Post by Wayne Hall on Jun 18, 2010 11:10:49 GMT -5
If the United States government is not doing everything possible, using all the resources available to humanity, to stop this leak, then it is no longer a question just for the United States. If this leak has the potential to ruin all the oceans of the planet it is also a European security issue and the European Union must insist that the United States accept all serious scientific offers, including the Russian offer of help with a nuclear device and including other Western European offers not based on using nuclear devices, which have, it seems, also been turned down.
American taxpayers spend astronomical sums on national security. Is it the reality that their national security apparatus cannot be used when what is involved is a REAL issue of national, and planetary, security. Can it only be used against fictious, manufactured, threats?
www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25734.htm
Here is the transcript of an interview with Mr. Matthew Simmons. We should ask Mr. Simmons to explain what he is saying at the points where his words are impossible for me to decipher.
Laurie Rothman: And this is Bloomberg News, thanks for joining us, I’m Laurie Rothman. And as the BP saga continues on the Gulf and in Washington one oil industry veteran of more than 35 years says BP is still holding back the facts of this spill from the American public. Matthew Simmons is the founder and chairman of the Ocean Energy Institute, a research firm focused on creating renewable energy sources from all aspects of our ocean. He is also best known as the founder and former chairman of Simmons and Company International. Matt joins us on the telephone from Rockport, Maine. Welcome to you. Actually we see via Skype it looks like. Great to see your face, Matt. Thanks for joining us again. Now we spoke about two weeks ago and your opinion at that time was that the military needs to take over capping efforts and that the best viable option should perhaps be a nuclear weapon. Do you still feel that way? Is this your belief, to handle the situation and move beyond it.
Matt Simmons: I think basically we now know – it hasn’t got out – we now know a whole lot of better information from the scientists who are totally, totally disputing what BP’s story has been. And the best reports all have come from Thomas Jefferson, which is America’s largest research vessel, which got directed on June 6 to stop an ocean floor mapping programme sending from Woods Hole all the finest detection equipment we have and get to where this enormous fire was coming that was miles away from the (inaudible). And what the Thomas Jefferson found in a week was the most specific information we know that basically 1100 metres below the surface of the Gulf of Mexico is a 3 to 400 metre lake of very heavy oil that has spread so fast that it is covering potentially 40 percent of the Gulf of Mexico. Now I believe when I was on your programme two weeks ago I said that it covered the extent of Maryland and Delaware. And at the rate – the speed – of the flow they are actually now predicting that it is 120,000 barrels a day. But more importantly, they are almost certain, because of the lack of being able to check where the well bore was . They can get within three miles of it. There is too much fire. There is no metalwork. The casing is gone. So with no casing it’s an open hole and the only thing that will ever put it out is detonating something that will fuse the rocks right above the oil column in the blast and the only way that anyone has ever done that is that four times the Soviets did that in the seventies with a very small-bore nuclear device. So I think that’s now our only option.
Laurie Rothman: And what do you think the Administration would say to that option? Has anyone listened to you? Have you been able to put that suggestion forward? I mean they seem to be….the Administration is pulling so many experts from so many different areas of science right now.
Matthew Simmons: Well, yesterday in Maine Senator Susan Collins and the Maine Delegation brought Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, who I’d never met before up to see the Advanced Deposits Deep Water Energy Center and several who I talked to had not heard this latest report. Because it just came in late Sunday evening. They were all gathering together …But I think basically …I’d be very surprised if the Administration doesn’t know this now, and is not preparing this response.
Laurie Rothman: Why aren’t you confident about the relief well drilling?
Matthew Simmons: Because firstly it’s in the wrong place. And without any casing it won’t work.
Laurie Rothman: Now relief wells though have been drilled successfully in numerous other situations with oil spills. Why….what’s the problem with this situation?
Matthew Simmons: They all had casing in the hole. Without casing the mud just comes spewing back up. So that was always the belief that the casing must have been there…. ..My belief from day one, ironically just watching the unbelievable flames coming out of the water… And then they have these senior people call it a rig fire. I thought was the biggest farce I’ve ever heard. They’ve got seven hundred gallons of diesel on board a rig. And that thing was burning with such intensity. It wasn’t the rig burning. It was the water burning. So that’s when it seemed to me pretty clear that this had to be one of the biggest blowouts we’ve ever had. And even in smaller blowouts in the past (inaudible) one of the first things that happens, it usually kicks the (inaudible) off the well bore and then out of the ground comes the casing even with a proper cement job and it goes through the top of the derrick. And most of the deaths that have happened In blowouts is the casing falling on people. Here we know we had a very weak cement job. So the idea that the casing could still have been there seemed intuitively was really low, now I think the scientists have said even lower.
See the only way, we either are content with saying we’ll just put 120,00 barrels of oil a day in the Gulf for the next 25 or 30 years or we have to get …(inaudible)
Laurie Rothman: All right so then you are saying that in this situation the drilling of not one but two relief wells is not going to work for the BP the Deepwater Horizon explosion and ensuing oil leak. .
Matthew Simmons: (inaudible) it’s too bad that we didn’t know, and I really sympathize with the government. I think BP had such a reputation of being the best experts in deep water, well it turns out that reputation wasn’t warranted, we now know. They had a young guy who had never even been on a deep water rig before he was telling the great people from Trans-ocean who knew what they were doing to shut up. So that guy is in as hot water as you can imagine ,as is Tony Hayward. And I think the government we will find is going to take all their cash.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
De : abolition-caucus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:abolition-caucus@yahoogroups.com] De la part de Wayne Hall
Envoyé : vendredi 18 juin 2010 07:15
À : abolition-caucus@yahoogroups.com
Objet : [abolition-caucus] Re: Using a nuclear weapon in the Gulf of Mexico
Using a nuclear weapon in the Gulf of Mexico
Posted by: "Ak Malten"
Dear Wayne,
I agree we disagree about the effects of a Nuclear
explosion, which many Nuclear scientist regard as
the ultimate un-repairable destructive force for the
environment, including human population.
I do not think this discussion is leading anywhere else
except for repetition of standpoints in our disagreement
on the subject.
Ak
Reply from WH
The information on Nigeria posted by Alice Slater only serves to confirm that reflex reactions from the anti-nuclear movement are no more useful than any other kind of routine-bound thinking when it comes to discussing subjects of such seriousness, .
Factor in these views of Matthew Simmons, who cannot be dismissed because of racist views, or whatever.
www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25734.htm
Earlier posting from WH:
To have very definite opinions on this subject would be more defensible if an alternative solution were being put forward. To have this volcano continuing to gush oil forever does not to me seem a preferable solution to a nuclear explosion. Of course it is a question for the specialists to judge what the chances of success of such a "solution" would be.
The Russians/Soviets have apparently used nuclear weapons to stop oil leaks.
I believe that it is inappropriate to say that the US government is "right" about anything. The question can surely only be how a real mechanism for rational political decision making can be introduced to this poor planet, if it can be.
I don't believe that the U.S.government's declared reluctance to consider use of a nuclear weapon in the Gulf has anything to do with the risks of radioactivity, given US policy on depleted uranium weapons. Nor do I even believe that the motive is mainly concern about jeopardizing future accesss
to whatever is left of the oil. I think it has to do with the role of
nuclear weapons generally in the American national consciousness. Nuclear weapons play a political-cum-ceremonial role and the idea is that their use must be threatened against OTHERS. Nuclear weapons are the American Pope,
the American Queen Elizabeth. They are symbols of power and must be a threat to OTHERS, not a tool to be used.
For the Soviets, who always faced REAL threats, not bogus threats, nuclear weapons were always seen in a more utilitarian light. . It was an illusion for Soviets to believe that nuclear weapons could be of any use in protecting the territory or the society of the USSR, but nuclear weapons did not have the same ceremonial role as in the U.S. That ceremonial role was
played by the "peace movements", at least until the time that "democracy" came to Russia and the nuclear-weapons-looking-tough image came to be electorally useful for Mr. Putin. .
It obviously comes more naturally to the Russians to think of nuclear weapons as a way of solving problems. Whether or not they can be of use in this way should be a question for scientific judgement, not of pre-emptive political prejudice.
Russian/American collaboration over "nuclear disarmament treaties", Strategic Arms reductions, etc. etc. is, and has been, a hypocritical farce, buttressed by who knows what American threats of earthquakes or other destruction to be visited upon Russia if they do not play the public relations game.
On the contrary, Russian/American collaboration to find a solution to the Gulf oil leak, including consideration of a nuclear solution, might be the first intrusion of REALITY into political life since the INF Treaty, which is the the point at which virtual reality gained the upper hand in nuclear weapons discussions.
But apparently the US government has also turned down other offers of help with the Gulf oil leak, from Western Europe and elsewhere, which did not involve nuclear weapons. They should not be ignored either.
The US government is not "right" about anything.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ak Malten"
Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2010 1:35 PM
Subject: Re: [abolition-caucus] Using a nuclear weapon in the Gulf of Mexico
> Using a Nuclear Explosion to stop the oil spill,
> will have even more consequences for the long
> term for the environment, we all know that even
> you, Wayne. Apart from that is has never been
> done, so deep under water, so it might as well
> fail to stop the spill or might have other unforeseeable
> consequences.
>
>
> The US Government is right it does not want to take
> on the above consequences and other unforeseeable
> consequences.
>
>
> The spill will stop the "drill, baby, drill" mantra.
>
> And the environment will be able to restore itself
> in the long run, if the only spill is in the form of oil.
>
>
> Of course it is not nice to see dying birds etc. covered
> in oil and hear stories about the effect of the spill
> on the fishing industry and tourism. But a Nuclear
> explosion would only make things worse for the
> environment and the outcome would be unpredictable.
>
> I am sure that, IF I would keep my mouth shut,
> my influence would score zero....
>
> Ak
American taxpayers spend astronomical sums on national security. Is it the reality that their national security apparatus cannot be used when what is involved is a REAL issue of national, and planetary, security. Can it only be used against fictious, manufactured, threats?
www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25734.htm
Here is the transcript of an interview with Mr. Matthew Simmons. We should ask Mr. Simmons to explain what he is saying at the points where his words are impossible for me to decipher.
Laurie Rothman: And this is Bloomberg News, thanks for joining us, I’m Laurie Rothman. And as the BP saga continues on the Gulf and in Washington one oil industry veteran of more than 35 years says BP is still holding back the facts of this spill from the American public. Matthew Simmons is the founder and chairman of the Ocean Energy Institute, a research firm focused on creating renewable energy sources from all aspects of our ocean. He is also best known as the founder and former chairman of Simmons and Company International. Matt joins us on the telephone from Rockport, Maine. Welcome to you. Actually we see via Skype it looks like. Great to see your face, Matt. Thanks for joining us again. Now we spoke about two weeks ago and your opinion at that time was that the military needs to take over capping efforts and that the best viable option should perhaps be a nuclear weapon. Do you still feel that way? Is this your belief, to handle the situation and move beyond it.
