next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
> > Checked Related to this, a youngish supposedly expert commentator came on a few days ago on a TV current affairs that I wasn't really watching (so don't have the details -- was doing to something else). He briefly got my attention though by claiming that a fix was eminently possible, by following up on what 'the Russians' had done after they too had had a total of 4 underwater oil blowouts of this type. He said that the Russians had fixed each leak by exploding small tactical nuclear devices to seal each well-head, and that this had worked. He was asked the obvious question as to why BP hadn't considered this or even mentioned it. He answered that if BP did do this, it would completely remove the possibility that the company could continue to drill in this area in the foreseeable future. If nuking worked, their clearance to drill at the site would be revoked, and their huge investment in drilling there would be lost completely (he said their investment amounted to 'billions'). If on the other hand BP managed to cap the leak some other way / to siphon/ and-or continued to successfully extract some of the oil, they could eventually finish drilling a relief hole. That way, they could get to continue on at the site and preserve some of their investment. The business and financial consequences for BP would be smaller than with nuke option, so that's what they were pushing for. This sounded superficially plausible, but fantastic in the extreme. It's hard to believe that word of several underwater nuclear detonations (even if low-yield) would not have reached the western press (or maybe I missed this?), and should certainly have been detected by the test-ban seismic monitoring stations. After all, word got out about nuclear reactors in junked Soviet-era submarines leaking radioactivity into the sea up in Murmansk. So presumably this nuke story is blogosphere fantasy/ urban legend, but it would be interesting if anyone else has come across the same story line. Does it have any legs at all? Steve ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Quoting Brian Dalzell <aythya@nb.sympatico.ca>: > Once in the Gulf Stream, the oil will be off the coast of NS in less > than a month. If ever there was a time to use a small-yield > nuclear device (as a tool, to cauterize the wound) this would seem > to be it. Of course there would be lingering radiation, but that > has to weighed against the total death of the Gulf of Mexico, and > perhaps the world's oceans (which are of course, all totally > connected). There is plenty of blame to go around here, not just > BP, but all of humanity, to some degree. > > ===================================== > > ---- Christopher Majka <c.majka@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote: >> Hi Suzanne, >> >> I believe that the evidence here points in another direction, and >> hence the lesson to be taken is rather different. >> >> The Situation >> >> I think its pretty clear that despite their enormous resources, BP and >> the US government are simply unable to stop this oil leak. Even if the >> newest plans of clogging the leak with mud and concrete succeed (the >> "top-kill" strategy, or the so called "junk short" or the so-called >> "top-hat"), there have already been five weeks of uninterrupted, >> spewing oil, phenomenally damaging and expensive already, to say >> nothing of the astronomical costs of years of restoration and >> remediation, to say nothing of the law suits, compensation to >> fisherman, and the enormously tarnished corporate image of BP, and oil >> drilling and exploration in general. >> >> The truth is we (meaning all of humanity), despite all our >> technological prowess, are really not that clever or that capable when >> it comes to dealing with such disasters. All the king's horses and all >> the king's men have thus far not been able to put Humpty Dumpty back >> together again. >> >> The Lesson >> >> The lesson here is that these mega-energy projects are phenomenally >> dangerous. Events like the Exxon Valdez spill, or Three Mile Island, >> or the Chernobyl nuclear meltodown, or the Gulf Oil disaster may >> happen quite infrequently but when they do (and they inevitably will, >> since even our best safety measures and failsafe mechanisms will >> sometimes fail, as they did this time when the well-head cutoff >> mechanisms refused to function) the consequences are catastrophic. >> >> We need to wean ourselves off both fossil-fuels and energy mega- >> projects (for this reason and many others) and seriously commit to >> renewal, decentralized measures and projects that allow us to live a >> much more sustainable existence. There simply isn't always a "techno- >> fix" available and if we rely on the promises of gigantic >> multinational energy consortiums (who have a vested interest in such >> projects) that they have "fail-safe" ways of dealing with any problem, >> the biosphere is going to be traumatized again and again, and its >> increasingly not in great shape to absorb such environmental "shock >> therapy." >> >> Marching to Washington, or throwing the US military into the melee, >> isn't going to fix it. We need to deal with nature and our planet with >> respect and humility, because careless humanity really has the >> capacity to cause a serious breakdown, and like the sorcerer's >> apprentice, we may not be able to fix the mess we've made. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Chris >> >> On 25-May-10, at 3:31 PM, Suzanne Townsend wrote: >> >> > Could be my usual shoot-from-the-hip approach however I think that >> > siphon thing was working quite a bit, and they could continue to do >> > that and improve it and employ many more of the same thing. >> > >> > If the 2 governments, US & UK, treated this like they did WW II and >> > the bomb, they could fix it in short order. I don't think anything >> > short of declaring war will work -- war on the oil at its source >> > (the broken seam/well) and wherever it went (surely they can figure >> > a way to siphon off 5-mile-by-8-mile-by-300'-thick submerged islands >> > of oil, surely they can deploy troops to those currently empty-of- >> > helping-hands beaches being destroyed, etc). How else to cut through >> > the politics, lawyers, and red tape? Oh the lawyers, imagine, nobody >> > can do a thing without five signed forms. All these ideas and >> > technology already developed and ready to go (or already there) but >> > no permission to use them. >> > >&