Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
At BP Hearing, Blame Game for 'Cascade of Failures'
US Senator Likens Oil Spill to Titanic as Hearings Open
WASHINGTON - A leading US senator blamed "a cascade of failures" Tuesday for a disastrous Gulf of Mexico oil spill and likened the crisis to the sinking of the Titanic and space shuttle Challenger explosion.
President and Chairman of BP America Inc. Lamar McKay (foreground), is pictured alongside protesters before a Senate Energy and Natural Resources hearing on the accident in the Gulf of Mexico involving the offshore oil rig Deepwater Horizon in Washington, May 11, 2010. (REUTERS/Jason Reed) Democratic Senator Jeff Bingaman, leading the US Congress' first hearing into the catastrophe, also warned against "snap judgments" like ceasing all offshore drilling or shrugging off the crisis and pursuing business as usual.
"If this is like other catastrophic failures of technological systems in modern history -- whether it was the sinking of the Titanic, Three Mile Island, or the loss of the Challenger -- we will likely discover that there was a cascade of failures: Technical, human, and regulatory," he said.
The top Republican on Bingaman's Senate Energy and Natural Resources committee, Senator Lisa Murkowski, warned drilling "will never be without risk" but that industry and regulators "must never grow complacent" about safety.
The panel was to grill top executives from British energy giant BP, which leased the Deepwater Horizon offshore drilling platform and was majority owner of the well; Transocean, the rig's owner; and oil services firm Halliburton that did key technical work.
Moments before the hearing began, two groups of demonstrators took aim at BP, some with black teardrops painted on their faces in quiet protest, another calling out "BP kills wildlife, BP kills people, BP kills the planet."
Lawmakers were looking at technological and human failures that led to the April 20 blast that ultimately sent the rig to the bottom of the Gulf and millions of gallons (liters) gushing into its waters.
F. E. Beck, a professor of petroleum engineering, said it appeared barriers designed to control a "kick" -- when explosive natural gas enters the wellbore -- had failed, ultimately causing a "blowout" when gas flowed uncontrollably to the surface and ignited.
Beck played down concerns that the deepwater well might have tested the outer limits of the oil industry's abilities, saying it was "a very difficult well" but "not the most difficult well the industry has drilled by any means."
Elmer Danenberger, a former government regulator of offshore drilling, agreed with one senator that the disaster resulted from "a failure of systems."
Republican Senator John Barrasso scolded the executives for the "don't blame me" message of their prepared testimony, saying "shifting the blame does not get us very far" towards learning the lessons needed to prevent a repeat.
BP's top US executive, Lamar McKay, assured the committee in his written remarks that a 40-person team from his firm was investigating the disaster but "has not yet reached conclusions."
But the executive pointedly directed questions at the rig owner, saying Transocean Limited was responsible for a key piece of equipment that failed to prevent the explosion, and made it impossible to regain control of the well.
"The systems are intended to fail-closed and be fail-safe; sadly and for reasons we do not yet understand, in this case, they were not. Transocean?s blowout preventer failed to operate," he said.
Transocean chief Steven Newman, in his prepared remarks, said blaming the 450-ton blowout preventer "simply makes no sense" and stressed "all offshore oil and gas production projects begin and end with the operator," BP.
Newman also pointed the finger at Halliburton, saying the oil services company was responsible for the well's cement casing, a temporary cement plug in the top of the well, all meant to serve as barriers to a blowout.
"The one thing we know with certainty," he said, is that "there was a sudden, catastrophic failure of the cement, the casing, or both."
"Therein lies the root cause of this occurrence; without a disastrous failure of one of those elements, the explosion could not have occurred," Newman said.
But Halliburton's chief health, safety, and environment officer, Tim Probert, said in his prepared testimony that his company had finished its cementing work 20 hours before the blast and according to industry practice.
And Probert said Halliburton had never set the final cement plug because the catastrophe occurred as Transocean was doing work on the well.
AFP obtained copies of the prepared testimony on the eve of the hearing, the first of several into the disaster.
While oil companies are responsible for footing the entire cleanup bill, US lawmakers from coastal states have called for lifting the cap on their liability for economic damages from 75 million dollars to 10 billion dollars.
The undersea well has been spewing an estimated 210,000 gallons per day into the Gulf of Mexico since the rig sank April 22, after the blast that killed 11 workers.
