Skip to main content

View Diary: Daily Kos POST-Top Kill, Junk Shot, LMRP Diary #24 (315 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Can we send an explosive device down 18K (0+ / 0-)

    feet and blow this thing shut already???

    C4 or nuke.  Russians have developed special devices just for this purpose.  We need to start talking about it more.

    The bottom is not too soft as one person told me a couple days ago.

    Apparently, it doesn't even have to be nuclear; it can be conventional.

    Energy expert: Nuking oil leak ‘only thing we can do’  By Daniel Tencer Saturday, May 29th, 2010 -- 7:18 pm

    And what am I reading about a 2nd leak 7 miles away that is spewing even more oil than the initial leak.  Some 4 million gallons a day combined?  Is that right?

    •  Not sure how my comment ended up here :( (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I guess the Orange God knew where to put it, bc it's important :P

      Feel free to delete/move if necessary.

    •  The short answer is absolutely NOT. (5+ / 0-)

      No nuclear bombs have been tested at such depths.

      And more importantly, even if there were, the rock formation on top of the oil field is friable and would fracture all over the place.

      Just imagine the whole oil field having a thousand holes to leak through.

      The guy whose pushing this meme is either an idjit or is trying to make some money.

      Stepping up to life eliminates the capacity for bullshit. - Robinswing

      by Onomastic on Mon May 31, 2010 at 05:17:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  He's an investment banker named Matt Simmons (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        godislove, Onomastic, Jaygar

        He's trying to spike the oil markets to win a $10,000,000 bet on Jan 1, 2011.

        He's also an idjit....

        •  What he is, is an amoral asshole playing on (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          godislove, Jaygar

          people's fears.

          He should be taken out back of the barn and drop kicked.

          Stepping up to life eliminates the capacity for bullshit. - Robinswing

          by Onomastic on Mon May 31, 2010 at 05:27:05 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Is this fact or something you made up? Link (0+ / 0-)


          Simmons isn't the only one suggesting this.  

          Let's try to stay rational, please.

          •  Here you go... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            godislove, Onomastic

            Simmons–Tierney bet

            Terms of the bet

            Of the many claims that Simmons made in the Times article, his prediction of a tripling in the price-per-barrel of crude oil struck Tierney as perhaps the most incredible. In the Peter Maass article, Simmons was quoted as saying:

               "We're going to look back at history and say $55 a barrel was cheap," [Simmons] said, recalling a TV interview in which he predicted that a barrel might hit triple digits. [Simmons] said that the anchor scoffed, in disbelief, "A hundred dollars?" Simmons replied, "I wasn't talking about low triple digits."

            Tierney focused upon that one detail and the two men fashioned the bet accordingly. Their final agreement was a commitment to tabulate every closing price-per-barrel of oil for each market day of 2010, then average out those prices for the entire year from January 1 through December 31, adjusted for inflation to 2005 prices. If the year-end adjusted average comes out to $200.00 or more per barrel, Mr. Simmons wins. If it averages out to less than $200.00, Mr. Tierney wins. The winner takes the entire pot of US$10,000.00, plus interest--$5,000.00 from both parties, currently sitting in escrow.

            •'s a $5K bet NOT a $10 Mill bet as you (0+ / 0-)

              erroneously claimed.  Decimal points and "total pot" can be confusing.

              He made the bet in 2005, with a NYT newspaper columnist.

              $5K is chump change to these guys.

              You are insinuating that Simmons would blow up America and flood the Gulf of Mexico to win a $5K bet.  Really?

              Simmons was also absolutely correct that oil would hit triple digits.  he made that prediction in 2005, when very few others were predicting anything similar.

              He doesn't sound like an idjit to me.

              Can we try to concentrate on the facts, please.

              •  10,000,000 is chump change to these folks so (0+ / 0-)

                I misread the amount. For investment bankers, a 10 thousand bet would be the equivalent to a 10 dollar bet for the average person.

                Trying to stop the BP blowout with a nuke would require extensive geological studies and another bore hole as well as designing and fabricating the device. This would take a lot of time - months, years? Other countries would object strongly.

                Are you willing to accept Russia's test data at face value? Their nuclear program is fraught with severe problems.

                Besides, there are too many unacceptable risks to try his idea. Too little force and the shock wave may fracture the cement seals in the bore hole allowing gas and oil to exit outside the well casing without closing it. Too much force may fracture the overlying strata.

                Simmons is basically a financial pimp for the oil industry. He has a vested interest in spiking the market price of oil. He is also involved in renewable energy sources which will be helped with a high price for oil.

                Simmons & Company is the only independent investment bank specializing in the entire spectrum of the energy industry. Founded in 1974, the firm has acted as financial advisor in over $143* billion of transactions, including 567 merger and acquisitions worth nearly $100 billion. Simmons has served as co-manager on over $39 billion in public debt and equity offerings. During 2009 Simmons closed 19 M&A transactions worth $2 billion and co-managed 8 offerings  worth nearly $1 billion. The firm's clients range from small, privately held companies to multi-billion dollar public entities.

