Oil Leak -- the nuclear option

[GameTheory]

The Russians have stopped something like 5 leaks by nuking them (in sea and on land), and unless the depth of the water creates insurmountable problems with detonating such a device (the depth of water otherwise is a benefit safety-wise for blowing up a nuclear device), then who here has a problem with that? It seems like it has a near-certain probability of success and the risks are only that it would not work. (We are out of ideas otherwise for stopping it except drill a relief well -- another two months minimum, and now we've got hurricanes coming.)

At this point, nuking it seems the obvious thing to do. However, it seems the consensus among the public is that they are shocked and think such a thing is crazy -- "A nuclear bomb?! Are you kidding?" -- as if we are going to send a B-52 to drop Fat Man and/or Little Boy on the thing and blow up the coast. (Rather than a submarine with a softball-sized device, the explosion of which wouldn't even be noticed on the surface and the radiation nil.) Are most people really this dumb, or does the media just play it up that way? (Although some of the crazy-type thinking is coming from supposed journalists who should know better.) I think they should have nuked the thing after the first week when it was obviously going to be nearly impossible to stop. Now we have to worry about methane gas killing everything in the gulf and possibly even on the shore. (This oil has tons more methane than your average oil, apparently.)

[Bettowin]

I heard yesterday that is our best option. It turns the rock into glass and seals the well. T Boone was talking this morning about it and the unknown is could it blow out a weak spot in the ocean floor and cause worse problems? I don't know but they surely know the thickness of the rock encapsulating the oil field. Sounds like a good plan to me but the problem is from what I understood is that by nuking the hole it would contaminate the entire oil deposit and the contaminated oil would be down there forever. Would they have to shut off drilling in the entire area for fear that someone might accidentally tap into the contaminated oil?

I'll bet this was discussed behind closed doors and the fact that there would be billions if not trillions of dollars of worthless oil rendered unusable has played a big factor in not acting yet?

[Robert Goren]

I read that they might consider a non-nuclear bomb to close the hole if the relief wells don't work. There are a lot problems with doing it. It is the last resort of last resorts. The idea of a nuclear bomb has largely been dismissed because of the problems of containing the radiation in an underwater setting.

[boxcar]

I read that they might consider a non-nuclear bomb to close the hole if the relief wells don't work. There are a lot problems with doing it. It is the last resort of last resorts. The idea of a nuclear bomb has largely been dismissed because of the problems of containing the radiation in an underwater setting.

Those Ruskies must be a heck of a lot smarter than us because they didn't suffer any long lasting effects and...the strategy worked every time! This "nuclear option" was discovered, reported on and even discussed a little here on the forum early on during this crisis.

Boxcar

[GameTheory]

I read that they might consider a non-nuclear bomb to close the hole if the relief wells don't work. There are a lot problems with doing it. It is the last resort of last resorts. The idea of a nuclear bomb has largely been dismissed because of the problems of containing the radiation in an underwater setting.I think it has to be a nuke -- we don't want explosive force so much as the incredible heat to transform the rock. (We can't cover up the leak, we have to fuse it shut.) I don't think radiation is an issue -- you're not detonating this on the ocean floor, but as far down the shaft as you can get it (that would be the main technical problem) -- it is basically an underground explosion as we've done many times before. (The well is 5,000 feet under water, but the shaft is 30,000 feet deep beyond that.) And radiation doesn't travel far under water, and we've already guaranteed a "dead zone" for miles around the spill because of the methane which kills all life. We've done it before -- the WIGWAM test detonated a device at 2000 ft under water, and the radiation was negligible. Here we are 5000 ft underwater, and then hopefully some more hundreds or thousands of feet underground. The big worry radiation-wise I suppose is that if it did not work and now you have radiated oil spewing to the surface.

Some people are saying that a relief well won't even work because the casing of the well is destroyed or something. Which means the nuclear option isn't just the best option (if it can be managed), it is the only option. It is not like the alternative is tolerable -- this is going to kill a whole lot of stuff before this is over, maybe even some people.

[Robert Goren]

Those Ruskies must be a heck of a lot smarter than us because they didn't suffer any long lasting effects and...the strategy worked every time! This "nuclear option" was discovered, reported on and even discussed a little here on the forum early on during this crisis.

