backtop


Print 109 comment(s) - last by joe anna.. on Jul 1 at 5:55 AM


The "Mother of All Bombs" munition has only been tested twice, and has never seen combat deployment. Yet the Marine's top technologist thinks it could put a thunderous stop to the worst oil spill in U.S. history.  (Source: USAF)

Just pack the bomb in with some oxygen and aluminum inside a pressure vessel, and BAM! as Emeril Lagasse would say.  (Source: USMC)

At this point in the operation, it might be appropriate to quote Russel Casse from "Independence Day", "In the words of my generation: Up yours!"  (Source: USMC)
Mechanic: Somebody set up us the bomb.

Oil continues to pour out of the remains of BP's Deepwater Horizon oil rig and into the Gulf of Mexico.  BP has sawed off the riser pipe, allowing it to successfully deploy a containment dome.  However, the containment dome is only capturing approximately half the oil spilling out of the pipe -- and sawing off the riser pipe increased oil flow by an estimated 20 percent.

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution is now claiming that six to eight times the oil of the Exxon Valdez spill has been leaked.  That's twice initial estimates by scientists with BP and the U.S. Geological Survey, and makes it by far the worst spill in U.S. history.  With as many as 50,000 barrels gushing out per day, and washing ashore on the coasts of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida, officials are examining any possible options that would bring relief faster than drilling a permanent relief valve -- which could take a month or more.

Franz Gayl, a U.S. Marine Corps technologist, has long been cooking up creative solutions for our nation's troops.  He pushed out spy drones and bomb resistant trucks.  And he's had a hand in more outlandish research efforts -- robotic exoskeletons, space-dropping troops, and laser weaponry.

Now he thinks he has a solution to the BP oil spill -- blow the hell out it.

Gayl suggests using the  GBU-43 MOAB — known as the “Massive Ordinance Air Burst” or “Mother of All Bombs” — which has been "proven, safe and ‘green", according to Gayl.  If a MOAB is unavailable, Gayl says a Vietnam-era Daisy Cutter would also do quite handsomely.

The USMC genius suggests:
Either one … can be enclosed in a simple pressure shell, that is augmented with several tons of liquid oxygen canisters, and lowered to just a few meters above the leaking well head. An oxygen-enhanced MOAB or Daisy Cutter detonated at a water depth of 5,000 feet will indeed have an interesting effect on all the well-related plumbing and equipment that is above, at, and slightly below the sea floor…. The exploding MOAB or Daisy Cutter would have an incredible implosive-sealing effect on oil plumbing within the immediate vicinity of the detonation.
Gayl has mocked up the possible operation in a series of colorful drawn images, which depict the bomb traveling to its oily target, and then pounding it shut, like the mother of all sledgehammers.  The slides can be found here [PPT] for your viewing enjoyment.

The MOAB has only been tested twice.  Designed in 2002, only 15 other units were produced -- and none has ever seen use in a conflict.  The U.S. military command considered using a single one for "shock and awe" during the 2003 Operation Iraqi Freedom, but decided against it.

Is it time for the U.S. to wage war against the insolent oil rig, and finally put the biggest munition in its history to use?  It sounds crazy, but who are we to doubt one of the brightest minds in our nation's armed forces?  After all, it worked for Bruce Willis in Armageddon right? (With some minor loss of life, that is...)  One thing's for sure, though, if this wild plan goes ahead, Greenpeace is going to be pretty peeved at all the dead sea creatures that result from this "green" bombing.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By Lucke on 6/11/2010 6:44:58 AM , Rating: 1
By Bioniccrackmonk on 6/11/2010 8:08:50 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
And some wonder why we don't trust the science authorities any more.


Maybe you don't trust the science authorities, but a lot of us do. Also, using a bomb to plug a hole in the ocean floor is not theoretical, this has already been done before and does have a chance of working.

I tell you what though, you pray real hard for the big guy upstairs to come down and fix this while we here on earth use our science authorities to work on other options and we will see which one takes care of it first.


By straycat74 on 6/11/2010 8:39:28 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
you pray real hard for the big guy upstairs to come down and fix this while we here on earth use our science authorities to work on other options and we will see which one takes care of it first.

Save your hate for God for the next Mick 'missing link for clicks' article.

As a side note, I am sure ALL of science wouldn't agree with the bomb idea either.


By quiksilvr on 6/11/2010 12:46:49 PM , Rating: 5
All I need is Bill Nye's approval and the plan shall go forward.


By Reclaimer77 on 6/11/2010 4:08:55 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
As a side note, I am sure ALL of science wouldn't agree with the bomb idea either.


Scientist don't deal in the reality though. Most scientists have NEVER been in the field. They deal in theoretical.

Franz Gayl, a U.S. Marine Corps technologist, has long been cooking up creative solutions for our nation's troops. He pushed out spy drones and bomb resistant trucks. And he's had a hand in more outlandish research efforts -- robotic exoskeletons, space-dropping troops, and laser weaponry.

Yeah so no offense, but it sounds like this guy has FORGOTTEN more about problem solving than you or most scientist will ever know.

I'll take his word for it, thanks. Armchair douchebag.


By straycat74 on 6/11/2010 4:52:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yeah so no offense, but it sounds like this guy has FORGOTTEN more about problem solving than you or most scientist will ever know.


It seems you missed the point. I was referring to "science authorities" previously mentioned, and was pointing out how there isn't a single entity known as science.

I used douche already in this article. Go get a cup of coffee and stop being such an ass.