Matt Simmons: I think basically we now know – it hasn’t got out – we now know a whole lot of better information from the scientists who are totally, totally disputing what BP’s story has been. And the best reports all have come from Thomas Jefferson, which is America’s largest research vessel, which got directed on June 6 to stop an ocean floor mapping programme sending from Woods Hole all the finest detection equipment we have and get to where this enormous fire was coming that was miles away from the (inaudible). And what the Thomas Jefferson found in a week was the most specific information we know that basically 1100 metres below the surface of the Gulf of Mexico is a 3 to 400 metre lake of very heavy oil that has spread so fast that it is covering potentially 40 percent of the Gulf of Mexico. Now I believe when I was on your programme two weeks ago I said that it covered the extent of Maryland and Delaware. And at the rate – the speed – of the flow they are actually now predicting that it is 120,000 barrels a day. But more importantly, they are almost certain, because of the lack of being able to check where the well bore was . They can get within three miles of it. There is too much fire. There is no metalwork. The casing is gone. So with no casing it’s an open hole and the only thing that will ever put it out is detonating something that will fuse the rocks right above the oil column in the blast and the only way that anyone has ever done that is that four times the Soviets did that in the seventies with a very small-bore nuclear device. So I think that’s now our only option.
Laurie Rothman: And what do you think the Administration would say to that option? Has anyone listened to you? Have you been able to put that suggestion forward? I mean they seem to be….the Administration is pulling so many experts from so many different areas of science right now.
Matthew Simmons: Well, yesterday in Maine Senator Susan Collins and the Maine Delegation brought Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, who I’d never met before up to see the Advanced Deposits Deep Water Energy Center and several who I talked to had not heard this latest report. Because it just came in late Sunday evening. They were all gathering together …But I think basically …I’d be very surprised if the Administration doesn’t know this now, and is not preparing this response.
Laurie Rothman: Why aren’t you confident about the relief well drilling?
Matthew Simmons: Because firstly it’s in the wrong place. And without any casing it won’t work.
Laurie Rothman: Now relief wells though have been drilled successfully in numerous other situations with oil spills. Why….what’s the problem with this situation?
Matthew Simmons: They all had casing in the hole. Without casing the mud just comes spewing back up. So that was always the belief that the casing must have been there…. ..My belief from day one, ironically just watching the unbelievable flames coming out of the water… And then they have these senior people call it a rig fire. I thought was the biggest farce I’ve ever heard. They’ve got seven hundred gallons of diesel on board a rig. And that thing was burning with such intensity. It wasn’t the rig burning. It was the water burning. So that’s when it seemed to me pretty clear that this had to be one of the biggest blowouts we’ve ever had. And even in smaller blowouts in the past (inaudible) one of the first things that happens, it usually kicks the (inaudible) off the well bore and then out of the ground comes the casing even with a proper cement job and it goes through the top of the derrick. And most of the deaths that have happened In blowouts is the casing falling on people. Here we know we had a very weak cement job. So the idea that the casing could still have been there seemed intuitively was really low, now I think the scientists have said even lower.
See the only way, we either are content with saying we’ll just put 120,00 barrels of oil a day in the Gulf for the next 25 or 30 years or we have to get …(inaudible)
Laurie Rothman: All right so then you are saying that in this situation the drilling of not one but two relief wells is not going to work for the BP the Deepwater Horizon explosion and ensuing oil leak. .
Matthew Simmons: (inaudible) it’s too bad that we didn’t know, and I really sympathize with the government. I think BP had such a reputation of being the best experts in deep water, well it turns out that reputation wasn’t warranted, we now know. They had a young guy who had never even been on a deep water rig before he was telling the great people from Trans-ocean who knew what they were doing to shut up. So that guy is in as hot water as you can imagine ,as is Tony Hayward. And I think the government we will find is going to take all their cash.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
De : abolition-caucus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:abolition-caucus@yahoogroups.com] De la part de Wayne Hall
Envoyé : vendredi 18 juin 2010 07:15
À : abolition-caucus@yahoogroups.com
Objet : [abolition-caucus] Re: Using a nuclear weapon in the Gulf of Mexico
Using a nuclear weapon in the Gulf of Mexico
Posted by: "Ak Malten"
Dear Wayne,
I agree we disagree about the effects of a Nuclear
explosion, which many Nuclear scientist regard as
the ultimate un-repairable destructive force for the
environment, including human population.
