Skip to content
View in the app

A better way to browse. Learn more.

Thailand News and Discussion Forum | ASEANNOW

A full-screen app on your home screen with push notifications, badges and more.

To install this app on iOS and iPadOS
  1. Tap the Share icon in Safari
  2. Scroll the menu and tap Add to Home Screen.
  3. Tap Add in the top-right corner.
To install this app on Android
  1. Tap the 3-dot menu (⋮) in the top-right corner of the browser.
  2. Tap Add to Home screen or Install app.
  3. Confirm by tapping Install.

Mother Of All Gushers Could Kill Earth's Oceans

Featured Replies

Poor President Obama. The head of the Republican Party even blamed him, today, for the war in Afghanistan. Who would want that job?

BP, and BP alone, are responsible for this particular disaster. I think "flying" posted an article here, previously, which gave an accurate assessment of what's going on, and what's at stake. The leak will never stop until the oil resrvoir is drained. Capping the leak will only cause more oil to escape into both the bedrock and the ocean. Any attempts to "clean" it up are almost useless. I truly believe that the clean-up effort is just to give people hope. Eventually, there will be a mass exodus of Americans away from the S. E. part of the US. The eventual damage to the oceans is alarming to say the least.

As far as President Clinton, there are, obviously, many posters here who are watching too much Fox news

I'll save my remarks concerning BP as they could never convey my true feelings as to the reckless, uncaring, psycopathic a-holes who ran that company

  • Replies 342
  • Views 2.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Something to maybe put a little perspective on this. During WW2, German U-boats dumped 38 million barrels of oil into the Atlantic. It's not an enclosed space like the GoM, but I think talking of "killing Earth's oceans" is somewhat OTT.

Regards.

As for Clinton...thank goodness he has even less clout than his loony wife.

There is no explosive option & they all know it.

Do you have a link to support that Flying?

"Should BP nuke its leaking well?"

http://www.reuters.c...E6611RF20100702

Regards.

will it work is the question

too many unknowns imo, has it been tried at that depth before ?

it may cause more fractures into the well, causing leaks seeping thru them, then what?

Something to maybe put a little perspective on this. During WW2, German U-boats dumped 38 million barrels of oil into the Atlantic. It's not an enclosed space like the GoM, but I think talking of "killing Earth's oceans" is somewhat OTT.

Regards.

It was done in the first gulf war as well when that other goof off by the name of George Bush (snr) invaded Iraq.

Having said that, the scale of this is absolutely HUGE compared to any of those incidents. You might end up eating your own words if they cant plug this sucker soon, you do realise all the oceans are linked, don't you?

Something to maybe put a little perspective on this. During WW2, German U-boats dumped 38 million barrels of oil into the Atlantic. It's not an enclosed space like the GoM, but I think talking of "killing Earth's oceans" is somewhat OTT.

Regards.

It was done in the first gulf war as well when that other goof off by the name of George Bush (snr) invaded Iraq.

That's one of the dumber statements I've read here in OTB and that's saying a lot. Anyway...

teletiger is right, "killing the Earth's oceans" IS over the top. Without a doubt in the world. There's a higher probablility that an asteroid will obliterate Earth before the Deep Horizon leak kills all of the oceans. Now, killing a large portion of the Gulf of Mexico is, sadly, much more likely.

Legendary oil and gas tycoon Boone Pickens (not BP) calls this a blowout not an oil spill or leak. Don't perpetuate BP's fraudulent terminology minimizing this as a spill or leak....its nothing of the kind. Its a full fledged blowout creating the worst pollution disaster ever in history. The methane gas BP continues to release into the ocean and the atmosphere with its blowout is killing the Gulf of Mexico and may be accelerating global warming.

"Should BP nuke its leaking well?"

http://www.reuters.c...E6611RF20100702

Regards.

will it work is the question

too many unknowns imo, has it been tried at that depth before ?

it may cause more fractures into the well, causing leaks seeping thru them, then what?

I don't know at what depth all the hundreds of underground tests were detonated.

I think the idea would be to drill the secondary well, 50/70 metres parallel to the leaking well, past all the soft stuff and detonate the device in the bedrock.

Where this was tried and failed in the past was due to too small a device being used, due to proximity to human habitation.

Yes there is a chance that this will not work. The Russians think it is a 1/5 shot.