By FaaR on 6/12/2010 5:36:46 AM , Rating: 2
Seems to me you don't know much about science, or scientists. I'd argue the overwhelmingly vast majority of scientists DO "deal in reality", as the work they perform is to give practical solutions to actual problems, researching new compounds, techniques, products, and so on, and even building the actual instruments they use to do their science.

Certain matematicians could arguably be called dealing in theory only, but like I said, the vast majortity of scientists are firmly rooted in the practical, thankyouverymuch.

Your condescending attitude towards scientists shows you to be an ignorant, arrogant twit. You'd do well to pipe down from now on on this topic...


By spread on 6/11/2010 11:02:53 AM , Rating: 3
Nothing is 100% safe. Example, not even a top of the line car filled with air bags is completely safe. So I guess those engineers are useless then...

What a prick.


By magneticfield on 6/14/2010 10:46:29 AM , Rating: 1
Yeah, I didn't literally meant 100% safe, that was not the point.

"What a prick" ... hm, really nice, I've learnt something today, thank you!


By magneticfield on 6/11/2010 9:07:42 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Also, using a bomb to plug a hole in the ocean floor is not theoretical, this has already been done before and does have a chance of working.


Please provide a link.


By mcnabney on 6/11/2010 12:06:15 PM , Rating: 3
Using a nuke/explosives to stop a leak is not what you think it is. They don't blast the actual hole. They drill a new one nearby, insert the bomb, and the detonation forces/crushes one side of the borehole into the other, slowing or blocking the flow of oil.

It also includes the risk of shattering rock layers and opening up even more fissures for the oil to get out.

I have no idea if the rock strata under the Gulf would even be amenable to the Russian solution. It is worth considering, but it is hardly an ideal option due to the risks involved. It could potentially open a fissure and drastically increase the amount and number of locations that the oil will escape from.


By mcnabney on 6/11/2010 12:22:00 PM , Rating: 2
Also, looking at that cutaway image with the MOAB in the center - it looks like the bomb would be built inside the fuselage of a 737 or something. The MOAB is huge to begin with. Good luck drilling that hole from a mile underwater.


By Pudro on 6/12/2010 5:08:27 PM , Rating: 2
I would just insult your reading comprehension, but maybe it is your eyes that don't work as there is an included picture showing your failure to understand. NO HOLE WOULD BE DRILLED. I'm not saying I think it would work, just that you don't understand what is going on here.


By hypocrisyforever on 6/11/2010 12:27:14 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah, I'm with this guy. I mean....feel free to pray all you want. Actually, while you are at it, pray that science comes up with a solution...lol.


By mindless1 on 6/11/2010 4:37:14 PM , Rating: 3
Why is it we have all these retards that assume if you don't go with the first "scientific" approach you find then it must mean your head is confounded with religion?

A mature mind pauses and considers other alternatives and whether the risk is worth it, rather than trolling on the internet.


By zinfamous on 6/11/2010 1:22:13 PM , Rating: 2
It has been done before with great success, but what the same engineers and experts have cautioned is that using a nuke to plug the hole has just an equal chance of doubling the size of this hole as it does plugging it.

There is no sensible reason to consider this method, which has been discussed for at least 2 weeks now (from the comments that I've been hearing on NPR).


By rmclean816 on 6/11/2010 9:47:36 PM , Rating: 2
God works through man.


By Patrick Canney on 6/11/2010 8:08:36 AM , Rating: 2
I think it would be 100% successful in stopping the spill. The liquid oxygen would simply serve as an accelerator for the explosion.


By mattclary on 6/11/2010 11:20:09 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Also how big would the resulting tsunami be?


OMFG. Are you kidding?


By mcnabney on 6/11/2010 12:35:44 PM , Rating: 2
Don't worry about it. The energy released by earthquakes that can cause tsunamis massively dwarfs even the largest nuclear weapons. Tsunamis are caused by a rapid change in the seafloor. A nuke going off a quarter mile underground is only going to shift a few acres of seafloor by a scant amount, while big earthquakes might shift the seafloor an inch or two in an area covering hundreds of square miles.


By mattclary on 6/11/2010 1:14:58 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I wasn't freaking out thinking it would happen. Was dumbfounded that someone would think any bomb could cause a tsunami.

I'm not a physicist, nor have I played one on TV, but at those depths, it wouldn't shock me if a SMALL nuke wouldn't make much of a ripple on the surface.

No one should have images of H-bomb tests in their mind for this. I'm not sure if those bombs were even under water, but if they were, they weren't at any appreciable depth.


By mattclary on 6/11/2010 1:47:59 PM , Rating: 2
Here are some good videos of underground nuke tests. Not sure how deep they were, but I am pretty confident they were not under the same pressure as a mile of water.

Note that in many instances, you could barely tell anything happened.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1f6vbiuUt0

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1870730456...


By mcnabney on 6/11/2010 1:59:44 PM , Rating: 2
Lots of Info Here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underground_nuclear_t...

Most interesting is the following chart:

Melt cavity 4 – 12 m/kt
Crushed zone 30 – 40 m/kt
Cracked zone 80 – 120 m/kt
Zone of irreversible strain 800 – 1100 m/kt

So using a 1 kiloton warhead there would be a crush zone between 30-40 meters from the blast. So drill a parallel hole about 30M away from the existing hole and place the bomb about 500' underground. Fill the new hole with concrete and detonate.


By imaheadcase on 6/11/2010 1:11:49 PM , Rating: 2
I wish people would stop saying "its been done before". No it has not.

