PDA

View Full Version : Nuke the oil leak.




JoshLowry
05-04-2010, 12:37 PM
As BP prepares to lower a four-story, 70-ton dome (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/us/04spill.html?ref=us) over the oil gusher under the Gulf of Mexico, the Russians — the world’s biggest oil producers — have some advice for their American counterparts: nuke it.

Komsomoloskaya Pravda, the best-selling Russian daily, reports (http://www.kp.ru/daily/24482/640124/) 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.

http://trueslant.com/juliaioffe/2010/05/04/nuke-that-slick/




Pretty interesting idea. I think it's worth a shot if this dome doesn't work.

Fox McCloud
05-04-2010, 12:49 PM
http://trueslant.com/juliaioffe/2010/05/04/nuke-that-slick/




Pretty interesting idea. I think it's worth a shot if this dome doesn't work.

given our government's incompetence, I wouldn't be surprised if they blew open a crack/hole 10 times larger than the current one.

JoshLowry
05-04-2010, 12:50 PM
No kidding.

Ve should hire ze Russians!

Reason
05-04-2010, 12:53 PM
Can't wait for faux to start lobbying for this idea.

dr. hfn
05-04-2010, 12:54 PM
sweet!

specsaregood
05-04-2010, 12:54 PM
given our government's incompetence, I wouldn't be surprised if they blew open a crack/hole 10 times larger than the current one.

Exactly. Make it so the whole damn oil deposit comes up at once...

Sarge
05-04-2010, 12:54 PM
And the resulting radioactive contamination to the gulf shrimp, oysters and other seafood will be?

What about the high gas pressure that burned the rig when they detonate? Does it blow up bigger than expected?

Not an argument but, asking as we don't know where they used nukes and no discussion if this was in areas rich in sea life.

The picture they used to convey that idea does not covey a good ending. I am not saying it might not come down to that but, knowing the great job our govt. does on everything, I wouldn't want to be near the gulf if and when they try that.

Sarge
05-04-2010, 12:55 PM
Laughing. You all had the same reactions.

Brian4Liberty
05-04-2010, 12:57 PM
given our government's incompetence, I wouldn't be surprised if they blew open a crack/hole 10 times larger than the current one.

The idea of a nuke (or explosive) came up pretty early. Seems like it could work. Drill a parallel shaft, and detonate it there. As you just pointed out, I wonder if there is a risk of creating a bigger crack/hole down to that pressurized oil cavity...

aravoth
05-04-2010, 01:00 PM
the pocket is filled with natural gas as well as oil. Nuking wouldn't be a good idea I think.

JoshLowry
05-04-2010, 01:01 PM
And the resulting radioactive contamination to the gulf shrimp, oysters and other seafood will be?

The picture they used to convey that idea does not covey a good ending.

The article says Russia used about a 20-25 kiloton nuke.

Play with this graph here and center it over the Gulf of Mexico leak off the coast of Louisiana: http://www.carloslabs.com/projects/200712B/GroundZero.html

Use the FatMan nuke.

The one in the photo of the article is the Umbrella nuke. It was 8 kilotons and placed only 150 ft underwater. I think it looks much more powerful as least on the nuclear scale than it really is.

tmosley
05-04-2010, 01:02 PM
The radiation from an underwater nuke disperses very quickly. It's only a problem on land where radioactive particles settle and stay there in high concentrations for a long period of time. Hell, people moved right back into Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and only had the problem of higher cancer rates, and that was about the worst o all possible scenarios. Cancer in shrimp isn't really a big deal. There won't be any radioactivity by the time it makes it to your plate.

Ninja Homer
05-04-2010, 01:03 PM
I think that was many people's first idea on how to stop the leak. It's interesting to see that Russia has actually done it though.

I'm sure BP is looking at profit/loss ratios for all possible solutions, and not properly taking into account how much they could be paying for environmental cleanup and lawsuits. Or maybe they have, and they're just putting it all on black.

It seems like there would be lots of solutions, but they all involve destroying everything they've put into this well so far, except for the solution they are trying now. BP doesn't give a shit about the environment, it's all about profit.

The DOD just approved the use of 11500 National Guard members to help in the cleanup effort, paid for by the federal government. http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/05/04/dod-approves-more-resources-for-oil-spill/?test=latestnews Why the hell isn't BP paying for that? Send them a damn bill!! Just 2 days ago, Obama said, "BP is responsible for this leak. BP will be paying the bill." WTF!! Send them the bill!!

