Gulf of mexico.

> 10 years ago
Reply
Register to post, see what you've read, and subscribe to topics.
petermac33
petermac33
WA
6415 posts
WA, 6415 posts
26 Jun 2010 6:00pm
maxm said...

petermac33 said...

and will someone please tell me how to use the quote button,laymen's term only please.


1. Click it.

2. It quotes.


i think i got it.

mkseven
mkseven
QLD
2315 posts
QLD, 2315 posts
26 Jun 2010 9:54pm
choco said...

wasn't the Gulf of Mexico created by a huge impact from a meteor? if so the ocean floor would be fractured from the collision and unstable,drilling in the area has probably caused a shift in the ocean floor causing the platform to collapse......this is going to get very interesting.


Are the craters on the moon fractured? Meteors tend to melt the crust. Don't know anything about sinking wells but I imagine they try to find a relatively weak spot, maybe it's just that they picked the wrong spot... no conspiracies or the world is ending stuff. They were told that it wouldn't hold but in the name of the mighty $ they ignored those that know what they are talking about (as most management tends to do ).
brady
brady
TAS
454 posts
TAS, 454 posts
28 Jun 2010 12:21pm
I reckon the fracture of the seabed is caused by leaching of chemtrail residue
doggie
doggie
WA
15849 posts
WA, 15849 posts
28 Jun 2010 10:49am
petermac33 said...

maxm said...

petermac33 said...

and will someone please tell me how to use the quote button,laymen's term only please.


1. Click it.

2. It quotes.


i think i got it.




Yay
evlPanda
evlPanda
NSW
9207 posts
NSW, 9207 posts
28 Jun 2010 8:26pm

Obama’s government, on the other hand, has stated that a nuclear option for ending this catastrophe is not being discussed, but which brings him into conflict with both Russian and American experts advocating such an extreme measure before all is lost, and as we can read as reported by Britain’s Telegraph News Service:

“The former Soviet Union (U.S.S.R.) used nuclear weapons on five separate occasions between 1966 and 1981 to successfully cap blown-out gas and oil surface wells (there was also one attempt that failed), which have been documented in a U.S. Department of Energy report on the U.S.S.R.'s peaceful uses of nuclear explosions.
Russia is now urging the United States to consider doing the same.

Komsomoloskaya Pravda, the best-selling Russian daily newspaper, asserts that although based on Soviet experience there's a one-in-five chance a nuke might not seal the well, it's "a gamble the Americans could certainly risk."


Whoa, whoah, whoah. Komsomoloskaya Pravda, the best-selling Russian daily newspaper makes Who Weekly look like Encyclopedia Britannica. They usually report on vampire sightings and the like.

You can't just go nuking things from space, no matter how cool it is.

The instablity of the surrounding structure, now leaking, will not be improved by nuking it, obviously and disappointingly.
japie
japie
NSW
7146 posts
NSW, 7146 posts
28 Jun 2010 11:54pm
That is all they need, one almighty explosion under the sea creating the biggest Tsunami the world has seen since the last stellar intrusion. Of course the blast would be directed upward (except where it was needed), minimising any chance of further fracturing the sea bed.

Don't worry guys, BP and Obama have it in hand.

Not much to worry about really though. Just one very big bladder peeing into the other end of the pool.

She'll be right!
mkseven
mkseven
QLD
2315 posts
QLD, 2315 posts
29 Jun 2010 12:22am
There is merit in using a small nuclear device, where it would burn any oil and seal off the well but they would need to know how stable the area is outside of the well or even if the seabed in the well area is suited to using an explosion to seal the well. Then where is the fallout going to go, all those fishing grounds ruined for 50 years?
japie
japie
NSW
7146 posts
NSW, 7146 posts
29 Jun 2010 5:05am
Real time chemtrails:
www.seabreeze.com.au/forums/forum.asp?FORUM_ID=3
japie
japie
NSW
7146 posts
NSW, 7146 posts
29 Jun 2010 5:08am
Stuffed that up here we go

japie
japie
NSW
7146 posts
NSW, 7146 posts
29 Jun 2010 5:09am
Stuffed that up here we go

Gestalt
Gestalt
QLD
14956 posts
QLD, 14956 posts
29 Jun 2010 10:22pm
mkseven said...