1. Gas wells are completely different.
2. The ones blew up was on land..in the earth crust.
3. You can not do it at all in this day-and-age because of the nuke treaty in place. Period
5. The oil well is not at 5k feet, remember its at 5k feet TO the well, you would would have to drill down next to the well and put the nuke below it. Do you have a nuke that fits down a hole 6-8inches in diameter, that can reach the depth of 5-10k feet? no?


By aharris on 6/11/2010 2:56:11 PM , Rating: 5
1. It's an oil well, not a gas well.
2. Regardless of how far below the surface of the ocean it is, the oil well still exists in the earth's crust.
3. The MOAB isn't a nuke.
4. Ugh, can't remember for the life of me what comes between 3 and 5. Damn you American public school system!
5. The entrance to the oil well is 5000ft below the surface of the ocean. The objective is to shut off access to the well at the earth's crust (see #2), not to decimate the well itself.


By Reclaimer77 on 6/11/2010 4:04:12 PM , Rating: 2
I remember posting this like a month ago on here and got laughed at and called an idiot. /shrug

Again, to repeat myself, there are very few problems that can't be remedied with the proper application of explosives :)


Can you blow up a hole?
By SmilingMan on 6/11/2010 6:51:59 AM , Rating: 5
I'm very dubious that this would work. While I respect this guy's abilities, is he really an expert geologist who's used to working at the pressures under thousands of feet of water? I've seen one news analysis from an expert in this field who thinks explosives to try to seal the hole is a really, really bad idea.

There's a reservoir of oil under very high pressure and a hole that it's squirting out of. Trying to blow up the hole is dubious, considering how much oil is spewing out of it. An explosion would have to be sure to not make any more cracks, open any new holes and *completely* seal the existing one - leaving it buried under rubble is just another version of the failed "top kill" approach.

Imagine it as trying to seal a huge diet coke/menthos fountain with a grenade - it's dubious how well it would work.




RE: Can you blow up a hole?
By drycrust3 on 6/11/2010 7:20:19 AM , Rating: 2
I totally agree. The idea of putting pretty well any explosives in there is just ludicrous because you need to create a seal, not a bigger hole or a hole covered with a pile of rubble.
There was even a suggestion of using a nuke, but I really cannot imagine how much extra environmental damage all the dead fish will do on top of what is already coming out of the hole.
My suggestion would be to pump some sort of coagulant into the hole.


RE: Can you blow up a hole?
By Scabies on 6/11/2010 12:57:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
My suggestion would be to pump some sort of coagulant into the hole.


This is done throughout the drilling process, and they tried that Kill Shot thing last week. No joy.


RE: Can you blow up a hole?
By aharris on 6/11/2010 3:00:27 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
...but the dead fishies!


Do you all really believe that there will be aquatic life within 50 miles of this well anytime in the next 10 years?


RE: Can you blow up a hole?
By straycat74 on 6/12/2010 4:42:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do you all really believe that there will be aquatic life within 50 miles of this well anytime in the next 10 years?


Yes. At the very least the sea-monkeys will thrive with less competition, and most of the larger predators vacationing elsewhere.


RE: Can you blow up a hole?
By brokenaxiom on 6/16/2010 9:42:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I totally agree. The idea of putting pretty well any explosives in there is just ludicrous because you need to create a seal, not a bigger hole or a hole covered with a pile of rubble. There was even a suggestion of using a nuke, but I really cannot imagine how much extra environmental damage all the dead fish will do on top of what is already coming out of the hole. My suggestion would be to pump some sort of coagulant into the hole.


First, there would be no hole drilled. The blast would be directed down towards the ground with the goal of creating a seal of trinitite ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinitite ).

Second, the ecological damage from attempting this solution is massively dwarfed by the current ecological damage of waiting for the past two months for the relief well. The reality is that BP didn't have a solution and everyone has been simply guessing. The Russians did and they were ignored. Not out of ignorance, but simply because Obama is going to use this crisis to get his Cap and Trade.


RE: Can you blow up a hole?
By murray13 on 6/11/2010 8:47:42 AM , Rating: 2
You people REALLY don't understand what's going on down there do you. You don't realize what 5000 pounds per square inch of pressure is like. Don't you know that it's a pipe that's thousands of feet long that's spewing the oil. The big explosion would, at that depth in the gulf, basically crush the pipe. And the guy from the USMC would have run the numbers before he opened his mouth, publicly at least.

Trying to make it sound like a coke/mentos fountain and a grenade just lets me know how little you actually know.


RE: Can you blow up a hole?
By magneticfield on 6/11/10, Rating: -1
RE: Can you blow up a hole?
By nafhan on 6/11/2010 9:30:10 AM , Rating: 1
The ocean floor isn't a paper mache volcano. Typically after going through the 5000 ft of ocean, these drills are going through that much or (usually) more sediment and rock before getting to the oil. The explosion should compact the pipe and the sediment and rock down into the hole - completely sealing off the oil, and hopefully putting things back similar to the way they were before the hole was drilled.
Your "diet coke/menthos fountain with a grenade" example needs to have about 50ft of granite between the grenade and the diet coke to make it reasonable.


RE: Can you blow up a hole?
By mellomonk on 6/11/2010 10:25:37 AM , Rating: 4
Or, as has been pointed out by many of the deep drilling geologists on many networks, you might shatter one or more of layers of rock and sediment containing the oil deposit, which I might add is at a considerable static wellhead pressure relative to the depth pressure, thereby turning one partially restricted leak into tens or more fully unrestricted leaks. Wonderful.

