Hey, don't usually do reviews but I figured doing so might help me identify problems in my own articles, so here I go.
First off, I'm okay with the general idea, even if it's a bit generic. I reckon any idea can work, as long as it's executed properly (even the "item that does something" stuff that people usually hate). So I'm cool with your general idea.
However, I'm guessing you just posted this straight up without any reviews from people on the forum, or the IRC server, since it's riddled with bad grammar. I would advise writing up your article on the sandbox located here, first, and getting feedback from the forum and IRC server first. Posting them straight on here is frowned upon and might even get you banned if you do it multiple times.
ANYWAY, here's my list of issues…
Interestly
Should be spelt "Interestingly", however, you shouldn't use the word at all because it's not very professional. In a scientific document, the opinion of the writer is irrelevant. Whether something is "interesting" to them, or not, doesn't matter. All that matters is whether details are relevant to understanding and/or learning more about the object and since the document should only contain relevant details, it doesn't need to be pointed out.
black gold
Again, gotta stick with the professional tone here. I think you may be trying to avoid using the word 'oil' twice in quick succession, but keeping the scientific tone is far more important.
it was seen to be much more than that.
This kind of suspense building works in something like a monologue, or a speech, but it looks very out of place in a scientific document. Yes, building suspense is key to a lot of SCP articles, but that particular technique doesn't work because it breaks the formatting, in the same way that putting "omg you'll never guess what happens next" would look out of place. To keep it scientific, you should just jump straight into the explanation. Cut that whole last sentence and start the next paragraph with "When one of the Soviet expedition team attempted to handle it, blablabla happened."
SCP intervened
The Foundation isn't really ever referred to as "SCP". Sometimes "The SCP Foundation" but more commonly I believe it is simply "The Foundation".
when news broke
Breaking that scientific tone again. News "breaking" is considered a colloquialism. Imagine someone with a scientific background that was still learning English is reading your article. They'll see "news broke" and think you mean the news physically "broke", like a newspaper was torn up or something. It's okay to use scientific terminology and even complex language, but colloquialisms don't belong in a scientific document. Instead try: "…the Foundation intervened upon receiving reports of…" or something in that manner.
of all places
This sounds very informal. It's what people say when they're trying to emphasize the weirdness of a situation to convey their own emotions regarding the situation. Again, we don't need to emphasize our own emotions about a situation because it's irrelevant. It's the difference between, "They found his dead body in the river." and "They found his dead body in the river, of all places!!". The last one sounds very informal, the first one is more serious because it gets to the point and doesn't try to emphasize the speaker's opinion.
A mere hint
Informal. Works nice in speeches and regular stories, but not here. Something like "Should the wielder hold any form of malicious intent, regardless of severity, towards anything…"
something normal humans would shrug off as a passing frustration
If you were to say "humans", we would assume you mean "normal humans". The "normal" isn't needed.
"Shrug off" is again, a sort-of colloquialism.
I don't really like that sentence at all, really. You've already emphasized that small levels of malicious intent cause this thing to fire, it seems unnecessary to emphasize it anymore.
penetrate through anything known to man
"known to man" isn't really needed. Are you saying it can't penetrate things not known "to man"? Saying "it has proven able to penetrate all tested substances, including…" then list some tough materials.
This blade
There's only one blade, it's implied which one we're talking about. "The blade" makes more sense than "This blade".
unidentifiable to current science
The breadth of scientific advancement is large in the SCP universe. Are you talking about current mainstream science in 2018? Current Foundation science (which is ahead of mainstream science)? The term "current science" is ultimately not needed. Simply saying it is "an unidentifiable metal" is enough. You don't need to specific "current science" because when you say it's unidentifiable, then it's pretty clear "science" also can't identify it.
and is a conundrum to scientists.
"Conundrum" is a fun word, but is too expressive for a scientific document. Scientists don't write papers trying to use as many fancy words as possible. They use scientific terminology where relevant, but they don't use complex words for the sake of it. They want their article to be understood, not read like a best-selling novel.