There is merit in using a small nuclear device, where it would burn any oil and seal off the well but they would need to know how stable the area is outside of the well or even if the seabed in the well area is suited to using an explosion to seal the well. Then where is the fallout going to go, all those fishing grounds ruined for 50 years?


seriously if we need to use nuclear device to fix things then we may as well just shoot ourselves.

that's a bit to much hollywood for me.
mattyjee
mattyjee
WA
575 posts
WA, 575 posts
30 Jun 2010 7:42am
Seriosuly though, before you go around believeing all the crap that the media is crapping out, there are actually some official websites. What you will actually notice, is that the official websites are updated first, and most of the journos just get their info from this, plus a bit of embellishment to liven up the story and make it more interesting.

www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com
www.bp.com (gulf of mexico link).

Lots of good tech for people who like the details.
mkseven
mkseven
QLD
2315 posts
QLD, 2315 posts
30 Jun 2010 9:52am
So the well collapses and then flows uncontrolled- certain disaster.

Name an alternative or any other explosive that works in that environment and is hot enough?
choco
choco
SA
4181 posts
SA, 4181 posts
30 Jun 2010 10:49am
I think it was done deliberately to increase the price of oil.
maxm
maxm
NSW
864 posts
NSW, 864 posts
30 Jun 2010 12:31pm
...and so lead us to become increasingly dependant on chemtrails
doggie
doggie
WA
15849 posts
WA, 15849 posts
30 Jun 2010 11:02am
BOOBS
doggie
doggie
WA
15849 posts
WA, 15849 posts
30 Jun 2010 11:26am
mkseven said...

So the well collapses and then flows uncontrolled- certain disaster.

Name an alternative or any other explosive that works in that environment and is hot enough?


Thermite. It is evil.
mkseven
mkseven
QLD
2315 posts
QLD, 2315 posts
30 Jun 2010 2:24pm
doggie said...

mkseven said...

So the well collapses and then flows uncontrolled- certain disaster.

Name an alternative or any other explosive that works in that environment and is hot enough?


Thermite. It is evil.


Thermite- ~2500 C
Fuel Air- ~3000 C
Nuclear- >10000000 C
doggie
doggie
WA
15849 posts
WA, 15849 posts
30 Jun 2010 12:34pm
mkseven said...

doggie said...

mkseven said...

So the well collapses and then flows uncontrolled- certain disaster.

Name an alternative or any other explosive that works in that environment and is hot enough?


Thermite. It is evil.


Thermite- ~2500 C
Fuel Air- ~3000 C
Nuclear- >10000000 C


#3 would do it but wouldnt all that methane go up as well
Danger Mouse
Danger Mouse
WA
592 posts
WA, 592 posts
30 Jun 2010 1:25pm
doggie said...

mkseven said...

doggie said...

mkseven said...

So the well collapses and then flows uncontrolled- certain disaster.

Name an alternative or any other explosive that works in that environment and is hot enough?


Thermite. It is evil.


Thermite- ~2500 C
Fuel Air- ~3000 C
Nuclear- >10000000 C


#3 would do it but wouldnt all that methane go up as well


Not much air at the bottom of the sea for combustion to take place
NotWal
NotWal
QLD
7436 posts
QLD, 7436 posts
30 Jun 2010 7:42pm
Thermite has its own fuel. It burns under water. It's not an explosive though, just a hot fire.
evlPanda
evlPanda
NSW
9207 posts
NSW, 9207 posts
30 Jun 2010 8:45pm
What's the fire for? Thought the bomb was for large amount of directed energy.

How the CCCP did it:

All together, the Program 7 conducted 115 nuclear explosions. Among them:
39 explosions for the purpose of the geological exploration (trying to find new natural gas deposits by studying seismic waves produced by small nuclear explosions
25 explosions for intensification of oil and gas debits
22 explosions for creating underground storage for natural gas
5 explosions for extinguishing large natural gas fountains
4 explosions for creating channels and dams (including the Chagan test in Kazakhstan, and the Taiga test on the potential route of the Pechora-Kama Canal)
2 explosions for crushing ore in open-pit mines
2 explosions for creating underground storage for toxic wastes
1 explosion to facilitate coal mining in an underground mine
19 explosions were performed for research purposes (studying possible migration of the radioactivity from the place of the explosions).

sauce: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Explosions_for_the_National_Economy

That's how you do it peoples. You want a dam built quick? Baaam!!! Just nuke it! Need to get to that coal seam? Baaam again!!!


Doggie: Agreed, anytime someone mentions chemtrails you have to say "boobs".
NotWal
NotWal
QLD
7436 posts
QLD, 7436 posts
30 Jun 2010 9:05pm
evlPanda said...

What's the fire for? Thought the bomb was for large amount of directed energy.