From day one, the drilling engineers, and geologists who specialize in the type of deep water drilling have said there may be case where an extremely focused type of explosion might be used to crush the bore hole, but not without extreme risk. The two relief wells currently being drilled is the only proven safe method to stop this type of leak.


RE: Can you blow up a hole?
By mattclary on 6/11/2010 1:32:02 PM , Rating: 2
The bomb proposed in this article is a conventional bomb, not a nuke. The odds of it breaking up bedrock (especially when located ABOVE the pipe) is about as likely to happen when I stomp my foot.


RE: Can you blow up a hole?
By nafhan on 6/11/2010 4:25:46 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not saying it's 100% or that it's the best option. I'm saying it's possible and it could work. Telling me that you think it's not the best option is fine, but it's beyond the scope of what I was saying. Really, I mostly wanted to point out that it doesn't have anything in common with blowing up mentos and diet coke with a hand grenade. :)


RE: Can you blow up a hole?
By kilkennycat on 6/11/2010 2:40:25 PM , Rating: 2
Ummm. There is 8000 feet of the Earth's crust between the ocean bottom and the oil reservoir. I doubt if any conventional bunker-buster-type bomb is going penetrate more than 500feet. It certainly should effectively destroy pipework and collapse many tons of ocean floor on the remaining pipe structure. The real question at this point in time is: Would such a bomb also damage the relief-well drillings? If a bomb was going to be used, it probably should have been attempted before any relief-well drilling. Another case of governmental beauracratic caution miring this relief project, just as with the foot-dragging over the installation of sand-berms to protect the wildlife.


RE: Can you blow up a hole?
By FaaR on 6/12/2010 6:15:52 AM , Rating: 1
"Another case of governmental beauracratic caution miring this relief project"

Considering the risks, perhaps caution is the preferable alternatives wouldn't you say?

Crushing "many tons" of ocean floor bedrock down on the bore hole isn't going to do much good if those "many tons" aren't enough mass to contain the (very very high) pressure of the oil well.

Assume you americans drop down a big-ass bomb (there's apparantly no problem enough explosives can't fix - Jerry Bruckheimer's wet dream come true), the bomb crushes the pipe and the ocean floor, and then the oil shoves the resulting rubble aside and just continues to spout. Except now there's no pipe anymore, and no ocean floor - only a jagged, fractured, probably crater-shaped surface. The hole would continue to leak oil until the reservoir's lost all pressure, which could take years. This would undoubtedly be very very bad for not just the gulf, but the entire atlantic ocean, considering currents and so on.

So you probably don't want to try something that would permanently fuck up any further attempts to shut off the flow.

Even the relief wells btw won't shut off the flow at the existing bore hole. They'll just lower the pressure, reducing the flow rate. With the pressure down, capping the existing well should be easier.


RE: Can you blow up a hole?
By brokenaxiom on 6/16/2010 9:52:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
just as with the foot-dragging over the installation of sand-berms to protect the wildlife.


This wasn't bureaucratic incompetence; it was done on purpose. Oil covered animals creates a wonderful PR campaign for Cap and Trade. Remember the creed of the current administration: You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yeA_kHHLow


Its the only way to be...
By Lazarus Dark on 6/11/2010 8:14:35 AM , Rating: 4
I say we take off and nuke the site from orbit. Its the only way to be sure...




RE: Its the only way to be...
By magneticfield on 6/11/2010 9:19:11 AM , Rating: 2
You mean BP's headquarters, right?


RE: Its the only way to be...
By cuddle on 6/11/2010 8:48:23 PM , Rating: 2
Just have mom kiss the boo boo and put a band-aid on it, should do the trick.


no bomb at all
By widely red on 6/11/2010 3:52:12 PM , Rating: 1
I already told BP this month's ago, but the solution is not a bomb but an igniter. A sufficient quantity of thermite, with sufficient iron oxide will establish its own flame and oxygen source and will consume the oil before it destroys more fish, beaches, tourism, etc.




RE: no bomb at all
By FaaR on 6/12/2010 6:27:13 AM , Rating: 2
Lul? How many millions of tons of thermite would you suggest BP uses, and how would you arrange its placement so that it consumes a ~50k bbl/day flow?

In the realm of outlandishly unworkable solutions, yours just about takes the cake mate.


RE: no bomb at all
By Fritzr on 6/12/2010 9:13:18 AM , Rating: 2
Him not thinking clearly. Thermite will start fires quite well IF an oxidizer is present to keep the external fuel burning.

Seawater does have dissolved oxygen, but not sufficient to support a fire hot enough to be self sustaining given that it will have to boil the adjacent water to maintain the fuel temperature at a high enough level to keep it burning. That is why water is used to put fires out.

Water is not recommended for oil fires as the oil floats, spreads out and the vapors above the oil maintain the fire away from the water. The water's main effect when it is sprayed onto burning oil is to spread the fire over a wider area. Of course when the air above the fire is above 5000ft of water, you don't need to worry about that effect too much :P

Thermite does contain an oxidizer to burn the fuel it contains, but it's effect on the well will be thermal damage only, it won't start a fire.

Burning the slick once the oil surfaces can be done. It is just applying the reason you don't use water to fight fires to advantage. This has already been suggested as a way to clean up some of the oil.