I do not think this discussion is leading anywhere else
except for repetition of standpoints in our disagreement
on the subject.
Ak
Reply from WH
The information on Nigeria posted by Alice Slater only serves to confirm that reflex reactions from the anti-nuclear movement are no more useful than any other kind of routine-bound thinking when it comes to discussing subjects of such seriousness, .
Factor in these views of Matthew Simmons, who cannot be dismissed because of racist views, or whatever.
www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25734.htm
Earlier posting from WH:
To have very definite opinions on this subject would be more defensible if an alternative solution were being put forward. To have this volcano continuing to gush oil forever does not to me seem a preferable solution to a nuclear explosion. Of course it is a question for the specialists to judge what the chances of success of such a "solution" would be.
The Russians/Soviets have apparently used nuclear weapons to stop oil leaks.
I believe that it is inappropriate to say that the US government is "right" about anything. The question can surely only be how a real mechanism for rational political decision making can be introduced to this poor planet, if it can be.
I don't believe that the U.S.government's declared reluctance to consider use of a nuclear weapon in the Gulf has anything to do with the risks of radioactivity, given US policy on depleted uranium weapons. Nor do I even believe that the motive is mainly concern about jeopardizing future accesss
to whatever is left of the oil. I think it has to do with the role of
nuclear weapons generally in the American national consciousness. Nuclear weapons play a political-cum-ceremonial role and the idea is that their use must be threatened against OTHERS. Nuclear weapons are the American Pope,
the American Queen Elizabeth. They are symbols of power and must be a threat to OTHERS, not a tool to be used.
For the Soviets, who always faced REAL threats, not bogus threats, nuclear weapons were always seen in a more utilitarian light. . It was an illusion for Soviets to believe that nuclear weapons could be of any use in protecting the territory or the society of the USSR, but nuclear weapons did not have the same ceremonial role as in the U.S. That ceremonial role was
played by the "peace movements", at least until the time that "democracy" came to Russia and the nuclear-weapons-looking-tough image came to be electorally useful for Mr. Putin. .
It obviously comes more naturally to the Russians to think of nuclear weapons as a way of solving problems. Whether or not they can be of use in this way should be a question for scientific judgement, not of pre-emptive political prejudice.
Russian/American collaboration over "nuclear disarmament treaties", Strategic Arms reductions, etc. etc. is, and has been, a hypocritical farce, buttressed by who knows what American threats of earthquakes or other destruction to be visited upon Russia if they do not play the public relations game.
On the contrary, Russian/American collaboration to find a solution to the Gulf oil leak, including consideration of a nuclear solution, might be the first intrusion of REALITY into political life since the INF Treaty, which is the the point at which virtual reality gained the upper hand in nuclear weapons discussions.
But apparently the US government has also turned down other offers of help with the Gulf oil leak, from Western Europe and elsewhere, which did not involve nuclear weapons. They should not be ignored either.
The US government is not "right" about anything.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ak Malten"
Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2010 1:35 PM
Subject: Re: [abolition-caucus] Using a nuclear weapon in the Gulf of Mexico
> Using a Nuclear Explosion to stop the oil spill,
> will have even more consequences for the long
> term for the environment, we all know that even
> you, Wayne. Apart from that is has never been
> done, so deep under water, so it might as well
> fail to stop the spill or might have other unforeseeable
> consequences.
>
>
> The US Government is right it does not want to take
> on the above consequences and other unforeseeable
> consequences.
>
>
> The spill will stop the "drill, baby, drill" mantra.
>
> And the environment will be able to restore itself
> in the long run, if the only spill is in the form of oil.
>
>
> Of course it is not nice to see dying birds etc. covered
> in oil and hear stories about the effect of the spill
> on the fishing industry and tourism. But a Nuclear
> explosion would only make things worse for the
> environment and the outcome would be unpredictable.
>
> I am sure that, IF I would keep my mouth shut,
> my influence would score zero....
>
> Ak