FAQ  •   Login  •   Register  •   Subscribe 

Welcome to the Forum for InventorSpot.com, the most popular invention related website in the world. Read our welcome message.

Skip to content

Moderators: Michelle, Scrupulous, Roger Brown, citizen


Re: Was the Gulf BP oil spill intentional?

Postby rather-be-golfing » Fri Jun 11, 2010 9:22 am

User avatar
rather-be-golfing
Green Belt
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:25 pm
This is unbelievable that they have not plugged this yet. I say go with the balloon and weighted hose idea but go all the way to the bottom. Inflate the balloon inside the resevoir. Sure, its a 20,000 ft hose but we are talking about jeopardizing the entire east coast of the US.

Re: Was the Gulf BP oil spill intentional?

Postby bottleslingguy » Fri Jun 11, 2010 8:07 pm

User avatar
bottleslingguy
Black Belt
 
Posts: 1753
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 7:41 am
There is over 40,000 psi coming out of there. This is what they need to do tomorrow: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbUAAHuJUHs

while scaling this up to size: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDlDlrFytzA

and if THAT doesn't work (which it should or at least slow it down enough to pump in cement with a relief well) then nuke it. small yield torpedo placed right next to the blowout preventer...

Re: Was the Gulf BP oil spill intentional?

Postby Scrupulous » Sat Jun 12, 2010 11:49 am

User avatar
Scrupulous
Black Belt
 
Posts: 2387
Joined: Sun Jan 21, 2007 7:32 pm
Location: United States
You can't nuke it, because you'll just expose more of the well pipe, only much closer to the actual oil reservoir. You probably couldnt even put a ring of explosives around the leak and make a mound to cover the pipe, because then the oil will seep through and become much more difficult to contain. They need to use the remaining pipe and take care not to damage it any further.

And, I honestly don't see how they could fish through tons of sediment and find a lower section of the main well, let alone introduce concrete. When they started talking about that, that's when I knew this was turning into the Benny Hill show, or the three stooges meets the keystone cops.

I don't know about 40,000 psi, but whatever it is, it's probably too much presssure to drop something in that's anywhere close to the inner diameter. It would need to be gradually tapered like a big spear. If the opening puts out 10,000 pounds of force, then you would need 10,000 pounds of weight forcing the plug down, before the plug is at max diameter.

Re: Was the Gulf BP oil spill intentional?

Postby bottleslingguy » Sat Jun 12, 2010 3:51 pm

User avatar
bottleslingguy
Black Belt
 
Posts: 1753
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 7:41 am
The Russians have used nukes before on a gas leak that burned for three years. The pressure wave and heat turn the ground to glass and seal it off. The oil reservoir is another three miles down under the sea floor, so you should be good to go with a small yield device. I agree though it would be risky with a lot of unknowns but it would be cool to watch on the nightly news. Definitely a last choice type of thing

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

Relief wells that intercept the existing well are proven technologies but if they miss it takes time to finally hit the bullseye

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sySTy0cdHis

I read one of the rig workers said thirty to forty K psi but here's something else that verifies that:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 005AAYpUKL

I was also thinking about threading a half mile length of primer cord down the shaft. You have to remember you're not pushing against the entire force coming out in order to put the cord in place. Imagine taking a wire coat hanger and tying a string to that and then pushing it into a garden hose. That way you explode the entire length of cord which would place a half mile of rock/mud on top of the well (if 2500 ft isn't enough then some physicist can figure out how much you'd need maybe even less than that)

But that guy Phil's radial plug would work as long as there was enough room for the oil to go around it and then if you put it far enough down and spin the screw that extends the plug into the sides fast enough it would grab the sides of the pipe before it was spit out. It's like a mechanical stent. Even if it slowed it down to lower pressures then you could inject cement.

BP has failed miserably and is showing in a glaring reality why, if we don't have technologies to stop this kind of disaster, we shouldn't be doing it in the first place.

Re: Was the Gulf BP oil spill intentional?