RE: no bomb at all
By Azure Sky on 6/14/2010 4:32:13 PM , Rating: 2
then explain why when you toss burning magnesium into for example a lake or swimming pool does it burn brighter?

would you like me to explain?

water is made of hydrogen and oxyen, when heated to proper temps it splits into hygrogen and oxygen, Thermite can reach these temps, the problem would be getting it burning at those depts, Personally Im all for the nuke solution, if you google around russia has done it between 5 and 7 times, only once did it not work, and in that case it didnt make things any worse.

yes this was underwater wells not above ground.

they drill a hole parallel to the well, bury the nuke and set it off, it moves the earth(in the area we are talking about thats ALOT OF MUD not rock) this crushes the pipe and in worst case leaves a minor leak that could be dealt with other ways(like stuff they have tried already, in most cases it fully cuts off the flow.

oh and to the idiot who mentioned a tsunami......u cant make a tsunami with nukes, the US military tried that way back and even the biggest nukes they tried couldn't even make waves noticeably bigger.

only way you could make a tsunami with explosives would be to cause an underwater avalanche.....


Tampon
By Mike2038 on 6/11/2010 10:34:21 AM , Rating: 3
Looks like a big tampon. Can we surround one with air then just deploy it in the hole. Plug the hole without the explosion.




RE: Tampon
By EricMartello on 6/11/2010 9:14:44 PM , Rating: 3
But it will continue to bitch, moan and nag for a week or two after being plugged up.


I guess he has 'blown up' a whole new perspective...
By koss on 6/11/2010 6:59:51 AM , Rating: 2
I keep asking myself what are the thoughts on the big bang theory there? Perhaps, since we came up from a blast, explosions are the way to go and everything that has a "boom" should be applied in the f(the more)=the marrier ?
/Lucky bastards, those talibans then... Love is all around(tm) them.../

Because: If science is the reason, there are quite a lot of other information that should be spoken about before. For instance, how is it that the most expensive, modern and effective equipment is sitting in the european harbours? How is it that obviously better and more advanced systems were not allowed to act immediately, because their technology does not 'preserve fully the coastal biosystem'(specific: they have a pair of paddles/collectors deemed not green enough)? That was made by a group of lesser educated americans, with clearly no alternatives, plans, knowledge, or at least any ideas for any of it!

Does someone think it is greener there now?

So the decisions are clearly NOT based on science whatsoever, that is a a FACT. The last, but not least important question is : Then what are they based on?
A billion dollar question, indeed.




By FaaR on 6/12/2010 6:46:02 AM , Rating: 2
"So the decisions are clearly NOT based on science whatsoever, that is a a FACT. The last, but not least important question is : Then what are they based on?
A billion dollar question, indeed."

I've no idea what you've based your post on, but none of it is FACT in any sense or meaning of the word, at all. None of your reasoning makes any sense; the big bang is not useable as an analogy for how to go about sealing oil leaks, and nor did it create human beings either (that happened over 13 billion years later).

Of course the solution - regardless what form it will take - will be born out of science. Whatever else could it possibly be otherwise? LOL! Last I checked, acts of divine intervention never stopped any other environmental disasters; human-made or not.

(There's also the possibility we'll fail at sealing the leak. If that happens it's because we either lack the technology neccessary to do so, or we're inept at, or unwilling to apply it.)


Plan B
By YashBudini on 6/11/2010 12:28:32 PM , Rating: 2
Let's put Cheney's deregulated head in the hole.




RE: Plan B
By FaaR on 6/12/2010 6:21:18 AM , Rating: 2
His head's not big enough to plug the leak. You'd have to use either his fat ass, or his well-stuffed pocketbook, nothing else would work.


format
By Etern205 on 6/11/2010 11:32:43 AM , Rating: 2
When a system gets severely infected with a virus and there is no chance of solving it, we format the damn thing and start all over.

Why can we just do that with the ocean?
j/k




1st Test on BP HQ to make it works.
By Blood1 on 6/11/2010 2:27:34 PM , Rating: 2
Why don't we first test this on BP's HQ and then all the other companies putting blam on the other guys for not their problem or responsibility.
Then set it off on this f-in well killing everything.




What a freaking mess
By ChipDude on 6/11/2010 3:38:37 PM , Rating: 2
Lets be honest about this:
1) BP experts are no more in the know of what to do next than any logical thinking minded engineer. Who the hell has experience at these depths with these kind of issues.

2) They can't contain it, stop it.

A huge explosive will creaet a mess and enough debris IMHO to do one of two things. Blow it shout or blow it open.

RIght now its so messed up might as well give it a go. I hope they use a really big one. WOuld make for some fun.

BTW BP as a company is finished, done, gone.




Pay attention, 007!
By RivuxGamma on 6/11/2010 5:34:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Franz Gayl, a U.S. Marine Corps technologist, has long been cooking up creative solutions for our nation's troops. He pushed out spy drones and bomb resistant trucks. And he's had a hand in more outlandish research efforts -- robotic exoskeletons, space-dropping troops, and laser weaponry.


Does this guy sound like Q to anyone else?




a better solution
By cokbun on 6/13/2010 1:30:28 PM , Rating: 2
By roadhog1974 on 6/13/2010 6:18:34 PM , Rating: 2
enquiring minds need to know.




fab
By jiulemoigt on 6/14/2010 12:59:09 AM , Rating: 2
wouldn't this create a hurricane with cold unstable air over super heated hot air?




Biggest in history?
By BillyBatson on 6/14/2010 2:28:47 PM , Rating: 2
Didn't dailytech report that Russia created the "father of all bombs" beating out the Moab in overall power?




the well
By pensive on 6/16/2010 4:23:22 PM , Rating: 2
this is a really 'big' well and
quite a large oil formation besides.
back in the day, a 10,000 barrel
oil gusher was a major find.
this one is estimated at 60,000 barrels
as of mid June 2010.

anyway, instead of the explosion, why
not use a set of hydraulic shears
used in the scrap metal demolition
business and simply crimp the stand pipe
(almost begin to cut the pipe exterior shell)
until the blowout is choked? even a few
crimps like crimping a fuel hose or water
hose should drastically reduce or eliminate
the flow.




By joe anna on 7/1/2010 5:55:16 AM , Rating: 2
Yea, how much oil does it take to kill the fish, birds, coral and whales? Blow it up...physics is on my side.




Suggestion
By Ammohunt on 6/11/10, Rating: -1
RE: Suggestion
By JasonMick (blog) on 6/11/2010 8:34:45 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Jason your anti-military bias is showing you really should consider toning it down.


Eh? I was being serious -- he seems like a genius to me. I think laser weapons and exoskeletons are pretty sweet.

I thought this was an awesome idea and pretty hilarious. If it works (like apparently some similar Russian deployments did) that would be pretty awesome.

At this point I figure it's worth a shot.

I have a lot of respect for our armed forces. I don't always agree with 100% of their actions, because its a tough job and occasionally a handful of soldiers make poor decisions. But overall I think they try their best to serve our country well. The military produces scores of very intelligent and resourceful individuals.

By the way, here -- this is for you:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_NB_rOe-HRrA/SuDX9EmcRzI/...

I couldn't find extra sensitive.


RE: Suggestion
By straycat74 on 6/11/10, Rating: 0
RE: Suggestion
By JasonMick (blog) on 6/11/2010 8:58:25 AM , Rating: 2
C'mon now, it was just a little joke. I'm sure he can take it -- he sure gives plenty of criticism. Let's not be so uptight and serious. It's Friday!


RE: Suggestion
By straycat74 on 6/11/10, Rating: 0
RE: Suggestion
By StevoLincolnite on 6/11/2010 11:45:14 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
especially when most of us have the luxury of living in the greatest country on Earth, and most of us take it for granted. I include myself in that.


Australia is awesome isn't it? ;)


RE: Suggestion
By InsaneGain on 6/11/2010 12:23:38 PM , Rating: 4
Ummm... I think he's talking about Canada. Sorry. ;)


RE: Suggestion
By straycat74 on 6/11/2010 1:32:45 PM , Rating: 1
I wasn't talking about a the leach to the north. I also wasn't aware that most of the readers were from Canada or Australia. I guess my assumption was wrong. But you both can't be right either. Oh well, in todays politically correct world, we all get a trophy!


RE: Suggestion
By aharris on 6/11/2010 3:04:26 PM , Rating: 2
Canada.

#1 at being just north of the United States.


RE: Suggestion
By straycat74 on 6/11/2010 1:25:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Australia is awesome isn't it? ;)


I am going to move there just for the blazing fast internet speeds.


RE: Suggestion
By StevoLincolnite on 6/12/2010 4:45:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I am going to move there just for the blazing fast internet speeds.


What type of connection with "blazing speeds?".
We have the 100mbps fiber broadband project roll-out underway, and we already have one (if not the) fastest and largest 3G networks in the world in-terms of speed and coverage.

But right now, fixed-broadband provided over copper, plain sucks.


RE: Suggestion
By straycat74 on 6/12/2010 7:46:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
We have the 100mbps fiber broadband project roll-out underway


Let me know how that works out. And 3G speeds? Look-out!


RE: Suggestion
By rcc on 6/11/2010 2:23:38 PM , Rating: 2
It was 30 years ago, is it still? I may have to look in to emigrating if Bam Bam wins another 4.


RE: Suggestion
By Ammohunt on 6/11/2010 3:52:05 PM , Rating: 2
Ah ok so i misread your intentions the other day you were calling them murderers. my bad.


RE: Suggestion
By YashBudini on 6/11/2010 7:02:31 PM , Rating: 1
"Jason your anti-military bias is showing you really should consider toning it down. "

Yeah Jason, what's wrong with you? You should be doing stuff like supporting Halliburton no matter how much money they screw the US out of. Where the hell is your sense of patriotism anyway? In your thinking mind?


Russians did it..
By Daniel8uk on 6/11/10, Rating: -1
RE: Russians did it..
By hughlle on 6/11/10, Rating: -1
RE: Russians did it..
By Hiawa23 on 6/11/2010 8:04:09 AM , Rating: 2
yeah, i also hope they go bankrupt real quick..

I don't want them to go bankrupt cause if that happens then the people whom they owe money to for the cleanup or for being out of work, or the families of the 11 dead won't get paid. I am at a catch 22, cause for over 20 years, I have only put Amoco/BP fuel into my cars but looking at the mess they have cause plus their constant lies, I may switch over the Shell, as it's tough for me to continue to support this company. At this point, they need to try something, & if blowing it up will work & not cause more damge then by all means.


RE: Russians did it..
By MozeeToby on 6/11/2010 10:23:03 AM , Rating: 3
Then give them the corporate death penalty. Chop them up into pieces and sell them off to the highest bidder, use the proceeds to pay the people whom they owe money to and let that be the end of it.

And before I modded into oblivion and the inevitable "seizing a foreign company" anti-socialist rhetoric; at least let me state the following two things: 1) Companies (including foreign ones) have been successfully suing the government for rights that were previously only granted to human beings, it only makes sense that corresponding responsibilities and punishments go along with those new rights. 2) It will almost certainly be shown in the coming months and years that BP committed significant crimes in US territory and against US interests. The US has every right to punish them accordingly.