How the CCCP did it:

All together, the Program 7 conducted 115 nuclear explosions. Among them:
39 explosions for the purpose of the geological exploration (trying to find new natural gas deposits by studying seismic waves produced by small nuclear explosions
25 explosions for intensification of oil and gas debits
22 explosions for creating underground storage for natural gas
5 explosions for extinguishing large natural gas fountains
4 explosions for creating channels and dams (including the Chagan test in Kazakhstan, and the Taiga test on the potential route of the Pechora-Kama Canal)
2 explosions for crushing ore in open-pit mines
2 explosions for creating underground storage for toxic wastes he he he
1 explosion to facilitate coal mining in an underground mine
19 explosions were performed for research purposes (studying possible migration of the radioactivity from the place of the explosions).

sauce: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Explosions_for_the_National_Economy

That's how you do it peoples. You want a dam built quick? Baaam!!! Just nuke it! Need to get to that coal seam? Baaam again!!!

Who said they were environmental vandals?


Doggie: Agreed, anytime someone mentions chemtrails you have to say "boobs".

That wont get the thread locked. You have to think more like a Russian.

mkseven
mkseven
QLD
2315 posts
QLD, 2315 posts
30 Jun 2010 10:20pm
^ yep even though it is used as a component of many explosives.

Remember it has to be an explosion large enough to displace some of the seabed, and not be easily suppressed within the water depth. There seems to be alot of concern about stability of seabed.

Panda you are right, not talking about fire- rather heat (energy) in relation to explosion. If it does happen to ignite any residual methane or crude that probably wont be a bad thing.

Funny the earlier post talked about evacuating people because of the methane, if they do keep watching those seismic monitors and wait for "we fixed it"
petermac33
petermac33
WA
6415 posts
WA, 6415 posts
1 Jul 2010 7:11am
Glen Beck this morning on Fox News.....600,000 barrels of oil have leaked so far and this ship can catch around 500,000 barrels per day.

so why has it not been used?

obvious answer for me...so they can get through emissions trading scheme/carbon tax/increased centralisation of power.

NORFOLK — After making a brief stop in Norfolk for refueling, U.S. Coast Guard inspections and an all-out publicity blitz intended to drum up public support, a giant tanker billed as the world's largest oil skimming vessel set sail Friday for the Gulf of Mexico where it hopes to assist in the oil-cleanup effort.

The Taiwanese-owned, Liberian-flagged ship dubbed the "A Whale" stands 10 stories high, stretches 1,115 feet in length and has a nearly 200-foot beam. It displaces more water than an aircraft carrier.

Built in South Korea as a supertanker for transporting oil and iron ore, the six-month-old vessel was refitted in the wake of the BP oil spill with 12, 16-foot-long intake vents on the sides of its bow designed to skim oil off surface waters



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Sample Our Free Breaking News Alert And 3 P.M. News Newsletters]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The vessel's billionaire owner, Nobu Su, the CEO of Taiwanese shipping company TMT Group, said the ship would float across the Gulf "like a lawn mower cutting the grass," ingesting up to 500,000 barrels of oil-contaminated water a day.

But a number of hurdles stand in his way. TMT officials said the company does not yet have government approval to assist in the cleanup or a contract with BP to perform the work.

That's part of the reason the ship was tied to pier at the Virginia Port Authority's Norfolk International Terminals Friday morning. TMT and its public-relations agency invited scores of media, elected officials and maritime industry executives to an hour-long presentation about how the ship could provide an immediate boost to clean-up efforts in the Gulf.

TMT also paid to fly in Edward Overton, a professor emeritus of environmental sciences at Louisiana State University, to get a look at the massive skimmer.

Overton blasted BP and the federal government for a lack of effort and coordination in their dual oil-spill response and made a plea to the government to allow the A Whale to join the cleanup operation.

"We need this ship. We need this help," Overton said. "That oil is already contaminating our shoreline. We've got to get the ship out there and see if it works. There's only one way to find out: Get the damn thing in the gulf and we'll see."

TMT officials acknowledged that not even they're sure how well the new skimming method will work, noting that it appeared to perform well in limited testing last week.

"This concept has never been tried before," said Bob Grantham, a TMT project officer. "But we think we can do in maybe in a day and a half what these other crews have done in 66 days. We see the A Whale as adding another layer to the recovery effort."

Virginia Transportation Secretary Sean T. Connaughton said the McDonnell administration "still has great interest in offshore oil development in Virginia" and supports the A Whale's effort to assist in the cleanup.

To join the fight, the ship also might require separate waivers from the Coast Guard and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

The A Whale — pronounced along the lines of "A Team" because there is a "B Whale" coming — is designed to work 20 to 50 miles offshore where smaller skimmers have trouble navigating. The ship would take in oily water and transfer it into specialized storage tanks on the flanks of the vessel. From there, the oil-fouled seawater would be pumped into internal tanks where the oil would separate naturally from the water.