In general though, that last statement is unnecessary. If it's defying the laws of physics, we can already assume it's a "conundrum to scientists" because anything breaking the laws of physics is a conundrum to EVERYONE. So you can cut "and is a conundrum to scientists." entirely.
it’s origins
I haven't been looking out for this, you may have done it earlier but I was paying attention. The possessive form of "its" doesn't have an apostrophe. Yeah, when you say something like "Ben's origin", then it does have an apostrophe, but "its" is a little weird because it doesn't. It only has one when it's a proper contraction, such as "it is". I was making this mistake up until a year and a half ago, it's pretty damn common to do, so it's cool.
What is known is that it is very unpredictable in the hands of humans
This is implied. One of the common tropes of SCP articles, and writing in general, is letting the reader think about this stuff for themself. It's like when you tell a joke, you shouldn't have to explain why it's funny, the person you told it to should be able to work it out. The fact this staff is "unpredictable in the hands of humans" should be obvious. Giving an example (maybe some experiments) of it doing something unpredictable to help inspire the reader a little is cool, but outright saying "it's unpredictable in the hands of humans" is like explaining a joke to someone. It will help a reader if they're a moron, but it will just annoy most people.
Humans are naturally emotional beings.
Again, something the reader already knows. Imagine SCP-173 has a description that said "It moves when no one is looking at it. Humans have to look at it to stop it moving. Humans naturally blink. SCP-173 can get them when they blink.". See what I mean? You read that and you're like "well fuck, no shit, sherlock". If you've told your story well enough, then you shouldn't have to explain the fine details because it should be obvious.
Instead, what you can do to beef it up is something like a "twist" (I personally love these but lots of people think it's over done or something), or as I said before, introduce some experiment logs that have an outcome that isn't immediately obvious. Like for example, have a doctor hold the staff for a test, then accidentally kill his wife because a stray thought crossed his mind about a fight they had earlier, or make a D-Class accidentally blow up his own leg because he has a cramp and the pain is pissing him off. Y'know, something that'll make the reader go "oh yeah, i didn't think of that, that's cool, does that mean it could also… [reader makes up more ideas here]".
Giving a human an object that can destroy anything on a mere spark of frustration, or envy, or anger, or any negative emotion, would be a recipe for disaster.
Same as above.
Letter to Dr.[REDACTED]
This isn't how you use redactions. Check out this article for help with how to expunge and redact correctly. For names, you usually use the block character things: ████
However, I've seen a lot of people criticising the blocking out of names entirely, recently. I don't really know why, I see no issue with it. Not knowing a character's name doesn't take away from the article, unless the character plays a heavy role (e.g. they're the only one the SCP responds to, they're related to the SCP, they are the SCP, etc…).
I am proposing the use of this weapon in battling harmful SCPs up to Keter class in the case of a breach
This is largely frowned upon in modern SCP writing. Creating "more powerful than keters, can destroy all the scps" is considered lazy and just an attempt to make "teh best scp evur". Additionally, the Foundation heavily discourages the use of the objects (I know some don't, especially older ones, but times have changed).
fight SCP-096
This comes across as a "look guys i made an scp that can kill this super strong famous scp!". Writing SCP articles isn't about trying to be "cool" or relevant to the famous ones. Generally an SCP article mentioning one of the Heritage Collection SCPs, or one from Containment Breach comes across as "noobish" because it looks like you're just trying to muscle in on the fame of another article. Your SCP should be able to be cool without any of the other objects. Imagine 096, 682, 173, etc… didn't exist and you were writing an article that is awesome by itself. Strive for that.
So yeah, fix that stuff and add a bit more meat to it and I think it could be fine. As I said, I think a lot of people won't like it because it fits the format "it's an X that does Y". In this case, it's a spear that kills anything you dislike. A lot of people on here will probably find that boring, so you'll have to do some fancy shit to make others accept it.
Keep it up though! You're on to something, I'm sure you'll get there in the end! <3