Postby Scrupulous » Sun Jun 13, 2010 4:18 pm

User avatar
Scrupulous
Black Belt
 
Posts: 2387
Joined: Sun Jan 21, 2007 7:32 pm
Location: United States
I change my mind. Watching that Russian footage, I'm convinced that would have a chance of working. But you know, they'd need to do an environmental impact study...then they'd have to debate for weeks on whether that would be worse than the effects of the spill itself, which will trigger a whole new delay for public approval surveys and the whole "public opinion" song and dance...then the news will be diverted to the location for the bones of some high school chic who went missing five years ago...

It just doesn't seem like they WANT to stop it, BSG. Honestly, there's no transparency in the "cooperative" effort to stop the flow. There's no attempts to address the public with the status of the planning for multiple approaches, which should be ramping up simultaneously. The bigger problem is already clear...they wanted this to happen, and they don't want it to stop.

So, what to do about BP...

Re: Was the Gulf BP oil spill intentional?

Postby bottleslingguy » Sun Jun 13, 2010 6:50 pm

User avatar
bottleslingguy
Black Belt
 
Posts: 1753
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 7:41 am
I think #1 action is to contain the oil in barges like this shows http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbUAAHuJUHs

Have you noticed the connecting flange just below the snipped off end of the riser? They have a four inch pipe on top of a funnel sitting over a twenty inch pipe. If they assembled the original set up at that depth (they keep saying how hard it is to do things down there but they assembled it there) why can't they unbolt the top part of the flange with the rovs, put a valve on it and shut it off? Some one might argue the pressure is too strong. Well they have that stupid cap on it now and that is not blowing off. They could open the valve, swing it over so that one of the flange bolt holes lines up with the lower flange attached to the blowout preventer, bolt the two halves and then swing the valve over the entire flange now lining up the two sections held by one bolt and then install and tighten the rest. Then shut off the valve. The blowout preventer is intact why not install a shut off valve? I don't get it.

I agree the nuke would have a ton of what ifs. But what if?????? Remember though: the oil is killing everything around there anyway and the radioactivity would be at a minimum being under the sea floor and then also covered with an ocean. I think the military should have the heavy lift cranes and huge barges on their way to do like is suggested in that video. At the same time continue the relief wells (the govt did insist on a second relief well just in case. it was the least they could do I guess) and start a potential nuke shaft. If the relief wells can get the cement to stay in (they probably don't have pumps that can fight against 30,000+ psi for very long) then we're golden and now it's just a matter of cleaning up the mess.

But seriously, there is no way this should be allowed to leak one second longer in my humble opinion. Tell me why this isn't the best reason why we need to phase out oil within the next five years. We can make more jobs for people by starting up competitions for zero impact sources of energy. Google search "tom valone" "joe cell" "geet" "rodin coil" there are many more waiting for the boot to be lifted off their necks. BP lobbies Washington to suppress these other energy systems. It's not hokus pokus.

It is surreal that they were allowed to do this without have safety measures in place. Why didn't they have a relief well already drilled or a containment dome that worked, was already built, and was already tested. See that's that whole prototype argument. That was a big setback, waste of time and shows how they are flying by the seats of their pants. We don't have a lot of time left to pussy foot around.

I think the nuke option would boost the President's approval rating

Re: Was the Gulf BP oil spill intentional?

Postby inventor-x » Thu Jun 24, 2010 2:00 pm

User avatar
inventor-x
Brown Belt
 
Posts: 914
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 5:44 pm
Hi All

("YES") I agree

BP - Busch Politics are at it again.

Busch ("RAPED") this country for the love of money over ("OIL") - Doesn't Busch own a Bushel of those ("OIL RIGS") out in the gulf ??????

What I am floored about is there are ("NO") contingency plans for a disaster event of this nature !!!

BSG, it is always good to hear your point of view, almost words of my own & I like your Idea.

I don't understand ("WHY") they don't use a ("VACUUME JACK") the type they use to anchor the ("OIL RIG") to the ocean floor ????

("OR HEAT") the box devices that they use that have the possibilities of ("ICE") building-up ????