                BTW, he will lose his bet so his forecasts are not always correct.

                The only reason oil hit triple digits was because the market price was being manipulated by investment banks just like his.

                •  As Simmons was an adviser to W, I don't much (0+ / 0-)

                  trust him or like him either.

                  And, yes, oil's price was manipulated in 2008, and it's very possible that Simmons knew it was going to happen.

                  When banks and the global economy cratered in Sept, 2008, Simmons prediction for 2010 became a bad bet, much beyond his control/analysis/inside info.

                  I didn't mean to be a jerk.  It's clear that you merely misread the bet amount, but Simmons is just one of many people suggesting that an explosive solution, nuke or conventional, might be the only answer.

                  Undoubtedly, it would require further and deeper geological analysis, and, no, I do not fully trust Russian test data.

                  Not sure if I mentioned this above, but the US has substantial test data after completing over 1K nuclear tests.

                  It sounds like you have more competency than I in geology/rock formation and so forth.  I do not know the answer, but I think we need to have ALL options on the table for evaluation.

                  Simmons is really irrelevant to this whole thing, whether it works or not.  I don't believe that Simmons is recommending this bc he thinks it will fail and pour billions of gallons of oil into the Gulf.  Maybe so though, but I doubt it.  I can believe that Simmons is an oil pimp, but I'm not sure that he would want to suggest something that could end very badly and end in the nationalization of the entire industry.

                  TomTech had a good write-up on the option weeks ago:  Nuke the thing! Final Update!

                  I am neither a nuclear physicist nor a geologist, but I would like people who are explore this option more thoroughly.

                  •  I don't mind it being explored. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Jose Bidenio

                    I just don't think that it is a viable solution for the current situation.

                    The relief wells that are being drilled have a very high probability of success in light of recent advances in specialized directional drilling. They have reached accuracies that are capable of 1 ft per 1000 ft run.

                    As far as I know (maybe other testing was done in secret), all the US tests were done in formations that did not have the geologic features that oil or water would be trapped in for fear of contamination of the water table or fracturing. They wanted solid rock with few anomalies.

                    I don't think Simmons wants to destroy America. He just wants to make a lot of money for himself and his clients.

                    I also don't like his Chicken Little, 'peak oil' scare tactics which have been overused in the last two decades. Most of that old data has fallen by the wayside.

                    But, oil at $80 to $99 opens up new avenues for oil production. The tar sands in Canada for instance. Even the OPEC countries realize that it is not in their best long term interests to have oil much above $100 for the next few years. That would speed the development of the renewables.

                    •  Yes, there is a fine line with the higher price (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Claudius Bombarnac

                      oil good for renewables, but also good for shale and tar sands which are both the absolute worst sources of oil.

                      I did hear that directional/diagonal drilling is far advanced from the days that Russians resorted to the nuke option, so that gives me hope that the problem will be solved.

                      When is obviously my major worry.  I can't imagine this going for another month or 2, but that is a real possibility.  And a nuke/explosion option wouldn't happen next week either.

                      And I don't buy Peak Oil either.  I imagine Simmons is def pushing that meme to increase oil's price.  Without a doubt, really.

                      Meh, I'm going to bed.  Thanks for your replies.  They were insightful.

                      One prayer before bed, and I've never prayed since I was 10 or 11.

                      God, someone, anyone, Please make it stop.

      •  If you'd read closely, you'd see that I said nuke (0+ / 0-)

        OR conventional (c4), so I'm not quite sure what you are getting hysterical about.

        btw, the USA has conducted over 1K nuclear tests, many below ground.

        Yes! It’s so simple, in fact, that the Soviet Union, a major oil exporter, used this method five times to deal with petrocalamities. The first happened in Uzbekistan, on September 30, 1966 with a blast 1.5 times the strength of the Hiroshima bomb and at a depth of 1.5 kilometers. KP also notes that subterranean nuclear blasts were used as much as 169 times in the Soviet Union to accomplish fairly mundane tasks like creating underground storage spaces for gas or building canals.

        •  Nuke = Nuclear weapon (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          godislove, digitalmuse

          Main Entry: nuke
          Pronunciation: \ˈnük, ˈnyük\
          Function: noun
          Etymology: by shortening & alteration from nuclear
          Date: 1959
          1 : a nuclear weapon
          2 : a nuclear-powered electric generating station

          Conventional weapons are generally not considered those that are nuclear, chemical or biologic.

          If you're going to make a point, it might help to understand the terminology that you're using.

          Stepping up to life eliminates the capacity for bullshit. - Robinswing

          by Onomastic on Mon May 31, 2010 at 05:47:07 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site