Boxcar Do we really know that? They did it on land and stopped doing it in the 1970s. There must be a reason why they don't do it anymore. It is not like they stopped having runaway oil wells. We don't know everything that went on in the USSR in the 60s and 70s. We do know that they had some tragic missteps with Nuclear. I am pretty sure that the American public doesn't know of all them. The USSR in the 60s and 70s is not the USA of 2010 where we know every time a government employee spits. In fact we don't even know they did it at all. All we have is some very old propaganda film.

[boxcar]

Do we really know that? They did it on land and stopped doing it in the 1970s. There must be a reason why they don't do it anymore. It is not like they stopped having runaway oil wells. We don't know everything that went on in the USSR in the 60s and 70s. We do know that they had some tragic missteps with Nuclear. I am pretty sure that the American public doesn't know of all them. The USSR in the 60s and 70s is not the USA of 2010 where we know every time a government employee spits. In fact we don't even know they did it at all. All we have is some very old propaganda film.

This nuclear option was pretty well documented online -- for DEEPWATER rigs. Didn't mention anything about land-based rigs.

And how do you know they're still having runaway oil leaks? You telling me they're so stupid and backward that they haven't learned from their past mistakes? :rolleyes:

But whatever "missteps" they may have had, the country and people still exist and we're not hearing about a mass epidemic of radiation poisoning over there.

Boxcar

[Native Texan III]

Do we really know that? They did it on land and stopped doing it in the 1970s. There must be a reason why they don't do it anymore. It is not like they stopped having runaway oil wells. We don't know everything that went on in the USSR in the 60s and 70s. We do know that they had some tragic missteps with Nuclear. I am pretty sure that the American public doesn't know of all them. The USSR in the 60s and 70s is not the USA of 2010 where we know every time a government employee spits. In fact we don't even know they did it at all. All we have is some very old propaganda film.

It was reported that only 4 out of 5 Russian explosions worked and they were all on land to put out gas fires.

The nuclear technical solution might work but perhaps why it won't be tried is that BP would have to walk away with no further responsibility and the US Government take over all responsibility. All currrent containment attempts would need to stop for weeks as BP pulled out of the area and the bombs were set up. Who would insure whoever was carrying out the detonations? Who has the guts to approve it all? The relief wells would need to be sealed up prior to the detonations - so something never tried in these conditions before has to work first time.

Lastly the fisherman would have a huge problem selling future fish stocks as they would have to keep proving to the public that it was not too contaminated. This happened for produce in countries hundreds of miles away when Chernobyl failed.

[Marshall Bennett]

A possible formation fracture could spell doom for the gulf . At this depth repairs would be nearly impossible with the technology at hand and the only end would come by the reservoir drying up . This could take decades . Predicting the nature and size of such fractures would be highly speculative in a worse case scenario given the water depth . Multiple fractures of various sizes are a real possibility .
Explosives of any kind in my opinion are not an option here . It's simply too dangerous .

[GameTheory]

The nuclear technical solution might work but perhaps why it won't be tried is that BP would have to walk away with no further responsibility and the US Government take over all responsibility. All currrent containment attempts would need to stop for weeks as BP pulled out of the area and the bombs were set up. Who would insure whoever was carrying out the detonations? Who has the guts to approve it all? The relief wells would need to be sealed up prior to the detonations - so something never tried in these conditions before has to work first time. Well, ultimately, it IS the federal governments responsibility -- it is federal waters. Does Obama have the guts? No way, unless maybe there is a huge and unanimous scientific, engineering, and environmental consensus, which is never going to happen. But what if nothing works? What if we are into October with no end in sight? What if it is still going next summer? If a cloud of methane gas starts killing people on land? This stuff is going to go around Florida and up the east coast. I wonder how far it can go -- Canada?

[Bettowin]

Methane gas is mentioned in a few posts. I heard someone report that this spill has already released more methane into the atmosphere than all sources from the start of mankind. I found that hard to believe.

[Tom]

I wonder how far it can go -- Canada?