- Posted in
72 Comments so far
Show AllWhat happened to the story that previously occupied this space? The one about Obama planning to use the Deepwater Horizon Disaster to ram through environmental legislation?
Ummm, look at the top of the webpage. Click on my account, then click on 'track' you'll find a list of the articles you've posted on, and which have been updated.
Or you could look down the 'news' column...
Lets see...21 years later lawyers are still raking it in litigating the Exxon Valdez spill.
The Exxon Valdez was a boutique spill compared to Deepwater Horizon...many lawyers will be able to spend their entire careers on this case since it will go on so long.
I talked to a petroleum geologist today who expressed concern that this leak may be unstoppable.
What was poorly thought out by BP was the best response to prepare in case the "unthinkable" happened.
That would be how to confine the oil from a leaking oil well to one location on the surface so it could either be "vacuumed-up" or burned. Now, it pops up at many locations.
The best way to do this would be to contain it "gravimetrically" which takes advantage of the oils lower density as compared to sea water. The best example of this would be the plastic filled zones in the middle of the Atlantic and Pacific gyres.
By creating a swirling vortex around the leak at the sea floor, possibly by using jet pumps place 20-30 feet from the leak, aimed tangentially (e.g., clockwise)and directed upward at 45 degree angle, inside a "coffee-can" open on both ends, the oil and gas would be confined to the center as it rises. Due to the principle of "conservation of angular momentum", the vortex would persist as it rose to the ocean surface.
At the surface, it would always appear and remain at one location, instead of many, from where it could more easily be either burned or collected.
Ok. How much energy will be needed to run the vortex 'motors'? How many of them? For how long? And what is your back-up plan for the hurricane season?
The questions you are asking can only be determined by doing tests on a smaller scale. In any event the energy expended would be small compared to what is currently being expended in the "clean-up" phase, so I guess the answer could be "whatever amount it takes".
I'm now thinking it would be better to place more pumps located about 50' feet from the leak than the 20-30 foot distance I proposed earlier.
While Superman is on vacation, energy to maintain the swirling action could also be added from the surface by "ordinary" men and machines.
I do think a key role could be played by surfactants that bind gas with oil-water globules, making them "effectively lighter", and therefore more inclined to drift toward the center of the vortex.
And while you are farting about doing small scale tests, which may or may not scale, the oil is still spewing into the Gulf, and the entire ocean ecosystem is under greater and greater threat.
More technological complexity leads to eventual systemic failure.
And you never answered my questions, which is completely typical of the person who believes more technology can fix any problem.
Maybe it was just an oversight--no need to be insulting.
Hurricanes won't affect anything that is a mile below. However, for forty eight hours or so, nothing could be done on the surface since the oil would become totally dispersed. If the hurricane passed to the northeast of the spill, the existing slick would be blown out to sea and thoroughly mixed throughout the top 1000 feet or so of the sea, probably being degraded forever.
If it passed directly over the leak area, the first winds would be from the north--also a good scenario for the shoreline. So in most cases, a hurricane would be helpful, not harmful.
If it passed toward the south, heading toward Galveston--that would be bad news for the LA coastline.
The weather will be good after the hurricane passes by, and the operation can begin again.
While those in charge started procuring the necessary equipment, others could be performing the tests, which would take three days at most. It would probably take at least a week to get everything in place on the sea floor to start doing this.
While time will undoubtedly be lost, at least people will have learned how they should prepare for the next spill.
Apologies if I seemed insulting.
Apology accepted.
Certainly techno-fixes will not cure the big problem, which is the overbearing influence of corporations controlled by those in the shadows who enjoy immediate benefit from them at the expense of everyone else--the fixes can only buy us some additional time to identify and corner them and to drive a stake into their hearts so they "remain dead", once and forever.
" ... aimed tangentially (e.g., clockwise) ... "
I'm beginning to buy into your idea. One question, though. Wouldn't we want to attempt to create a counter-clockwise vortex due to the coriolis (probbly spelt rong) effect, the same phenomenon that causes water in a toilet bowl to swirl counterclockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in the southern? (What happens at the equator? Does it just flush straight down? The coriolis effect must become weaker closer to the equator.)
It is a good idea, and it sounds like it wouldn't even be all that expensive, although expense should not be a consideration in closing this hell hole. Have you attempted to contact anyone with enough authority to get it to someone who might consider implementation?
OKAY. I just sent the following to "contact us" at www.whitehouse.gov.
THE OIL GEYSER IN THE GULF. PROPOSAL FOR REMEDIATION.
This is not my original idea. It was proposed by a poster in the comments section on the Common Dreams website, www.commondreams.com, after an article by Agence France Presse published on Tuesday, May 11, 2010, titled
"US Senator Likens Oil Spill to Titanic as Hearings Open".
"AVE_fan" posted the following commentary on May 11th, 2010 12:47 pm.
What was poorly thought out by BP was the best response to prepare in case the "unthinkable" happened.
That would be how to confine the oil from a leaking oil well to one location on the surface so it could either be "vacuumed-up" or burned. Now, it pops up at many locations.
The best way to do this would be to contain it "gravimetrically" which takes advantage of the oils lower density as compared to sea water. The best example of this would be the plastic filled zones in the middle of the Atlantic and Pacific gyres.
By creating a swirling vortex around the leak at the sea floor, possibly by using jet pumps place 20-30 feet from the leak, aimed tangentially (e.g., counter-clockwise to take advantage of the coriolis effect*)and directed upward at 45 degree angle, inside a "coffee-can" open on both ends, the oil and gas would be confined to the center as it rises. Due to the principle of "conservation of angular momentum", the vortex would persist as it rose to the ocean surface.
At the surface, it would always appear and remain at one location, instead of many, from where it could more easily be either burned or collected.
*Note: I edited the original comment within the parenthesis. Orignially it read (e.g., clockwise). Now it reads (e.g., counter-clockwise to take advantage of the coriolis effect*). I may or may not be correct on the rotational direction of the vortex, but it seems intuitively logical to me.
Either direction would work, and at this scale (1 mile), Coriolis effects are extremely small, Since the Loop Current goes clockwise, if I'm not mistaken, I would try to feed off this.
In other words, one should look at the prevailing currents when making one's decision, and decide from there. If the (eastward traveling) Loop Current passes to the south of the leak, the vortex should be made to rotate counter-clockwise.
Thanks for passing the idea along to the WH.
Anyone with connections to BP should pass the idea along. There's no guarantee it will work, but they should be able to quickly test out the idea by modifying say, a 500 gallon tank or utilizing a spare water storage tanks near a refinery.
Classic American behaviour.....never my fault.
Including politicians. No WMDs - that was not my fault. A destroyed Iraq that will take decades if not generations to rebuild - not my fault. Take all of the politicians in DC (former and current) and toss them into the oil polluted Gulf waters. Let them swim in their own cesspool of corruption.
Whenever Disaster Strikes:
1) Search for the Guilty
2) Punish the Innocent
3) Promote the Uninvolved
Making the World safe for Hypocracy!
A case of mankind reaching into places he doesn't belong, trying to harness forces beyond technology...and imagination, ruining our planet/life support for convenience. If this doesn't signal the end of the life support on Earth, we'd better take heed NOW and make some changes to safeguard it with what time we have left. That involves dropping the notion of greed, and begin the absolute necessity of working toward sustainability, (if it's not already too late.)
"While oil companies are responsible for footing the entire cleanup bill, US lawmakers from coastal states have called for lifting the cap on their liability for economic damages from 75 million dollars to 10 billion dollars."
As I've written in a previous post about these liability caps--why are there ANY caps on these criminals' libility for these disasters unless there are caps on their profits?
It's the same old, same old--socialize the losses and privatize the profits. For the corporations it's always a heads they win and tails they win also proposition. If only life was so easy for us worker bees!
I agree 100%.
Furthermore - "the sinking of the Titanic, Three Mile Island, or the loss of the Challenger" don't even BEGIN to come close to the scale of this disaster. Those who think otherwise are fools. This environmental damage is permanent.
Even 10 billion is a joke. It's a number designed to be absorbable without bankrupting the company. But the actual damage may easily be in the trillions. And the permanent, unsolvable damage to ecosystems, and species, and human health, is not measurable. Just as Bhopal broke Union Carbide, this should be allowed to break BP, and no oil company should ever again be allowed to take such unfathomable risks.
"The undersea well has been spewing an estimated 210,000 gallons per day into the Gulf of Mexico since the rig sank April 22, after the blast that killed 11 workers."
Bullshit bullshit bullshit. This god damned infernal blowhole is certainly spewing a lot more than the 2.43 gallons per second constantly repeated in the media. If it is only 2.43 gallons a second it should be possible to simply build a large concrete cylinder, maybe fifty feed in diameter and fifty feet in length and simply place it on top of the blowhole. This would be one heavy chunk of concrete, and it certainly should be able to stem a 2.43 gallon per second leak. Compare this, for example, to a NASCAR refueling stop where several gallons of fuel are funneled into a tank within a very few seconds. This is approximately the rate at which the leak in the gulf is opereating, if the media figures are to be believed. Aye. Therein lies the rub, eh? Our government, BP, and the media would never lie to us about something like this. Would they?
Hey Kent, thanks for also spreading the word. I did that calculation a week ago and have been emailing every news outlet, talk show, etc.
I'm glad you arrived at the same conclusion.....I posted mine above, and then looked down to my amazement that FINALLY someone else had figured this out.
I just wish we had some journalists with the same drive to find out the truth.
I got the idea from you in another post on another thread. It hadn't occurred to me to do the math. I did send a letter to the Harrisburg PA Patriot-News rag. I'm also spreading the same info wherever and whenever I can. Man, the constant government and media lies are just so disgusting. One simply can not believe a single word out of the mouths of "authorities" anymore.
The 'recognized' flow rate of this blowout is 25 000 bbl/day, at an estimated 30 000 to 69 000 psi.
25 000 barrels x 42 gallons/barrel = 1 050 000 gallons/day.
1 050 000 gallons/day x 20 days = 21 000 000 gallons. That equals just under two (2) Exxon Valdez spills. So far.
1 050 000 gallons/day divided by 1440 minutes/day = 729.16 gallons a minute, or 12.151 gallons a second.
25,000 bpd is certainly a more realistic figure, but it is not the "recognized" flow rate.
Recognized by the few people that read the leaked NOAA report not intended for public consumption, where the 25,000 barrels per day was discussed.
Almost without exception, the official bullcrap estimate of 5,000 bpd has been the only flow rate thus far "recognized".
Sure, they could put a special valve on a pipe that small. Are these pipes five-foot ones?
A five ft pipe at 2 gallons a second or even 20 would not be a lot of rapid pressure would it?
Precisely! That fact perfectly illustrates that the official numbers have to be not just wrong, but intentional propaganda.
Maybe these calculations were heard by them because today the news says it's spewing natural gas. Propaganda?
Here is a big lie, repeated by MSM, and by extension Common Dreams, by not featuring anything to counter the absolute rubbish claim.
"The undersea well has been spewing an estimated 210,000 gallons per day into the Gulf of Mexico since the rig sank…"
I did a calculation, sent it to Common Dreams, and other media outlets trying to demonstrate that we can absolutely know without a shadow of doubt that the official estimates are a big oily lie.
I've written about this before to this forum, so pardon me for doing so again, but I'm going to do this every time I see those numbers being published.
Please pass along if you find this compelling....
With BP clearly clueless as to how to stop the "leak" in the Gulf of Mexico, it is past time for a journalist, or a news agency, or someone with a bullhorn, to challenge the official estimate of 5,000 bpd / 210,000 gpd.
With this "leak" set to go on for months it seems, knowledge of what we are facing is absolutely critical.
Here is a quick calculation proves on the face of it, and by the most basic logic, the official estimate can not be true.
210,000 GPD divided by 86,400 seconds per day equals a flow rate of 2.43 gallons per second.
So the "gusher" is a whopping 2.43 gallons per second? That's what we are supposed to believe?
Just for the sake of further illustrating the point, take an average between the 3 leaks.
2.43 divided by 3, equals .81 gallons per second per leak.
I realize that there is a main leak, and two smaller leaks, but the averaged number makes the case clearly that the official estimate is toxic sludge, and BP and the NOAA should not be allowed to put forth this bullcrap any longer. They need to be challenged.
Just to drive in the point a bit further....
I did a quick google search for fast flow pump systems, and the first hit was from a company called www.fastflowpump.com , seeking to find a point of comparison to a system that has known pressure, and known output physical dimension, with a known flow rate.
They sell a pump, that weighs 26 pounds, fully submersible, that can attain an operational flow rate of 600 gallons per minute, out of a 4 inch pipe or hose, which of course is 10 gallons per second!
So the useful analogy is, that the official numbers would have us believe that a natural gas and oil deposit, known to be a high pressure deposit, does not produce as much outflow into a much larger pipe, than the small pump unit.
Those numbers are just utter bull __ , and I just can't believe that no one in the media is digging for the truth.
The government screwed up, in creating such a deregulated environment such that a massive oil platform didn't have to submit a blowout plan, or an environmental impact report, so there is motive for it to try and cover its butt. The motive for BP to do so is obvious, so it is clear that BP and NOAA have a common interest in downplaying this disaster.
With BP having disclosed without elaboration, in the meeting with lawmakers, that the "leak" could go as high as 60,000 BPD, and given the above illustration of how ridiculously low the official estimates are, common sense would dictate, that BP knows the flow rate now, and it is likely NOW to be close to 60,000 BPD.
Thanks for your time,
You have a point and I wonder why the media hasn't got a 24 hr a day set of underwater cameras on the flows lit up like the moon landing.
I wonder how many ships are right on top of the leak or do they have to stay out of the oil slick?
They at least must lay down Buoys nearby with cameras... or do they have buoys over a mile deep?
BP's job in their minds is to make it look as good as possible at every point.... if that is possible.
The government's job is to tell us what will help them keep their jobs.
not a rosy picture
I think his point is quite well stated and even if the calculations on his part are flawed (not saying they are, I'm not a math wiz by any stretch of the imagination), the claim by the media and Britain Pollutes is bull phlegm.
I think if the gov't and the company were honest about the flow estimate, it would provoke great unrest. Or at least that's their fear. Keep everyone calm, tell them not to worry and be happy. In the end few of us can actually do something about the 'leak', some of us might go to the coast to mop up the oil/tar. (but you'll take your lives into your own hands if you do, don't forget they're not going to pay for any health care if you get sick while volunteering for this cleanup.)
No, this isn't any sort of rosy picture at all...
"I think his point is quite well stated and even if the calculations on his part are flawed "
The calculation is easy, and I'm not a math wiz either.
The official bullcrap number is 5,000 bpd, or 210,000 gpd
210,000 gallons per day divided by 86,400 seconds per day, equals 2.43 gallons per second.
I have been following your posts and
thanks for the SkyTruth link.
Did they ever figure out exactly the psi
at the flow point ????
Uhh,
So these pumps can pump much faster than the gusher.
So if we had one of these pumps with its inlet very close to the outlet itself and its outlet piped into an oil tanker, all of the oil would end up in the tanker. Oil floats, so we could siphon off the seawater from the bottom of the tank. If we had two or more of these pumps we could switch between between tankers so that the tanker could deliver its load to to the oil refinery.
Someone please tell me what is wrong with the above scheme.
No offense, but you missed my point entirely.
I was using the pump as a comparison, to illustrate how preposterous the official estimate of 5,000 bpd is.
I realize my topic is not your topic, but you did mention these submersible pumps, and you outlined their capacity, and they seem to lend themselves to an obvious scheme to collect the oil from the seabed, before it journeys to the ocean surface. The seawater and oil can be separated on the tanker or later on land. I am probably overlooking something, but it seems logical to me at the moment.
\__/ --- Oil Tanker
|
| --- Pipe to surface
|
[] --- Pump powered by electricity from above.
|
A --- Conical nozzle pressed against seabed over gusher.
---------- --- Seabed
That is more or less what they tried to do.
No pump is necessary, the oil is under pressure,
big pressure.
Keep thinking though. All ideas are welcome.
Something similar to your plan was, in fact, tried when they lowered a containment box over one of the leaks. They omitted the pump in your schematic (clever graphic, by the way) and relied simply on the bouyancy of the oil to carry it to the surface. But they hit a snag.
The ocean floor at 5000 ft. is a very hostile environment; pitch black, icy cold and the pressure is incredible. Oil and gas reach the well head still hot from the subterranean reservoir. But as they were trapped within the containment hood, the combination of low temperature and high pressure at the seabed caused the methane gas to condense and form what they referred to as "ice crystals" (more like thick icecream) which plugged the pipe and blocked the flow to the surface.
According to recent reports, they'll make another attempt tomorrow with another containment vessel. Meanwhile, they're planning to drill another shaft to intercept and shut down the current well - but that's 90 days off, with any luck.
Do you get a creepy feeling that they're trying to fix the brakes as the truck rolls off the pier?
"According to recent reports, they'll make another attempt tomorrow with another containment vessel."
Yeah, they are calling this one the 'top hat', essentially using an oil drum sized capture vessel, hoping the smaller size will prevent the formation of the clathrate crystals.
As 'Plan C's go, this one looks very Keystone Kops...
deleted dupilcate posting
I have had a sinking feeling in my gut right from the beginning of hearing about this accident. The Valdez catastrophe had a limited amount of oil in it's holds, but this accident could end up being an unlimited, unstoppable, disastrous gush of oil into the oceans. The words 'leak' and 'spill' seem far too benign for this disaster.
Hearings are going on, as I write, asking who is to blame and how it happened, but ALL of our efforts ought to be going into stopping the oil from killing the gulf, or more. Scientists and technical experts need to drop everything and pool their talents to fix this. It's disgusting to see all the political opportunists and big oil apologists covering up, lying and posturing. There appears to be more effort going into PR spin and legal maneuverings than in focusing on plugging the damn blowout.
well said
This is the disaster of the moment. We can predict more over time, until we're no longer using fossil fuels. At present, a large proportion of us would not be here were it not for fossil fuels. The solution for this problem lies in contraception.
There was an article in Tuesday's New York Times (Tuesday, May 4, 2010) by John M. Broder et al. titled "Amount of Spill Could Escalate, Company Admits". Here are some relevant quotes:
"In a closed-door briefing for members of Congress, a senior BP executive conceded Tuesday that the ruptured oil well in the Gulf of Mexico could conceivably spill as much as 60,000 barrels a day of oil, more than 10 times the estimate of the current flow."
"Federal officials have raised the possibility of a leak of more than 100,000 barrels a day if the well were to flow unchecked, but the chances of that situation occurring were unclear."
A barrel of oil is 42 gallons. At 100,000 barrels a day, you get an Exxon Valdez size spill (11 million gallons) every 2.6 days and at 60,000 barrels a day, you get an Exxon Valdez every 4.6 days.
They know what's going on. You can find the article by doing a Google News search.
Why doesn't BP use Dick Cheney's large, bald head to plug the hole.
You must mean his other rear end.
Hmmm... I can't help wondering just where HAS that old Dick, Cheney been throughout all of this? He seems to love getting his ugly mug on TV quite a bit. Where is he now? Surely he must have a solution to suggest.
Julia Ioffe in "The Moscow Diaries" discusses an earlier article in KP which suggests a hair raising Plan B. To give proper credit, I'm quoting from her article "Nuke that Slick" which can be seen at
http://trueslant.com/juliaioffe/2010/05/04/nuke-that-slick/
I'm quoting:
"Komsomoloskaya Pravda, the best-selling Russian daily, reports that in Soviet times such leaks were plugged with controlled nuclear blasts underground. The idea is simple, KP writes: “the underground explosion moves the rock, presses on it, and, in essence, squeezes the well’s channel.”
"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."
Ummmm, that might be a really really really bad idea in this case. It could indeed work, it might shut off the oil. But it's also possible that such a bomb would crack open the reservoir, or blow up the thing that's limiting the flow of oil out of the pipe.
I wouldn't rely on soviet solutions for environmental issues.
Recently I've been (re)watching Star Trek TNG reruns in the wee hours of the morning, and many episodes involve finding technical solutions to some planet-wide catastrophe.
I'm not sure about the "Star Trek" creative team, but some sci-fi producers pride themselves on using "valid" science as the basis for their plot points, and (Futurama) have people with science degrees, aka geeks, on the writing teams.
Although I have no formal technical or scientific training, I assume that these fictional futuristic solutions are kinda-sorta vaguely "possible"-- fantasy-science as opposed to junk science.
When I started hearing about the Nuclear Option to seal Mother Earth's torn aorta down Mexico way, I thought I might be dreaming it-- too much wee-hour snacking and Star Trek watching!
Forget the 24th Century; relying purely on Murphy's Law, I absolutely guarantee that any attempt to detonate a nuclear device to fix this problem will result in some new hideous hybrid of a mega-catastrophe involving uncontrolled irradiated petroleum and effluvia to be named later.
I know that we've become addicted to political problem-solving by means of combining as many wrongs as it takes to come up with a "right", but this is a particularly perilous venue for that sort of desperate and irrational approach.
They'd better build us ALL Escape Pods before they push The Button-- I don't care HOW good it looks on paper!
Perhaps we should send in MacGyver with a jar of sorghum, a bunji cord and a Leatherman.
Joe