After the separation process, the oil would be transferred to other tankers or shore-based facilities while the remaining water would be pumped back into the gulf.

Because the process wouldn't remove all traces of oil from the seawater, TMT will likely have to gain a special permit from the EPA, said Scott H. Segal of the Washington lobbying firm, Bracewell &Giuliani, which TMT has retained to help negotiate with federal regulators.

"The simple answer is, we don't know what the discharge will look like until we can take A Whale out there and test it," Segal said. TMT will work with regulators to determine an appropriate level of oil that can be contained in the ship's discharge.

TMT also is firm is working with the Coast Guard to gain approval to operate in the gulf, which may require a waiver from a 90-year-old maritime act that restricts foreign-flagged vessels from operating in U.S. waters, said Bob Grantham, a TMT project officer.

Connaughton, the former federal Maritime Administrator, said he doesn't believe the A Whale would require a waiver from the Jones Act, a federal law signed in 1920 that sought to protect U.S. maritime interests.

Coast Guard inspectors toured the ship for about four hours on Thursday to determine the ship's efficacy and whether it was fit to be deployed, said Capt. Matthew Sisson, commanding officer of the Coast Guard's Research and Development arm in New London, Conn.

"We take all offers of alternative technology very seriously," Sisson said. The ship, he said, is "an impressive engineering feat."

He would not offer a timetable for Coast Guard approval of the vessel, but said he will try to "turn around a report … as soon as humanely possible."

Of course, even if the ship gains approval to operate in the gulf, its owners expect the company to be paid for its efforts.

"That's an open question," Segal said. "Obviously, (TMT) is a going concern and its people would need to be compensated for their time and effort."
Copyright © 2010, Newport News, Va., Daily Press


E-mail Print Digg Twitter Facebook StumbleUpon
Comments (0)Add comments | Discussion FAQ
maxm
maxm
NSW
864 posts
NSW, 864 posts
1 Jul 2010 9:54am
petermac33 said...

so why has it not been used?

obvious answer for me...so they can get through emissions trading scheme/carbon tax/increased centralisation of power.


No, it's been done already. It happened in Copenhagen, remember?
doggie
doggie
WA
15849 posts
WA, 15849 posts
1 Jul 2010 8:28am
maxm said...

petermac33 said...

so why has it not been used?

obvious answer for me...so they can get through emissions trading scheme/carbon tax/increased centralisation of power.


No, it's been done already. It happened in Copenhagen, remember?


Boobs
petermac33
petermac33
WA
6415 posts
WA, 6415 posts
1 Jul 2010 8:30am
and here's me thinking we are being governed from Canberra [not Brussels or Jerusalem] and main tax is tax on labor not carbon tax...silly me...off to bed now.
doggie
doggie
WA
15849 posts
WA, 15849 posts
1 Jul 2010 8:32am
petermac33 said...

and here's me thinking we are being governed from Canberra [not Brussels or Jerusalem] and main tax is tax on labor not carbon tax...silly me...off to bed now.


Boobs
evlPanda
evlPanda
NSW
9207 posts
NSW, 9207 posts
1 Jul 2010 12:22pm
BOOBS!

(.)(.)


petermac33 said...

so why has it not been used?

obvious answer for me...so they can get through emissions trading scheme/carbon tax/increased centralisation of power.


It is a boat that has been modified for the job. Perhaps just a wild guess but that probably took time.

Then they had to drive it over from Taiwan. time again.

Of course they will now have to discuss how much this is going to cost, boats of that calibre do not come for free, especially when modified just for this single purpose. This will take time again.

And tests. Damn it, more time

But of course it is obviously a big, giant conspiracy. Everything points to a conspiracy.

Clouds: conspiracy
Water: conspiracy
Accidents: conspiracy
Banks: conspiracy
Food: conspiracy
Elections: alien conspiracy
Anything: conpiracy (you've already proved it in advance)

You're on the path to madness. Be careful.

From Huffington Post:


Over at the unified command center in downtown New Orleans, federal and BP officials are said to be responding with a combination of enthusiasm and caution.

"They're about as excited as you can be about something that you have no idea what it can do," said Kati Walsh, a spokesperson for the disaster's Joint Information Center. "They want to remain in a neutral position about it until after it proves itself," she said. "We don't want to get everybody excited about something that may or may not work."
Please Register, or first...
Topics Subscribe Reply

Return To Classic site 😭
Or... let us know if a problem, so we can tweak! 😅