I realize that the law doesn't support this happening today, and I don't expect or even really hope that it happens to BP (since the current laws don't support it) but I do feel that the laws should be changed to make it a possibility in the future. This is a perfect example of privatized profits, socialized risks; if the risks weren't socialized BP would have declared bankruptcy and been sold off weeks ago.


RE: Russians did it..
By Etsp on 6/14/2010 2:13:39 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Then give them the corporate death penalty. Chop them up into pieces and sell them off to the highest bidder, use the proceeds to pay the people whom they owe money to and let that be the end of it.
quote:
1) Companies (including foreign ones) have been successfully suing the government for rights that were previously only granted to human beings, it only makes sense that corresponding responsibilities and punishments go along with those new rights.
Lets hope they don't try that then, I'm pretty sure that being drawn and quartered is considered "cruel" and therefore illegal as a means of execution in the U.S....


RE: Russians did it..
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 6/11/2010 7:06:19 AM , Rating: 2
Normally, I wouldn't wish bankruptcy on a company, but this just boggles my mind:

quote:
Want to hear something scary? BP has been fined by OSHA 760 times. By contrast, oil giant ExxonMobil has been fined only once.


WTF????

1) 760 compared to 1... ONE!!!!
2) Why the hell didn't OSHA start cracking heads when the total started creeping up?

Granted, I don't know how OSHA operates, but something tells me that there should have been some kind of oversight for a company operating this "loose".


RE: Russians did it..
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 6/11/2010 7:23:05 AM , Rating: 2
RE: Russians did it..
By michael67 on 6/11/2010 9:30:29 AM , Rating: 3
Then its also the fault of OSHA not giving the high enough fines ore the government not giving the OSHA the tools to do so.

I have bin working in oil mainly offshore about almost my whole working life.

Oil companies only really care if it hurts there bottom line.

I give example in the dutch offshore companies get fined for the smallest amount of oil spill.
One drop of oil ore condensate gives about 40 squire foot oil film on the sea.
so even the most minute spills are easy to notice, the dutch coastguard doing fly overs to check for spills, if they find one its a automatic €0.5m minimum fine.
So the first thing operators do when there is no wind check for leaks under the platform.

other example, about 10y ago there was a accident whit a diesel bunker hose getting in to the ships propeller, cousing a spill of about 40 gallons of diesel getting in to the sea, the company in question got a €0.75m fine.
At the same time all companies got put on notice, that they had to find whit in a year a solution to prevent it from happening again, every accident after that year would cause the fine to double.
Also not reporting accidents will raise the fine by 10x, so all accidents are getting reported, there is also a €2000 reword for workers reporting non reported accidents, so no company can take the risk of not reporting it whit in 24 hour's.

Solution, every supplier got fitted whit hose wheels that roles in and out the bunker hose.

So even do the company is really to blame so is the government, for failing to teach the company to do things the proper way.

Its the same as whit, if speeding tickets would only cost $1 per mile over the limit, everyone would be smiling and pay the fine's and start speeding strait afterward again.
On the other hand if you have to pay $50 per mile over the limit and loos your license after 3 times people start to think again about speeding, the same go's for companies.


RE: Russians did it..
By The Raven on 6/11/2010 10:17:17 AM , Rating: 2
You are right. Both entities should be held accountable.

We should hold BP accountable as consumers by not supporting them as customers, and we should also hold the gov't agencies accountable as well. Unfortunately there really isn't an effective way of doing that. I think that one problem is that the gov't isn't a failsafe. It just divvies out financial penalties for the most part. But that is what the consumer's responsibility is (yes, consumers have responsibilities). So why do we need the EPA if they really don't protect the environment. There is a measure of protection, but they are not the failsafe that they should be.

It is like a school playground scenario where there is a bully, (i.e. Exxon or BP) and there is the little wimp (the environment) and then there is the wimp's friend (the EPA).
When the bully approaches the wimp, the friend tells the bully to back off or he will tattle to the teacher. The bully might not fear the wrath of the teacher or might think that the friend will even report him for harassing the wimp, and go ahead and cold cock the nerd.

But what the wimp needs is some professional protection in case the bully attacks. The gov't should be that protection. Up to this point, the gov't has only been a 'friend' and not professional protection.

Now how to implement that I am not sure. But one thing is for sure: if the gov't doesn't punish the company effectively (by just giving the company a bunch of fines but not really preventing the violations or potential catastrophies) then the customers really need to step it up and bring the company down via response a the pump. That goes for corporate customers and induvidual customers alike.


RE: Russians did it..
By michael67 on 6/11/2010 12:57:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We should hold BP accountable as consumers by not supporting them as customers

And you think that's going to hurt BP a lot, think again, you have about 50% chance that the petrol you put in your tank comes from the same brand refinery as it says on the pomp station.

Do you will be hurting that privet owner of that petrol station.

I would say go to a fuel-depot and look what labels on the trucks are rolling out the gate, half of will have a different brand on them then whats it saying above the gate.

Almost all petrol is being sold for market prizes between different oil companies


RE: Russians did it..
By The Raven on 6/11/2010 4:56:08 PM , Rating: 2
You're right, but you're missing some of my point. And I don't care if it hurts a station owner if it is in fact a BP product that they are selling. As I said, both on a corporate level and end-user level we can speak with our money.

If I recall correctly (I was pretty young at the time) but after the Valdez disaster people boycotted Exxon quite heavily and their stock dropped big time. But I have no idea about the actual reason why it dropped as there could be plenty of reasons including the loss of oil itself (a small reason I would guess).


RE: Russians did it..
By Reclaimer77 on 6/11/2010 5:03:56 PM , Rating: 2
Gas is staying low, even dropping in some places. People don't care as long as that remains the case.


RE: Russians did it..
By Ammohunt on 6/11/10, Rating: -1
RE: Russians did it..
By Dribble on 6/11/2010 9:50:46 AM , Rating: 3
Did you shout this loudly when an American company killed 15000 and exposed 500,000 Indians to deadly chemicals in 1984:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster

No one has even compensated them fully, but then Indian's aren't worth that much...

BP has already spent significantly more then Union Carbide (now Dow Chemical Company) did.


RE: Russians did it..
By thrust2night on 6/11/2010 10:01:19 AM , Rating: 2
Hey man I'm Indian and my country men (and women are worth that much). It's just that people like us are often overlooked and forgotten. Same thing happened with the Texaco oil spill in Ecuador. It's been over 20 years and they're still trying to get paid.

http://chevrontoxico.com/


RE: Russians did it..
By Dribble on 6/11/2010 11:14:05 AM , Rating: 2
I know they are - that was the point I was trying to make.

Very much an attitude of do what I say, not what I do.


RE: Russians did it..
By aharris on 6/11/2010 1:51:02 PM , Rating: 2
ExxonMobil has placed a serious focus on safety, and even more so since Exxon-Valdez. Whatever it was they were fined for, I guarantee they won't be fined for it twice.

BP has long had a history of cutting corners to cut costs. Maybe they should've taken a cue from the company with the most $$$ in that industry?


RE: Russians did it..
By Ammohunt on 6/11/2010 8:21:48 AM , Rating: 2
Suit them out of existence that’s brilliant! if BP goes bankrupt no-one gets paid and any chance of closing the well is delayed since Obama is too incompetent(or too stupid) to do anything about it.


RE: Russians did it..
By Klinky1984 on 6/11/2010 8:59:10 AM , Rating: 2
It's not as though bankruptcy automatically means they don't have to pay anyone & just keep generating their billions of dollars in revenue while sticking a big middle finger to those who are affected(which is essentially what they're doing now). It will depend on how they would file. They may restructure or completely liquidate to meet their obligations to their creditors(people they owe money to), one of which could be monetary claims for clean-up, negligence, etc... Someone would be placed in charge to oversee who gets what.

I'll doubt they go bankrupt though. They are going to purposefully delay and put-off making any payments to anyone unless they can spin it off as good press & even then they're going to make the process of getting money slow and inefficient. They will keep delaying compensation until the disaster is over and then hope their buddies in Washington help them out by capping the amount of damages or fighting any claims in court so they are settled for the least amount of monies.

The fed.gov might file a lawsuit, but those shrimp farmers? Tourist operators? People with beach front property? Psshht. Frankley they probably need to get together a group such as "Affected Peoples of the Gulf Coast" and file for class action status. Unfortunately class action suits usually amount to a pittance being paid to those affected though with the other vultures of our nation(lawyers) taking a hearty chunk themselves.


RE: Russians did it..
By ksherman on 6/11/2010 8:28:34 AM , Rating: 2
You're partly correct, the Russians actually used Nuclear ordinance to seal their oil leaks (as well as for blasting out canals, go figure).

The MOAB (as seen in the intro to the '90's blockbuster "Outbreak") is non-nuclear. Aside from the Russians recent FOAB (Father-of-all-Bombs they like to call it), it is the most powerful, non-nuclear explosive in the US arsenal.

Typically though, it is designed to be used to detonate above the ground to suck in all the oxygen in the area to kill, which is a might gruesome way to go. Like Nuclear ordinances, it's not only the explosion you have to worry about. But there is no radiation fallout.

I think this sounds like a good idea, but if I were a decision maker, I'd need more than just colorful hand drawings to call this an actionable plan.

Sadly, it's not the craziest idea and should have been on the table a month ago.


RE: Russians did it..
By 91TTZ on 6/11/2010 8:41:58 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Typically though, it is designed to be used to detonate above the ground to suck in all the oxygen in the area to kill, which is a might gruesome way to go.


You're thinking of fuel-air bombs that use atmospheric oxygen as the oxidizer. The MOAB uses H6 which is a conventional high explosive and doesn't need any external oxygen, so it wouldn't suck oxygen from the surrounding area.


RE: Russians did it..
By semo on 6/11/2010 8:28:37 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Although based in London, the company has been effectively Anglo-American since its 1998 merger with Amoco – it employs 80,300 people, of whom 29,000 are in the US. Some 40% of its shares are held in the UK, while 39% are held in the US.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica...

BP's not just a British company anymore


RE: Russians did it..
By MrBlastman on 6/11/2010 8:39:47 AM , Rating: 2
In the words of the Heavy Weapons Guy in Team Fortress 2:

"Ka-BOOM!"

"So much blood!"

:)


RE: Russians did it..
By Cheesew1z69 on 6/12/2010 8:46:41 PM , Rating: 2
It's the demo man who says KA-BOOM


RE: Russians did it..
By straycat74 on 6/11/2010 8:45:34 AM , Rating: 3
And the company going bankrupt helps who? Mistakes happen. You should direct your anger towards the government and the enviro-wakos for pushing oil drilling to the depths they are at. Although our President insinuated oil is hard to find, which pushes us to such depths, we are only drilling in deep water because of regulation. This would be a lot easier to clean up in 500ft of water than 5000.

If you want a link for when the President said that, read his first press conference (a month after the spill).


"So if you want to save the planet, feel free to drive your Hummer. Just avoid the drive thru line at McDonalds." -- Michael Asher














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki