PDA

View Full Version : From Russia With Love


True_Avery
05-12-2010, 03:36 AM
So, as many of us know an explosion caused an offshore oil rig to go out of commission, and the hole it was pumping out of essentially got its freedom and is pumping oil out at a rate of like 200,000 barrels a day, but some estimates put it at high as a million a day.

Now, there is a lot to talk about. Like how the companies in charge are only going to pay for a very small portion and the couple hundred billion dollar pickup is being put on tax payers, the actual portion they are paying being about 1% of which they make in profit yearly.

We could talk about the vast environmental damage and how smaller spills are still being cleaned up after 15 years, and many areas and beaches of the gulf are going to be uninhabitable for years to come, not to mention the damage to the fishing and tourism industry.

We could even talk about how the depth and temperature have turned the oil to slush and essentially made it incredibly difficult to cap the leak in any reasonable amount of time.

No, what we're here to talk about is what Russia recommends we do. Something they have done about 5 times with their oil spills, and about 167 other times for other underwater tasks:

Set off a nuclear warhead underwater, compressing the hole down by moving the earth and glassing the surface sand Halo/Star Wars style to stop the leak in its tracks.

http://trueslant.com/juliaioffe/files/2010/05/underwater_nuke1.jpg
Good going, Russia.

Here are 9 ways, most of which are considered duds, that are being considered:
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/opinions/view/opinion/9-Ways-to-Fix-a-Catastrophic-Oil-Spill-3568/

From where I'm sitting, nuking the hole doesn't seem like the worst idea right now.

Also, fun site to get an idea of how big the oil spill roughly is:
http://paulrademacher.com/oilspill/

Keep in mind that map is from the 6th, so chances are its grown quite a bit.

... and you can talk about the rest of the story if -must-

JediAthos
05-12-2010, 09:07 AM
Well, first of all I think it's asinine that the oil companies would not be on the hook for the entire cost of the cleanup. It was their well, and it blew up, they should have to clean it up. These idiots are up on Capitol Hill trying to blame each other and the gulf coast is being poisoned...maybe Congress will drop the hammer on them, but that's probably just wishful thinking.

As to stopping the leak... I'm with you Avery the nuclear idea from our friends the Russians really doesn't seem that bad. The giant cap failed, it's taken them days to move the smaller cap into place and it'll be at least another day before we'll know it'll work. If it doesn't work then what? They waste more time trying to come up with another idea? Hell, the Russians have done the nuclear thing before...bring them in to help if it will stop the spill faster.

Arcesious
05-12-2010, 09:10 AM
Nuke the whales. Got a hole you gotta fill? Use a nuke. War? Use nukes. ELE potential Asteroids? Nukes. Volcano? Nukes. Earthquake? Nuke it. Hurricane? Nukes. Terrorists? Nuke them. Building demolition? Nukes. Do you just need s*** blown up? Nukes.

Have there been any radiation contamination problems in the oceans when they've done this before?

I think the Russians like their nukes too much...

JediAthos
05-12-2010, 09:19 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2FJWYZ1T-0&feature=related

Here's some more on the Russian idea. It seems they used it on land based problems, never at sea so there is really no telling what the effects could be.

Sabretooth
05-12-2010, 01:36 PM
This is not only going to solve the oil spill, but become the best-selling television event in history. Who the hell doesn't want to see a nuke go off on live TV even if underwater?

Astor
05-12-2010, 01:48 PM
I've always said we don't use enough nukes to solve things.

And one less nuke to actually fire at something can't be a bad thing.

machievelli
05-12-2010, 02:38 PM
The thing is, the nuke we need doesn't even need to be that big. A one kiloton device (The US Army has 'backpack' nukes of this yield) would stop the leak, and at the same time vaporize the sludge still floating upward.

The downside? Everything within about a kilometer would be killed by the shockwave.

As for long term effects, Bikini Atoll suffered twenty-three tests, including a 15 megaton device. but life has returned to that area of the ocean, though we would need to import food, and the radiation level dropped enough that in 1997 the islands were declared safe to inhabit again. It's been 23 years since, so it probably is safe to eat local produce again.

Setting off one backpack nuke would take a lot less time to clear.

What the environmentalists don't want to admit, there is nothing the human race could do to kill this planet, but changes in the envrionment could easily kill us off instead.

Litofsky
05-12-2010, 03:42 PM
Let's nuke it. :dev14:

Web Rider
05-12-2010, 06:59 PM
The thing is, the nuke we need doesn't even need to be that big. A one kiloton device (The US Army has 'backpack' nukes of this yield) would stop the leak, and at the same time vaporize the sludge still floating upward.
Yeah, but we're America. We don't do anything "just enough". I mean, we've got a giant oil leak, a giant cap that failed, so we need a giant nuke. I mean, 50kilotons at the least. More if we have one of those sitting around.

Ping
05-12-2010, 07:22 PM
The only thing that really worries me is that the radiation and shockwave would harm and possibly infect the local wildlife. Other then that, this idea doesn't seem that bad. Besides, that's one less nuke in the world.

JediAthos
05-12-2010, 08:02 PM
Ping I understand your concern here, but frankly the nuke would be nothing compared to the lasting effects this spill will create if they can't contain it. Sludge has already reach the Alabama coast and continues to spread.

I like the nuke idea...like I said before, bring the Russkies in if we have to. I'm sure those jackasses over at BP would have a heart attack if Obama authorized this...hell it might be worth it just to see a big oil company squirm :)

Samnmax221
05-12-2010, 08:17 PM
Russia Today makes Fux News look good.

Q
05-12-2010, 08:19 PM
Since everything else has failed, I think that nuking the leak may very well end up being the only viable option.

mimartin
05-12-2010, 09:13 PM
All I can think is this is the plot line to every bad 50s B sci-fi movie. I can see the title now, Man Eating Radioactive Shrimp from the Gulf It is payback time.

This maybe just not in my backyard logic, but Im totally against this Nuke thing.

http://andrewromanblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/no-nukes-logo.jpg
I played Fallout 3:xp:

ChAiNz.2da
05-13-2010, 10:06 AM
The only thing that really worries me is that the radiation and shockwave would harm and possibly infect the local wildlife. Other then that, this idea doesn't seem that bad. Besides, that's one less nuke in the world.

All I can think is this is the plot line to every bad 50s B sci-fi movie. I can see the title now, Man Eating Radioactive Shrimp from the Gulf It is payback time.
I played Fallout 3:xp:

http://www.lucasforums.com/picture.php?albumid=159&pictureid=6421

:D

purifier
05-13-2010, 07:24 PM
All I can think is this is the plot line to every bad 50s B sci-fi movie. I can see the title now, Man Eating Radioactive Shrimp from the Gulf It is payback time.


Speaking of shrimp, it looks like the shrimpers are going to take BP to the cleaners.

And this is old news, but just in case some of you haven't heard about this yet, take a look....

vvvvvvv

Bayou La Batre shrimper sues BP over Gulf Coast oil spill (http://blog.al.com/live/2010/04/bayou_la_batre_shrimper_sues_b.html)


Gulf state shrimpers sue BP over oil spill (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=gulf-state-shrimpers-sue)


Reuters Alertnews - "which seeks economic and compensatory damages of at least $5 million." (http://wap.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N29178997.htm)



Yeah I'd say it's "payback time" alright, somebody's definitely gonna pay....*CHA-CHING!* :D

JediAthos
05-15-2010, 11:05 PM
"In an interview published in a British newspaper on Friday, BP Chief Executive Tony Hayward appeared to play down the spill.

"The Gulf of Mexico is a very big ocean. The amount of volume of oil and dispersant that we are putting into it is tiny in relation to the total volume of water," Hayward was quoted as saying in Britain's Guardian newspaper."

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_oil_rig_leak_obama

What world is this guy living in?

Totenkopf
05-16-2010, 02:47 PM
The world of spin control. ;)

True_Avery
05-16-2010, 07:36 PM
Well, of course it is tiny in relation to the -ocean-. The problem is not it dispersing into the ocean, however. The -problem- is it hitting beaches and reefs, and considering there is still oil washing up 15 years after Alaska's spill I'm not entirely sure how far up his own a** his head is.

JediAthos
05-16-2010, 08:13 PM
Yes, definitely a a case of cranial rectal inversion going on there. I did read somewhere the other day that the White House is putting pressure on BP to eat the entire cost of the cleanup though.

True_Avery
05-17-2010, 03:15 AM
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100513-science-environment-gulf-oil-spill-cap-leak/

Q
05-17-2010, 08:03 AM
I think that it's time to weigh the environmental impact of a small nuke verses the continued outpouring of tons of oil a day.

I'd be willing to bet that the nuke's the better option.

jrrtoken
05-17-2010, 08:57 AM
I think that it's time to weigh the environmental impact of a small nuke verses the continued outpouring of tons of oil a day.

I'd be willing to bet that the nuke's the better option.Considering the number of strategic nuclear warhead tests that have been conducted on arctic and pacific islands in the past century, I think that the world isn't going to crack from one more tactical nuclear detonation near the sea. A several thousand-mile-long pancake of sludge sounds more frightening by comparison, frankly.

JediAthos
05-17-2010, 10:23 AM
"We don't have any idea how to stop this," Simmons said of the Gulf leak. Some of the proposed strategies—such as temporarily plugging the leaking pipe with a jet of golf balls and other material—are a "joke," he added.

"We really are in unprecedented waters."

Really?? You've been drilling in the Gulf for HOW LONG?? You really have no idea how to stop it?

Wow...just...wow.

@PastramiX: I agree 100% at this point especially given the quote above. This thing needs to be stopped, and apparently nobody was listening to the Russian when they said "hey, we've got an idea!"

Litofsky
05-17-2010, 06:10 PM
Idiots. How in the hell do we manage to function on a day-to-day basis as it is? Just nuke the freaking leak and be done with it.

mimartin
05-17-2010, 09:34 PM
As I eat Gulf Flounder for dinner. I still say nay to nukes.


Humthe oil makes it easier to fry; maybe nukes will mean flounder will be precooked.:xp:

Det. Bart Lasiter
05-18-2010, 12:59 PM
how can you call yourself a texan

Q
07-05-2010, 05:47 PM
Well, it's been nearly 100 days, now, and oil is still pouring into the Gulf. It's as if the Obama administration is deliberately dragging its feet, thereby ensuring as big of an environmental disaster as possible, for political purposes, such as a permanent moratorium on offshore drilling or something...

mimartin
07-05-2010, 06:17 PM
Kind of damn he if he does, damn if he doesn't. He takes the lead from BP, he is a socialist or in BP’s back pocket (depending on who you are). He calls them out on TV, then he is a potty mouth. He tells BP to set up a trust fund, then he is just another lawyer against tort reform. Such is life as the President of the United States. 50% of the people will be pissed no matter what you do.

Totenkopf
07-05-2010, 06:27 PM
Well, according to the polls, >50% of the people are unhappy with a lot of things he's doing, not the least of which is mismanaging the cleanup of the Gulf and protection of America's coastline. This is likely to cost the dems big come November (barring the reps et al snatching defeat from the jaws of victory). Given that it took him >70 days to suspend the Jones Act and that he's pushing the "green energy" agenda, I think it's safe to say his lack of response is either gross incompetence and/or gross criminal negligence to satisfy his labor and eco-freak base.

Q
07-05-2010, 06:31 PM
Kind of damn he if he does, damn if he doesn't. He takes the lead from BP, he is a socialist or in BP’s back pocket (depending on who you are). He calls them out on TV, then he is a potty mouth. He tells BP to set up a trust fund, then he is just another lawyer against tort reform. Such is life as the President of the United States. 50% of the people will be pissed no matter what you do.
Yeah, but at the moment, shouldn't capping the leak take precedence over all of the legal BS? Can't all of the pathetic finger-pointing wait until the leak is stopped? Is the president ever going to get off his ass and do something about the leak itself? This is starting to make Bush's handling of Katrina look rather tame by comparison.

I mean 100 days?! Ridiculous!

Ping
07-05-2010, 09:29 PM
Given, Bush couldn't do too much about Katrina, and Obama can't really do that much about the oil spill, simply because the president can't do much except approve measures. So, the only way the president can personally do something is to get more power. Oh, wait...but then everyone will complain that the president is becoming a dictator. So it's a lose-lose situation, unless Congress does something.

mimartin
07-05-2010, 10:21 PM
Obama can't really do that much about the oil spillHe could, but he is just too selfish to give up his secret identity.

http://www.differentobamas.com/obamas/SuperObama.jpg

It isn't like they haven't been trying to plug the leak. It is just everything they tried has failed. The time for planning for these contingencies is not after they have happened, but before. If the oil companies do not have the ability to stop blow outs, then perhaps they should not be drilling there until they get a working plan. Oil is important, but so are the other jobs and food supply provided by the Gulf of Mexico.

Given that it took him >70 days to suspend the Jones Act and that he's pushing the "green energy" agenda, I think it's safe to say his lack of response is either gross incompetence and/or gross criminal negligence to satisfy his labor and eco-freak base.
So is BP purposely helping President Obama with his green energy agenda by not plugging up the damn hole? Now that is a conspiracy theory (Where are Mel Gibson and Julie Roberts when you need them).:conspire:

Totenkopf
07-05-2010, 10:32 PM
@Ping--ok, so you're willing to throw a democrat controlled Congress under the bus to attempt to preserve BO's reputation.

@mimartin--it's simplistic for either side to point a finger and say "It's his fault and not mine." I agree with you that BP is at fault* for lack of safety precautions, but that doesn't exonerate BO from his failure to protect the coastline and Gulf in general. Nor does it take away from the fact that the govt has put shallow drilling, which is considered much safer, largely off limits nor their signing off on BP's platform as ready for business w/o doing it's own due diligence. Trust, as Reagan said......but verify. This disaster and its aftermath are as much the govt's fault as they are BP's.

*it doesn't help BP that they have a storied history of safety violations that preceded, but are unrelated to, this.

Ping
07-06-2010, 09:29 AM
@Toten: First off, I was just pointing out what I viewed to be the only way for the pres to do something about the oil spill. And secondly, I really don't know if I approve of Obama. I don't disapprove of him, but I wouldn't say I approve of him, either. And I don't think I said to throw Congress under the bus. I was simply pointing out what I believed would be a complaint from the opposition.

Totenkopf
07-06-2010, 09:45 AM
@Toten: First off, I was just pointing out what I viewed to be the only way for the pres to do something about the oil spill. And secondly, I really don't know if I approve of Obama. I don't disapprove of him, but I wouldn't say I approve of him, either. And I don't think I said to throw Congress under the bus. I was simply pointing out what I believed would be a complaint from the opposition.

@Ping: where many people, on both sides of the aisle, take issue w/BO is on his lackluster and irresponsible response to cleaning up the mess. He wouldn't have needed Congresses approval to suspend the Jones Act and allow foreign help to come into play while Americans tried to scrounge together as many domestic resources as possible to do so also. The reason I said "throw under the bus" was b/c you were punting BO's responsibility to take action to Congress. Rather than try to multi-task, BO has concentrated primarily on litigation/liability than trying to address the unfolding ecological disaster in the gulf at the same time.

So, the only way the president can personally do something is to get more power. Oh, wait...but then everyone will complain that the president is becoming a dictator. So it's a lose-lose situation, unless Congress does something.

So is BP purposely helping President Obama with his green energy agenda by not plugging up the damn hole? Now that is a conspiracy theory (Where are Mel Gibson and Julie Roberts when you need them).

Not quite sure how you make that leap. My guess is that BP would've plugged the leak 3 months ago if they'd been able to. The disaster has taken a real toll on their reputation and stock price.