What are the chances of the relief wells not finding the leaking well?

Regards.

the NY times has a good interactive chart & site info on the gusher

Something to maybe put a little perspective on this. During WW2, German U-boats dumped 38 million barrels of oil into the Atlantic. It's not an enclosed space like the GoM, but I think talking of "killing Earth's oceans" is somewhat OTT.

Regards.

It was done in the first gulf war as well when that other goof off by the name of George Bush (snr) invaded Iraq.

That's one of the dumber statements I've read here in OTB and that's saying a lot. Anyway...

Sorry, you might like to be a little more specific when you state something is a dumb statement. Are you referring to what I said, I can only assume so since you quoted me.

In the first Iraq war in the early 90ies, the Iraqis dumped millions of litres or barrels ( I cant remember exactly it was 20 odd years ago) into the gulf during the crisis/war. Perhaps you might like to explain to me what the dumb part of my quote was. Are you suggesting that the Americans didn't invade Iraq?

Blowout refers to the well itself whereas slick is the oil floating on the surface of the gulf water. Yes the relief well/wells have a excellent chance of killing the well blowing out. This has been done many times in oil patch history. (do not ask how many is many, I don't have a clue) I have been involved in 6. The govt estimate for oil flow to date may be low. This number in gallon, liters, then barrels is confusing to most people and seems to be a media method of raising/lowering the alarm threshold.

Something to maybe put a little perspective on this. During WW2, German U-boats dumped 38 million barrels of oil into the Atlantic. It's not an enclosed space like the GoM, but I think talking of "killing Earth's oceans" is somewhat OTT.

Regards.

It was done in the first gulf war as well when that other goof off by the name of George Bush (snr) invaded Iraq.

That's one of the dumber statements I've read here in OTB and that's saying a lot. Anyway...

Sorry, you might like to be a little more specific when you state something is a dumb statement. Are you referring to what I said, I can only assume so since you quoted me.

In the first Iraq war in the early 90ies, the Iraqis dumped millions of litres or barrels ( I cant remember exactly it was 20 odd years ago) into the gulf during the crisis/war. Perhaps you might like to explain to me what the dumb part of my quote was. Are you suggesting that the Americans didn't invade Iraq?

not sure where koheesti's going with that either

wikipedia link in regard to amount of oil spilt

The oil spill, which began on January 23, 1991, caused considerable damage to wildlife in the Persian Gulf especially in areas surrounding Kuwait and Iraq.[2] Early estimates on the volume spilled ranged around 11 million barrels (462 million gallons or 1.75 billion liters);[3]. These numbers were however significantly adjusted downward by later, more detailed studies, both by government (4-6 million barrels) [4] and private (2-4 million barrels) researchers.

Something to maybe put a little perspective on this. During WW2, German U-boats dumped 38 million barrels of oil into the Atlantic. It's not an enclosed space like the GoM, but I think talking of "killing Earth's oceans" is somewhat OTT.

Regards.

It was done in the first gulf war as well when that other goof off by the name of George Bush (snr) invaded Iraq.

That's one of the dumber statements I've read here in OTB and that's saying a lot. Anyway...

Sorry, you might like to be a little more specific when you state something is a dumb statement. Are you referring to what I said, I can only assume so since you quoted me.

In the first Iraq war in the early 90ies, the Iraqis dumped millions of litres or barrels ( I cant remember exactly it was 20 odd years ago) into the gulf during the crisis/war. Perhaps you might like to explain to me what the dumb part of my quote was. Are you suggesting that the Americans didn't invade Iraq?

Like I said, dumb statement. Start a new thread if you want details but I won't hijack this thread.

Just a guess, but maybe something to do with Iraq invading Kuwait before George Bush senior had to kick their ass? :unsure:

It's quite handy that BP can get saddled with the whole bill. <_<

"The Gulf of Mexico was already degraded well before the spill, the ocean floor punctured by more than 30,000 well bores, the surface studded with 4,000 drilling platforms." :o

Regards.

how many others of the 4000 drilling platforms are leaking oil of significance?

If they are, im sure they will be penalised as well, but the way most are seeing it, its BP that foots the bill.

And btw, havent they agreed to clean it up?

  • Author

As for Clinton...thank goodness he has even less clout than his loony wife.

There is no explosive option & they all know it.

Do you have a link to support that Flying?

"Should BP nuke its leaking well?"

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6611RF20100702

Regards.

Sorry not with me using my mini travel computer ....am traveling now...just spent a few days in Korea.

What I had read back awhile was many scientific claims that it is all just talk. There is no nuke possibility for many reasons.

Not the least of which is all the methane...Next the unknowns as some already mentioned. This is not some well that needs imploding. It is the gates of oil hel_l & a wrong step could have consequences larger than the existing problem by miles.

Things such as a tsunami generated big enough to clear all of Florida if it went wrong. Not to mention the methane problem.

We will see what we see but this is long from finished or under control. It is only downplayed to control what could become a mass exodus if all possibilities were known. Time is passing & damages are accruing

  • Author

how many others of the 4000 drilling platforms are leaking oil of significance?

If they are, im sure they will be penalised as well, but the way most are seeing it, its BP that foots the bill.

And btw, havent they agreed to clean it up?

Think of BP's agreement to clean it up in the same vein as the US FDIC insurance.

When the crisis started the FDIC & NCUA raised the deposit insurance from 100k to well over 250k + multi accounts.

Why? Because they were sure they could fix it? No ....because they could not pay even the 100k if a run on the banks occurred.

They do not have your money it is long gone. For every dollar you deposited in your savings they loaned out 9 more.

They can not pay the 100k so why not say 250k or a million insured per depositor?

Same as BP none can say we will pay what w do not know the extent of...NONE

Truth is like the US BP is now a dead man walking

The collapse is going about its work in an orderly fashion....This is EXACTLY the same thing

The US govt raised the FDIC to instill confidence in a failed system just so they could collapse it as orderly as possible

Same for BP now.

The answer to Donnyboy's question is none. There are daily flights as well as satellite monitoring of the GOM for any violation of hydrocarbon or other pollutant, leakage, spill, discharge, etc. This includes shipping as well as the production platforms, and drilling rigs. Besides the responsibility for clean up, the fines for for spills, even if reported to regulatory agencies can be huge.

Then you have monitoring by the fishing vessels as well as other private craft, who report any real or imagined spills. The reward system for reporting, the fines for spillage/pumping bilges, etc have gone a long way in getting everyone to clean up their act, for the past decade or two.

Just a guess, but maybe something to do with Iraq invading Kuwait before George Bush senior had to kick their ass? :unsure: .

Ohh too funny :lol: . Mr Im sitting so high on my american show pony koheesti, didnt like the fact that I simply stated 'Americia invaded Iraq'. How touchy feely some can be when they choose to be. Of course by briefly referring to the Oil incident that occurred during that particular middle east conflict by stating those words make it a dumb statement, then so be it. The fact is that the Iraqi soldiers deliberately poured Oil into the gulf when they realised they were going to lose to the Americans. Some people are sooo sensitive. The statement was never designed as a critism of what the Americans did in that situation (& that issue is a completely different thread). Of course the real issue there wasnt the fact that the Americans went into Iraq, its that they pulled out again within moments of '' liberating' the Iraqis (or so they thought). The stupidity of pulling out at that point and allowing a monster to get back at his own people resulted in the deaths of thousands and thousands of Iraqis, but thats got NOTHING to do with what I originally said in my 'alleged' dumb comment. Perhaps you could place me on 'ignore' koheesti, that way you won't need to be so brave as to announce my comments as the most stupid.

:rolleyes:

I am well aware of the circumstances UG with Iraq invading Kuwait prior to that. I am also aware of all the results of George Bush (Snrs) actions & its a fairly tragic story at that. Thanks for remaining polite, pity others can't follow your lead. Ohh and I don't need to be supplied about any 'details' of that particular conflict, I am well aware of how it went down.

What I had read back awhile was many scientific claims that it is all just talk. There is no nuke possibility for many reasons.

Not the least of which is all the methane...Next the unknowns as some already mentioned. This is not some well that needs imploding. It is the gates of oil hel_l & a wrong step could have consequences larger than the existing problem by miles.

Things such as a tsunami generated big enough to clear all of Florida if it went wrong. Not to mention the methane problem.

Questions for the Kiwis here, did all those large nukes that France tested in the South Pacific over the years ever result in a tsunami? Any idea how deep they were? What other long-term environmental consequences have there been from the testing? I figure with New Zealand being relatively closer that maybe you guys are more familiar with the issue of underwater nukes.

Just a guess, but maybe something to do with Iraq invading Kuwait before George Bush senior had to kick their ass? :unsure: .

Ohh too funny :lol: . Mr Im sitting so high on my american show pony koheesti, didnt like the fact that I simply stated 'Americia invaded Iraq'. How touchy feely some can be when they choose to be. Of course by briefly referring to the Oil incident that occurred during that particular middle east conflict by stating those words make it a dumb statement, then so be it. The fact is that the Iraqi soldiers deliberately poured Oil into the gulf when they realised they were going to lose to the Americans. Some people are sooo sensitive. The statement was never designed as a critism of what the Americans did in that situation (& that issue is a completely different thread). Of course the real issue there wasnt the fact that the Americans went into Iraq, its that they pulled out again within moments of '' liberating' the Iraqis (or so they thought). The stupidity of pulling out at that point and allowing a monster to get back at his own people resulted in the deaths of thousands and thousands of Iraqis, but thats got NOTHING to do with what I originally said in my 'alleged' dumb comment. Perhaps you could place me on 'ignore' koheesti, that way you won't need to be so brave as to announce my comments as the most stupid.

:rolleyes:

I am well aware of the circumstances UG with Iraq invading Kuwait prior to that. I am also aware of all the results of George Bush (Snrs) actions & its a fairly tragic story at that. Thanks for remaining polite, pity others can't follow your lead. Ohh and I don't need to be supplied about any 'details' of that particular conflict, I am well aware of how it went down.

And the stupid, uninformed statements keep flowing. Please start that new thread.

Saddam also set fire to thousands of Kuwaiti oil wells which blackened the skies and was supposed to take years to stop. It took what, weeks?

In cases like that or the spill in the Gulf of Mexico, I agree with the idea of making it out to be worse than it might actually be in order to help instill a sense of urgency. Caution must be used because if it is too over the top it could create a backlash of "what total B.S.". It's similar to how some people feel about fighting terrorists who "hate us for our freedoms". While the phrase motivates some, it turns off others. The trick is finding the middle ground in order to get the most support.

Of course the real issue there wasnt the fact that the Americans went into Iraq, its that they pulled out again within moments of '' liberating' the Iraqis (or so they thought).  The stupidity of pulling out at that point and allowing a monster to get back at his own people resulted in the deaths of thousands and thousands of Iraqis...

What was even stupider was going back again when we already know what would happen - total chaos - which is why we did not continue on to Baghdad the first time - but that is another story.  :blink:

What I had read back awhile was many scientific claims that it is all just talk. There is no nuke possibility for many reasons.

Not the least of which is all the methane...Next the unknowns as some already mentioned. This is not some well that needs imploding. It is the gates of oil hel_l & a wrong step could have consequences larger than the existing problem by miles.

Things such as a tsunami generated big enough to clear all of Florida if it went wrong. Not to mention the methane problem.

Questions for the Kiwis here, did all those large nukes that France tested in the South Pacific over the years ever result in a tsunami?

At least one major test-related landslide and consequent Tsunami in Moruroa, on July 25, 1979. Apparently, the 120kiloton weapon, which was supposed to be lowered into a shaft of 800 meters, got stuck at a depth of 400 meters and could not be dislodged. The French authorities decided to explode the device anyway. This explosion resulted in a major underwater landslide of at least one million cubic meters of coral and rock and created a cavity, probably 140 meters in diameter. The underwater landslide produced a major tidal wave comparable to a tsunami, which spread through the Tuamotu Archipelago and injured people on the southern part of Moruroa Atoll. (27)

French authorities initially denied that any mishap had occurred and declared that the tidal wave was of natural origin, but in a publication in 1985 they did acknowledge "the accident of 25 July 1979"

Any idea how deep they were?

The underground tests have been conducted at the bottom of shafts bored 500-1200 meters into the basalt core of the atoll

What other long-term environmental consequences have there been from the testing? I figure with New Zealand being relatively closer that maybe you guys are more familiar with the issue of underwater nukes.

The 120 underground tests conducted at Moruroa have in effect turned it into a longterm waste dump.

also

Ciguatera fish poisoning, discussed in Chapter 5, is a major public health problem in the South pacific, with nutritional, social, and economic implications. The annual average incidence for the South Pacific area is around 200 cases per 100,000 population per year, but incidences as high as 20,700 per 100,000 population per year are reported for the Gambier Islands.

A review of the epidemiology of ciguatera in French Polynesia from 1960 to 1984 clearly demonstrates a general flare-up in ciguatera, with more than 24,000 cases among a population that grew from 84,500 in 1962 to 174,000 by mid1985. The incidence rose dramatically through the 1960s, peaking from 1972 to 1975 at 1,200 per 100,000, a tenfold increase over the 1960 figure

My link

also

41 atmospheric nuclear tests were conducted at Mururoa between 1966 and 1974. Most of these tests were conducted on the western end of the atoll designated as Dindon. Smaller shots were fired on the northern end of the atoll designated as Denise. Three nuclear devices were detonated on barges, three were air dropped from bombers, and the rest were suspended from helium filled balloons. France abandoned nuclear testing in the atmosphere in 1974 and moved testing underground in the midst of intense world pressure which was sparked by the New Zealand Government of the time, which sent two frigates, HMNZS Canterbury and Otago, to the atoll in protest for a nuclear free pacific

My link

wonder why we are so anti nukes in the south pacific?

I remember a comment from french officials saying something to the fact that the tests were safe, in which the NZ reply was, test them in Paris then

  • Author

The answer to Donnyboy's question is none. There are daily flights as well as satellite monitoring of the GOM for any violation of hydrocarbon or other pollutant, leakage, spill, discharge, etc.

Who all do you suspect is doing these flights & monitoring?

Last I heard the air space is closed....So that leaves the same folks that own the satellites ?

Then again how well do the satellite images test the actual waters?

  • Author

Questions for the Kiwis here, did all those large nukes that France tested in the South Pacific over the years ever result in a tsunami? Any idea how deep they were? What other long-term environmental consequences have there been from the testing? I figure with New Zealand being relatively closer that maybe you guys are more familiar with the issue of underwater nukes.

Again to use the financial crisis as a analogy....

Those who want to compare this oil crisis with other will be as off the mark as those trying to compare this financial crisis to the last great depression.

The answer to Donnyboy's question is none. There are daily flights as well as satellite monitoring of the GOM for any violation of hydrocarbon or other pollutant, leakage, spill, discharge, etc.

Who all do you suspect is doing these flights & monitoring?

Last I heard the air space is closed....So that leaves the same folks that own the satellites ?

Then again how well do the satellite images test the actual waters?

Not suspect, try the US coast guard, for one, then there are few more agencies who overfly on a daily basis, Air space closed to private aircraft???, if you heard, it may be true. It is a real world out there, do not look for gremlins behind every corner. Some people do know their job and how to do it, better than the arm chair wannabe experts. In fact, there are a host of people who are paid to help out in situations like this, and are quite good at what they are paid to do.

Questions for the Kiwis here, did all those large nukes that France tested in the South Pacific over the years ever result in a tsunami? Any idea how deep they were? What other long-term environmental consequences have there been from the testing? I figure with New Zealand being relatively closer that maybe you guys are more familiar with the issue of underwater nukes.

Again to use the financial crisis as a analogy....

Those who want to compare this oil crisis with other will be as off the mark as those trying to compare this financial crisis to the last great depression.

Whilst I agree with what you are saying, the GFC is not over yet, who knows what nobama and the european goofs off have in stall for the final segment.

  • Author

Not suspect, try the US coast guard, for one, then there are few more agencies who overfly on a daily basis, Air space closed to private aircraft???, It is a real world out there, do not look for gremlins behind every corner.

Yeah that dang CNN is not as reliable as an oil worker posting on Thai visa ;) I am on the go now but that was being reported on the News back in the US when I left. Air space was & AFAIK still closed to all media

Coast Guard?...Thad Allen? Last thing he wants is to be responsible for any of it.

Hey good luck & I realize your job security may be at stake but I hope still it all somehow gets better. I just have not as yet seen one shred of any reason to think it has improved at all.

  • Author

Whilst I agree with what you are saying, the GFC is not over yet, who knows what nobama and the european goofs off have in stall for the final segment.

Oh trust me you will get no argument from me on that. Which is why I said it is just a controlled collapse & I am happy for the time...It is only getting started & no where near over

Create an account or sign in to comment

Recently Browsing 0

  • No registered users viewing this page.

Account

Navigation

Search

Search

Configure browser push notifications

Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.