Water oil rigs should have like a spider web of flotation contingency plans - meaning many layers of flotation that circle the disaster to collect and store the oil until they can get a wagon circle of oil tanker ships around the disaster to collect the oil from the water & the oil companies should have this as being mandatory to do any oil drilling period.

There should be multiple redundant contingency plans & shut-off valves for any (“OIL RIG”) in the ocean or on land!!!!!

This is the wake up call for all mankind.

Examples of mankind’s nature are how much junk has mankind left in ("SPACE, on the MOON, in the OCEANS or in the ANTARTIC") ????

Re: Was the Gulf BP oil spill intentional?

Postby inventor-x » Sun Jul 11, 2010 11:27 pm

User avatar
inventor-x
Brown Belt
 
Posts: 914
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 5:44 pm
Hi All

BSG & Scrupulous, you will love this.

I have not had the time to read this article in detail, just time to copy, paste & to post it.

Can anyone say FRACTURE

BP OIL Spill

According to Sagalevich’s report, the oil leaking into the Gulf of
Mexico is not just coming from the 22 inch well bore site being shown on
American television, but from at least 18 other sites on the “fractured
seafloor” with the largest being nearly 11 kilometers (7 miles) from
where the Deepwater Horizon sank and is spewing into these precious
waters an estimated 2 million gallons of oil a day.

Contributed by Sorcha Faal
Thursday, June 10, 2010 5:38
View: Contributor's biography | More stories
This story has been viewed 86,580 times
(86,579 times in the past 24 hours, 109 times in the past hour)
21 people on this page right now

By: Sorcha Faal, and as reported to her Western Subscribers
A dire report circulating in the Kremlin today that was prepared for Prime Minister Putin by Anatoly Sagalevich of Russia's Shirshov Institute of Oceanology warns that the Gulf of Mexico sea floor has been fractured “beyond all repair” and our World should begin preparing for an ecological disaster “beyond comprehension” unless “extraordinary measures” are undertaken to stop the massive flow of oil into our Planet’s eleventh largest body of water.

Most important to note about Sagalevich’s warning is that he and his fellow scientists from the Russian Academy of Sciences are the only human beings to have actually been to the Gulf of Mexico oil leak site after their being called to the disaster scene by British oil giant BP shortly after the April 22nd sinking of the Deepwater Horizon oil platform.

BP’s calling on Sagalevich after this catastrophe began is due to his being the holder of the World’s record for the deepest freshwater dive and his expertise with Russia’s two Deep Submergence Vehicles MIR 1 and MIR 2 [photo below] which are able to take their crews to the depth of 6,000 meters (19,685 ft).

According to Sagalevich’s report, the oil leaking into the Gulf of Mexico is not just coming from the 22 inch well bore site being shown on American television, but from at least 18 other sites on the “fractured seafloor” with the largest being nearly 11 kilometers (7 miles) from where the Deepwater Horizon sank and is spewing into these precious waters an estimated 2 million gallons of oil a day.

Interesting to note in this report is Sagalevich stating that he and the other Russian scientists were required by the United States to sign documents forbidding them to report their findings to either the American public or media, and which they had to do in order to legally operate in US territorial waters.

However, Sagalevich says that he and the other scientists gave nearly hourly updates to both US government and BP officials about what they were seeing on the sea floor, including the US Senator from their State of Florida Bill Nelson who after one such briefing stated to the MSNBC news service “Andrea we’re looking into something new right now, that there’s reports of oil that’s seeping up from the seabed… which would indicate, if that’s true, that the well casing itself is actually pierced… underneath the seabed. So, you know, the problems could be just enormous with what we’re facing.”

Though not directly stated in Sagalevich’s report, Russian scientists findings on the true state of the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster are beyond doubt being leaked to his longtime friend, and former US President George W. Bush’s top energy advisor Matthew Simmons, who US media reports state has openly said: “Matthew Simmons is sticking by his story that there's another giant leak in the Gulf of Mexico blowing massive amounts of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. On CNBC's Fast Money, he says he'd be surprised if BP lasted this summer, saying this is disaster is entirely BP's fault.”

As a prominent oil-industry insider, and one of the World's leading experts on peak oil, Simmons further warns that the US has only two options, “let the well run dry (taking 30 years, and probably ruining the Atlantic ocean) or nuking the well.”

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."

Reportedly, the U.S.S.R. developed special nuclear devices explicitly for closing blown-out gas wells, theorizing that the blast from a nuclear detonation would plug any hole within 25 to 50 meters, depending on the device's power. Much as I had idly imagined, massive explosions can be employed to collapse a runaway well on itself, thus plugging, or at least substantially stanching, the flow of oil.

“Seafloor nuclear detonation is starting to sound surprisingly feasible and appropriate," University of Texas at Austin mechanical engineer Michael E. Webber is quoted observing, while Columbia University visiting scholar on nuclear policy and former naval officer Christopher Brownfield wrote in the Daily Beast: "We should have demolished this well with explosives over a month ago. And yet we watch in excruciating suspense while BP fumbles through plan after plan to recover its oil and cover its asset.”

As to the reason for Obama’s government refusing to consider nuking this oil well, Sagalevich states in this report that the American’s “main concern” is not the environmental catastrophe this disaster is causing, but rather what the impact of using a nuclear weapon to stop this leak would have on the continued production of oil from the Gulf of Mexico, and which in an energy starved World’s remains the Planet’s only oil producing region able to increase its production.

On top of the environmental catastrophe currently unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico the situation may about to get even worse as new reports from the US are confirming the grim predictions of Russian scientists regarding the oil dispersement poisons being used by BP which are being swept up into the clouds and falling as toxic rain destroying every living plant it touches, and as we had detailed in our May 23rd report titled “Toxic Oil Spill Rains Warned Could Destroy North America”

To what the final outcome of this catastrophe will be it is not in our knowing other than to state the obvious that the choice facing the American’s today is to either stop this disaster now, by any means, or pay dearly for it later. After all, is cheap petrol really worth the cost of destroying our own Earth? BP surely thinks so, let’s keep hoping Obama doesn’t.
© June 10, 2010 EU and US all rights reserved
http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1379.htm

[Ed. Note: Western governments and their intelligence services actively campaignagainst the information found in these reports so as not to alarm their citizens about the many catastrophic Earth changes and events to come, a stance that the Sisters of Sorcha Faal strongly disagrees with in believing that it is every human beings right to know the truth. Due to our missions conflicts with that of those governments, the responses of their ‘agents’ against us has been a longstanding misinformation/misdirection campaign designed to discredit and which is addressed in the report “Who Is Sorcha Faal?”.]

NO NUKES

Nice untold story :?:

Re: Was the Gulf BP oil spill intentional?

Postby Scrupulous » Mon Jul 12, 2010 9:17 am

User avatar
Scrupulous
Black Belt
 
Posts: 2387
Joined: Sun Jan 21, 2007 7:32 pm
Location: United States
Wow, X!

Good find.

If this whole rig "accident" was meant to be a red herring all along, then the constant foot-dragging we've seen makes much more sense...

Re: Was the Gulf BP oil spill intentional?

Postby bottleslingguy » Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:40 pm

User avatar
bottleslingguy
Black Belt
 
Posts: 1753
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 7:41 am
I was on with the nuke option the second I heard it but now after finding out about the 1 in 5 possibility of a dud I would like to now hear what the other options are after a failed nuke. Are there options Y & Z? The water would shield water vessels so I guess one question could be, "how long would it take to set off another one?" :lol: :lol: sorry... Something I'm wondering is what has become of that failed gas well in Russia?

To tell you guys the truth, I think this all has to do with 2012. I only hope the survivors are able to get some of that ET technology. If you think about it it would solve all our problems. I have a sense though there first has to be a "gleaning" of the chaff. Hopefully with the chaff being the greedy sons of bitches who are holding our evolution/ascension back with fear based apocalyptic scenarios.

Personally I hope whatever crazy poop happens (if it even does), only the people with good hearts and good intentions are left to pick up the pieces and start off on the right foot.

and ps
check out Hopi prophecy #7
PreviousNext