I think we need to blow it and stop it now.
Clinton is correct.
I think he’s a little confused. Blowing up a well will cause it to leak. That is unless they use a low yield nuclear bomb which will likely melt the sea floor and create a seal. Of course you wouldn’t want to send the “Navy down there” to do it as he suggested…
The well is at the bottom of a mountain. Blow the mountain on top of it. Let the Russians do it.
That was my first thought. Use a few directional charges and blow it shut. They need to do something because this is crap. I used to be all for drilling off the East coast because those rigs make insane places to fish and I never heard of a problem. But from now on No Way Jose.
I agree - and since there was a plane crash last month we should ground all planes -and take all cars off the road since there have been some crashes too - I know, it is all about that poor pelican we keep seeing that has oil all over it - bummer.
I spend most of my free on or around the ocean so I care a lot about it. I guess you do not give a crap because you have your mountains. Say hello to Tony Blair next time you see him. The fact that this has gone on for so long is unacceptable. I think you should advertise you feelings so you can reach the customers who feel like you.
Mike, it’s not a question of not caring…it’s a question of practicality…
Accidents will happen regardless of where or when the drilling occurs. There is no such thing as 100% safe and clean energy. There is always risk and always a downside. In regards to oil…
- there is no practical replacement for petroleum (at this time) that we can use to fuel our cars, trains, planes, and petrochemical requirements.
- more oil is spilled shipping oil than drilling oil. Therefore if we don’t drill, then we will ship, and the net result will be additional spills.
- if we don’t drill domestically, we have to buy internationally.
- much of what we buy internationally, indirectly funds the very terrorists we are at war with.
I understand your sentiment about this going on so long, but if you look at it practically, it doesn’t make sense for BP to do anything BUT get this under control as soon as possible. It’s costing them billions, and they are only loosing more money as it progresses. There is no upside to them dragging their feet. Logically I figure they are doing as much as they can as quickly as they can. From a business standpoint they would do nothing less.
But there is a practical replacement to the risk of drilling miles below sea level… ANWR. Palin was right.
No Mike I do care - but knee jerk reactions create such long term unintended consequences that sometimes they are worse than the problem - I try to put all things in perspective - Is this a tragedy? Yes - Is is permanent? No - mother nature does a much better job of cleaning herself up than we do. We need to help and we need to stop the problem, but most of the appearance now is of chickens with no heads. The amount of oil compared to the amount of water is about the same as a thimbleful in an olympic pool. Not disasterous in toto, but nasty on the shores. Both Nick and Mark have made complelling arguments that should be considered. But blow up the well? Yea right, that sounds like a good thing!!
I heard them talk about a low level nuke lowered into the well to a depth of about 18,000 ft. They would detonate the nuke and the column surrounding the oil would turn to glass sealing the well… Sounds plausible.
I recommended it in the beginning but nobody will listen!!:roll::roll:
Blow it up now.
If the engineers can’t keep a cap on the well because of the pressure of the ejecting oil and gas, how in hell are they going to lower a bomb into it?
The detonation of a nuclear bomb would instantaneously vaporize cubic acres of water which would displace and incredible amount of water. Does anyone want to be standing on the shore when that nuclear fueled, radio active tsunami makes land fall?
I think that Clinton’s VD has finally gotten to his brain.
And I heard the nuke would be the size of a thermos bottle. Problem is in using the term “nuke.” To many misconceptions (read ignorance) so people would rather destroy their environment and livelihood.
Don’t think so. The Russians did a similar test 4 times in the early 70’s I think it was and seismic activity was not even recorded.
I heard today that the pending hurricane could bring toxic gases which are trapped in the crude and are far more lethal than mustard gas to the southern states and that we should now begin a full scale evacuation. But the smoke and mirrors media spinners will have none of that. I think it is FAR worse than portrayed. And we’v seen only 1% of the crude hitting our shoreline and the rest is to follow. At 42 gallons per barrel, estimates are 4 MILLION gallons of crude are being dumped into the gulf EVERY DAY.
And Mr. BP calls it a “leak”. That after polling people to determine the best phrase to use to not incite panic.
Very well said Darin.
We are but the puppets responding to the strings, I suppose.
Figures we’d get some kind of asinine comment from a landlocked genius whose never seen an ocean, nice goin’ Magellan. :roll:
No doubt. The oil doesn’t screw up his world so screw the rest of the planet. I still think he should post his wisdom on his website.
How does exploding a nuke in a casing more than a mile from the surface screw up anything?
Do have any idea how many nukes were exploded at sea in the old testing days?
At this point in time who really knows what the conditions are? What if they drilled into a huge cavernous chamber under extreme pressure, how will that be affected by detonating a bomb. It appears that right now the government hasn’t a clue, the military is burdened in two questionable wars, the oil industry is stymied, so… What does America do really well, blow sh!t up, and thats our best answer. :roll: