMANN: OK.
KAKU: But an oil well, it would make it worse. It would widen the hole and the glassified seal would break as a consequence.
OLBERMANN: And, is there anything to the idea that that oil would still be leaking out because the process to tap it or to control it would have broken, this somehow, the oil would now provide fuel for whatever went wrong with the nuclear device? Could these two things now combine into something we don‘t even know about?
KAKU: Well, there‘s no such thing as a runaway chain reaction with oil. You need uranium for that.
OLBERMANN: OK.
KAKU: But the problem is, this could open up other fissures, other holes, other gaps, and that you have not just one leaking fire hydrants of oil, you have many leaking fire hydrants of oil—all of which have to be capped, all of which have to have a top kill, and we start all over again.
OLBERMANN: Are there geological implications, too, at that depth? I mean, we‘re talking a mile-plus down. Do we know—would—if you—if you detonated some, quote-unquote, “controlled nuclear device,” like there was such a thing, at that depth under that water pressure, could there have be geological consequence?
KAKU: This is a huge science experiment.
OLBERMANN: Yes.
KAKU: A colossal science experiment. We‘ve never done that. We‘ve detonated bombs underwater. We‘ve detonated bombs under the land, but never under a mile under the surface of the ocean. We‘ve never done that before. We‘re in totally uncharted territory.
OLBERMANN: So, this is now—we‘ve moved from the analogy we used last time which is, this looked like a three stooges movie—this would be a three stooges movie where in the middle that, they suddenly threw out anything resembling a script and just made it up now with using real guns and hammers.
KAKU: Imagine the three stooges with nukes.
OLBERMANN: Yes.
(LAUGHTER)
KAKU: That‘s what we‘re talking about, totally uncharted territory.
OLBERMANN: I think that might be the line of the thing so far, the three stooges with nukes. All right, take the nuke out of it. Is there something to the idea of blowing something up so it will seal off?
KAKU: Some people have talked about conventional explosives.
OLBERMANN: Yes.
KAKU: But again, you don‘t have the glassification taking place with ordinary explosives. And, again, you could be rupturing other holes, other holes down there. So, all of a sudden, not just one leak, but many leaks. And come hurricane season, the solution to pollution is not going to be dilution.
OLBERMANN: That‘s right. We have a nuclear oil hurricane now. A combination of all three.
So, I‘m thinking you‘re disagreeing with this supposed expert who said all the best scientists consider it plausible.
KAKU: I think this is fabricated out of thin air. I‘d like to meet some of these people. My adviser, Edward Teller, was the one pushing this, but he pushed it for canal digging, never for sealing a well a mile under water where we don‘t know what the geography is like, we don‘t know the long-term implications. And, like I said, who needs radioactive tar balls in their swimming pool?
OLBERMANN: We could read at night.
Michio Kaku, professor of physics, host of “Sci Fi Science” in the Science Channel—once again, great thanks and great thanks for leaving us with the image of the three stooges with nukes. Appreciate it.

[xchrom]

50. recommend

[paparush]

53. Help me understand this - BP has possibly reduced the integrity of the surrounding sea bed

such that oil is now seeping up under its own pressure through cracks or vents, where before it was not?

[wordpix]

55. but, but---Hailey Barbour says there are tar balls from natural Gulf leakage

:banghead: :crazy: and we all know Hailey speaks truth to power, not :sarcasm:

[HooptieWagon]

59. Chill everybody. This is Bill Nelson speculating... the guy is a moron. n/t

[TheKentuckian]

63. That might be more assuring if BP's worst cases didn't always

turn into Pollyanna bullshit.

That said, even a tactical nuke sounds dangerous because the seabed is so porous that conventional explosives risk rupturing the site. I think they only cared about geology in regards to ability to drill not so much the integrity and safety of the site.

[earth mom]

60. OMFG!

:cry:

[flyarm]

66. This was reported in Fla days after the explosion..and a report was sent to the white house about it

our Fla local news said the main pipe thing was all but destroyed during the explosion and that they hoped it would last a few days until they could get some kind of cap on it..that was within a couple days of the explosion!

And those of us who heard it were screaming where is the fucking government?? wherre is the White House and Pres on this???????/

We were screaming it..I posted about it here on DU only to get my post deleted/removed..by god knows who??

[Catherina]

68. "This well didn't want to be drilled. It just had problems from the start."

"This well didn't want to be drilled. It just had problems from the start." CHRISTOPHER CHOY (Deepwater Horizon Survivor)


"We were messing with Mother Nature, this well didn't want to be drilled" - BP drill rig operator, as interviewed by Anderson Cooper CNN


They drilled through Pandora's box. Greedy bastards.

[4_TN_TITANS]

69. Awhile back someone who was watching the cameras

posted that it looked like the sea floor had caved in some.

[saras]

82. The rest of the world??

What I don't understand is why a consortium of scientists backed by China, India, Brazil, the EU, and anyone else with an interest doesn't just come into the gulf and tell the Coast Guard that if they want a world war they can try and stop them from making independent observations. I don't think Obama would have the US military side with BP on that one...