Seafood prices are supposed to be going up... BP should cover that!!

There's probably a million possible lawsuits, and BP probably thinks they'll get off free on them, and they probably will get off free on most of them. But until they start seeing these potential costs, they're going to try to do this as cost effectively as possible, environment be damned.

Fox McCloud
05-04-2010, 01:13 PM
also, if they really wanted to completely avoid the radiation problem, they could just go with a hydrogen bomb (not sure if this works underwater or not though, haven't done the research), as it produces less radiation.

then too, it seems like overkill....and well, with all that natural gas down there, I'd hate to know what would happen if it happened to ignite.

tmosley
05-04-2010, 01:16 PM
also, if they really wanted to completely avoid the radiation problem, they could just go with a hydrogen bomb (not sure if this works underwater or not though, haven't done the research), as it produces less radiation.

then too, it seems like overkill....and well, with all that natural gas down there, I'd hate to know what would happen if it happened to ignite.

Not really--hydrogen bombs produce 3x the radiation of a Uranium bomb (because they have fission bombs as triggers)--it's just the explosive force is much greater, so it is dispersed over a wider area. The ocean will disperse the radiation by itself.

BTW, they do work underwater, and quite well. There are some great pictures from the Bikini atoll tests--giant wall of water behind a carrier.

JoshLowry
05-04-2010, 01:20 PM
also, if they really wanted to completely avoid the radiation problem, they could just go with a hydrogen bomb (not sure if this works underwater or not though, haven't done the research), as it produces less radiation.

then too, it seems like overkill....and well, with all that natural gas down there, I'd hate to know what would happen if it happened to ignite.

Would it even be able to ignite? It needs oxygen to combust.

If the nuke went off deep enough, then there might not be a fireball.

They set off a 9 kiloton nuke (the wahoo nuke) at 500 feet as oppposed to 150 feet and there was little evidence of a fireball.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwater_explosion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Hardtack

I just find the idea interesting, I'm not trying to commit environmental suicide.

Old Ducker
05-04-2010, 01:22 PM
That's a cool article. I was unaware that the Soviets used nukes to create underground spaces.

In the 1950's, physicist and fission bomb designer Theodore Taylor proposed using shaped fission bombs to create a nationwide network of tunnels through which high speed trains would run under vacuum. This was during the infancy of jet travel, which he thought was very inefficent.

eok321
05-04-2010, 01:23 PM
Russia is advising America to Nuke itself and you guys reckon its not a bad idea:eek:

JoshLowry
05-04-2010, 01:24 PM
Russia is advising America to Nuke itself and you guys reckon its not a bad idea:eek:

We should preemptively strike our capital.

nandnor
05-04-2010, 01:25 PM
nvm

specsaregood
05-04-2010, 01:46 PM
Would it even be able to ignite? It needs oxygen to combust.

I guess it depends on if the nuke would seperate that H2O bond. Lots of oxygen available then. :)

Old Ducker
05-04-2010, 01:56 PM
We should preemptively strike our capital.

I'm tempted to add that to my signature. :p

Carole
05-04-2010, 01:58 PM
Pour tons of New Dawn on the leak. :D

After using a laser beam to melt the pipe and seal it??

Nukes are so 50's.

Bruno
05-04-2010, 02:00 PM
Pour tons of New Dawn on the leak. :D


"It's Palmolive. You're soaking in it." :D

Carole
05-04-2010, 02:02 PM
:D
New Dawn :D

nandnor
05-04-2010, 02:12 PM
nvm

tangent4ronpaul
05-05-2010, 06:10 AM
Kind of gives new meaning to the concept of fishing with dynamite...

Here's a map of oil rigs and pipelines in the region. There are over 6,000 of them - some abandoned, some active. My main thought is that the blast pressure could break other wells cause multiple additional spills.

http://www.cccarto.com/platforms/platforms1.pdf

-t

specsaregood
05-05-2010, 06:35 AM
and the initial pressure blast that creates the critical mass shouldnt need any extra oxygen too since its in a closed bomb.
My comment was in regards to igniting the natural gas down there, not the bomb itself.

free1
05-05-2010, 06:39 AM
Just reported that one of the valves has closed so there is less leaking.