I heard Great Britain yesterday. Hope so.:rolleyes:

[GameTheory]

Methane gas is mentioned in a few posts. I heard someone report that this spill has already released more methane into the atmosphere than all sources from the start of mankind. I found that hard to believe.That's doubtful, and hopefully not true as vast eruptions of methane have very likely caused one or more episodes of abrupt climate shift and mass extinctions over the eons. There would be some smug people in the afterlife if the election of Obama literally ushered in the end of the world...

[bigmack]

Stephanie Mueller, a spokeswoman for the Energy Department, said that neither Energy Secretary Steven Chu nor anyone else was thinking about a nuclear blast under the gulf. The nuclear option was not — and never had been — on the table, federal officials said.

“It’s crazy,” one senior official said.

Government and private nuclear experts agreed that using a nuclear bomb would be not only risky technically, with unknown and possibly disastrous consequences from radiation, but also unwise geopolitically — it would violate arms treaties that the United States has signed and championed over the decades and do so at a time when President Obama is pushing for global nuclear disarmament. ;)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/03/us/03nuke.html

[Bettowin]

That's doubtful, and hopefully not true as vast eruptions of methane have very likely caused one or more episodes of abrupt climate shift and mass extinctions over the eons. There would be some smug people in the afterlife if the election of Obama literally ushered in the end of the world...

I need to clarify my earlier post. I didn't convey what I heard properly. The spill has released more methane so far than what has been released BY mankind. Not from all sources. Still don't know if I believe it but since it is a passive sort of release and not a spectacular volcanic type release it does seem possible.

[LottaKash]

A friggin insane idea if you ask me....:eek: ...Only more harm will be done....

Hey, the gulf is a very finite and fragile area .....

Insane to even propose that we play with Nature this way, as if we knew all the answers about the possible outcome(s)......

Mankind is so vain in this way....

best,

[GameTheory]

And what if it just WILL NOT STOP -- for months, years, it will go on.

[LottaKash]

And what if it just WILL NOT STOP -- for months, years, it will go on.

Game, I am not sure about that....

But for me, as I live just 20-miles due east of the Gulf of Mexico, I would sure hate to have "PANDORA'S BOX" openend up near me...

They haven't exhausted "ALL" of the possibilities as of yet, why look for "uncharted trouble" at the drop of a hat....That is simply too alarming and impetuous for me...

Playing (gambling) with atomic energy should "always" be a last ditch effort....And, I mean "last", because it may well be...

We can deal with the Oil, but Radiation, I am not so sure....

The bumbling gov't (s) that we had and now have, can't even deal with a "hurricane" let alone "nuclear fallout"....They have shown this to be true...

best,

[Bettowin]

Time to declare that whoever brings forth the best solution and stops the leak would now own the rights to the oil that is left over. Let everyone come forward and go with the 2 or 3 best ideas. Money talks:)

[Pace Cap'n]

How about $250/bbl for all oil recovered from within or on the waters of the Gulf Of Mexico for the next "x" months?

[Robert Goren]

This nuclear option was pretty well documented online -- for DEEPWATER rigs. Didn't mention anything about land-based rigs.

And how do you know they're still having runaway oil leaks? You telling me they're so stupid and backward that they haven't learned from their past mistakes? :rolleyes:

But whatever "missteps" they may have had, the country and people still exist and we're not hearing about a mass epidemic of radiation poisoning over there.

Boxcar Well, we sure have not that for sure or this would not have happened.

[newtothegame]

Do we really know that? They did it on land and stopped doing it in the 1970s. There must be a reason why they don't do it anymore. It is not like they stopped having runaway oil wells. We don't know everything that went on in the USSR in the 60s and 70s. We do know that they had some tragic missteps with Nuclear. I am pretty sure that the American public doesn't know of all them. The USSR in the 60s and 70s is not the USA of 2010 where we know every time a government employee spits. In fact we don't even know they did it at all. All we have is some very old propaganda film.

How do you know the first statement to be true Goren when you turn around and make the second statement?
For that matter, how do you know ANY news coming out of Russia is true or not???
How do you know that ANY media source from ANY country (including this one) is true?
How about this for any idea.....What really is TRUE?
Isn't the term TRUE all from perspective anyways???
:lol: