So if the relief well fails would you support the nuclear option?

[Jack_DeLeon]

Are there any other ideas in the pipeline to stop this oil from gushing out if the "relief well" plan fails?

If the only other option is to keep letting the oil pour out into the gulf would you support using a nuclear bomb to seal off the well?

The nuclear bomb idea comes from the Russians who claimed during soviet times it was used on a few occasions. There is a video I saw that claims it was used to stop a natural gas leak.

The idea is that a hole is drilled way deep parallel to the leaking well, a nuclear bomb is sent and it is set then concrete is poured in over. The idea is that the heat and pressure will blow material over the leaking well and seal it shut.

[CoffeeCat]

1. For a minute there...

...when you said, "nuclear option" I thought you meant that Republicans were suggesting that
they filibuster the oil spill--in an effort to stop it.

They ARE that stupid, but after reading your post I understand that this is not what you meant.

;)

[doc03]

2. I don't know if we should follow the example

of the people that gave us Chernobyl.

[TexasObserver]

3. No. I'd support another relief well. And another.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

4. the bed may be unstable

didn't someone say plumes were coming out of the sea bed

[Jack_DeLeon]

7. You wouldnt be setting this off on the surface of the sea floor.

It would have to deep under it, they would have to try to set it below wherever in the well the oil is leaking out from the sides.

[johnaries]

5. NO. It makes no sense. There is no logical reason to believe that it would work.

However, there is every logical reason to believe that it would only make the problem worse. And I don't care what the Russians claim. Even if they were successful in the past, this is a totally different scenario with totally different parameters. A nuclear explosion would not only provide problems of it's own, but the liklihood is that it would collapse the well and only make the problem worse. There is absolutely no reason to believe that it would "seal" the well. The opposite would be the more likely result.

[Fumesucker]

6. No, we should allow the entire reservoir to leak out into the GoM..

It's only a couple of billion barrels or so, how bad could that be? A drop in the ocean, to coin a phrase.

I doubt the oil would contaminate things any further than say, Greenland or thereabouts..

[Jack_DeLeon]

9. Seriously?

If that is seriously your opinion on it, why wouldnt you try sealing off the well with a nuclear blast? Do you think an underground and underwater smaller scale nuclear blast is worse for the environment than allowing billions of gallons of oil into the gulf?

[Fumesucker]

13. Ever heard of Poe's Law?

It's becoming one of my favorites..

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe's_Law

[Jack_DeLeon]

21. Nope...

never heard of Poe's Law...
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe%5C%27s_Law

But I did figure out you put the link wrong and I fixed it.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe%27s_Law

yeah pretty interesting, thanks for the knowledge.

[pinboy3niner]

29. LOL

Hadn't heard of it, but got educated thanks to you and your replier. It could have qualified for a DUzy.:rofl:

[Egnever]

32. I recced this thread just for this reply

hadn't heard of Poes law but I like it!

[notadmblnd]

8. And what if it just opens it up bigger?

or what if it takes a few states with it? I mean I could live without Fla, La, Miss, Ala and Texas. But, I don't know how many other people feel that way?

[Jack_DeLeon]

11. Well like I said what if the only alternative is to let the oil keep pouring out...

unabated then what is there to lose? If it makes a bigger hole well atleast all that oil would pour out faster and make it run out quicker.

[notadmblnd]

16. I'd still have to say no. At some point the well will stop producing

if it gets to the point that there is nothing we can do outside of nuking it. Then I would opt for putting everything we have into capturing as much as we can until the pressure subsides and the well stops gushing.

[newspeak]

49. I believe Rachel had a physicist on her show

who explained why you cannot nuke it. I believe he said something about the bed completely collapsing causing even more devastation, not to mention the radiation exposure.

[Duer 157099]

10. NO. Not under any circumstances

The devil you know is better than the devil you don't know. Or something like that.

Absolutely no, no way, no how.

[Lilith Velkor]

12. No.

[pinboy3niner]

14. No!!!!!!! Recklessness is what got us into this crisis.

I realize that you are only asking a question that has been raised, not giving your opinion. But would you care to express your opinion in the thread for the benefit of those who might mistake your intent?

[Jack_DeLeon]

18. My opinion is that if there litterly is no other option to stop this then yes try it...

I know they are trying a relief well now, what I havent heard is what other options are there after that if it doesnt work.

I've heard about the nuclear bomb thing before, I didnt know how it worked and thought it was stupid. Then I read up about how it is way similar to how underground tests are done, when done right the it shouldnt breach the surface and the material is contained underground. So to me the idea seems feesible depending on the conditions of the surrounding rock and such. I'm no expert on that so I cant talk about how well it would work in this situation. I would however like to think that the people in charge of this country have experts and that if there is literally no other options but to let oil keep pouring out into the gulf that someone would atleast work up how likely or unlikely this would be to work.

[Oregone]

23. A controlled blast doesn't have to be "reckless"

[pinboy3niner]

27. Without enough experience to assure a positive result w/o unintended consequences...

...it would be reckless.

[Oregone]

33. Then so would doing anything under 1 mile of water

[pinboy3niner]

34. The risks inherent in a nuclear blast hardly compare to other options nt

[TheKentuckian]

15. Depends on the results of simulations and the idea and data being peer reviewed

With accurate data and the correct tools we should be able to reasonably predict the outcomes and statistical likelihood of success and failure of this and any other proposals.

We then can do an assessment of relative risk and reward of all the possibilities including doing nothing and see what is what.

[Jack_DeLeon]

19. Sounds good to me.

I would like to think that our government has some people atleast open minded enough to be doing some work on this scenario instead of just saying "nah thats stupid" and then not doing anything at all. Then again this is the government I'm talking about and look at how long this disaster has been going on for.

[Nikki Stone1]

17. If it blows up BP, then yes.

:)

[lonestarnot]

20. Fuck no, simply nuts. I don't care what the Russians did.

[Oregone]

22. Yes. They should of canned the filibuster long before the health insurance reform debacle

[PSPS]

24. Aw, geez. Not this shit again.

I regret to inform you that things you see in the movies aren't real.

[Hekate]

25. Not just no, but hell no. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. This is not a movie

they will do this the same way they have stopped every other accident... a RELIEF WELL... they just TAKE TIME...

Oy... and just because the Soviets say they did it, don't mean they did.

[warren pease]

45. Sure it is...

Starring Harrison Ford as a laid-off thermonuclear warhead designer out to find peaceful uses for the US nuclear arsenal, and Helen Mirren as his long-suffering but dedicated wife.

Co-starring Dennis Leary as Ford's snarky but dedicated collaborator.

And featuring Queen Latifah as Leary's quirky but dedicated girlfriend.

With guest appearances by Tony Hayward (playing hisseff) and Bill Paxton as the beleaguered but dedicated US president.

OR something like that...


wp

[nadinbrzezinski]

50. I got ... screen writing softare

you are almost inspiring me...

FADE IN:

Josh Carmichael looks down on the video monitor and turns to the President of the United States.

Josh Carmichael

"Ma'am (yes it has to be a woman now), we can solve this in a jiffy. The N-65 Warhead was designed just for this."

President Ybanez (Female AND Hispanic)

"Go on."

Josh Carmichael

"Lower it ten thousand feet into the shaft and explode it..."

Oy...

[Swamp Rat]

28. I speak for the people of New Orleans when I say, HELL FUCKING NO!!!!

And I'm sure folks in Waveland, Ocean Springs, Biloxi, et al. don't want to be irradiated either, or be hit by a tsunami.

[Petrushka]

30. No . . . especially because the Russians advocate it. Photos of one Soviet [**uh**] "remedy" --->

http://static.atlasobscura.com/place/the-gates-of-hell

[Turborama]

36. Video link from that site...

Here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEjoga1yrn0

If all else fails, throw our biggest toy at it.

Possibly the most ridiculous and idiotic idea I've ever heard.

[Petrushka]

37. Thanks for the link.

:hi:

[ribrepin]

31. Hell no

I would support enclosing the gulf. I don't know how we would do it. I think that would be the only option until this baby empties out.

[Dr.Phool]

35. Absolutely fucking NOT!!!

Radiation would destroy the gulf for generations to come.

Point two. A nuke could destroy the casing on the wellfield, and make matters worse.

Those wacky Russians. Always joking, trying to get us to nuke ourselves. Bush might have fallen for it. I think (hope) Obama is a little smarter than that.

[Warren DeMontague]

38. I don't think you can even have a rational discussion about it without solid, quantifiable data

On the risks and expected results.

It should go without saying that a video some dude posted on youtube does not constitute solid data.

[PJPhreak]

39. Ok,Here is the skinny on this VERY Stupid Idea...

First it won't work,Not At All

Why?

The USSR used this 5 times to shut in Natural Gas wells that were drilled in CLAY Formations.

It worked 4 times...the fifth time created a Large Crater that looks like a Gigungus Eternal Flame...There is vid of this on Youtube

The GOM/BP Gusher is located in a large Shale/Sandstone Formation.

Drill a hole in a block of Clay and then hit it with a Hammer...clay deforms and hole Closes.

Drill a hole in Shale/Sandstone then hit it with a Hammer...Shale/Sandstone SHATTERS!!

How Many leaks ya'll want in the Bottom of the Gulf??

STUPID,STUPID,STUPID Idea on Sooooooo many Levels.

This has been discussed on "The Oil Drum" Message Fourm to a great extent,The Consensus...IT WONT WORK!! Period,nada,nich,never ever

Don't Even Think It...Much Less Do It!!!

[Petrushka]

40. "There is a video I saw that claims it was used to stop a natural gas leak." ??

Is this the video? ---> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpPNQoTlacU

If so, I don't see how it addresses the problem of an oil well deep underwater.

[TheWebHead]

41. I think it's an option

I think the estimates for the well to run dry range over 1 year, so I say give it a shot if neither relief wells nor the cap can stop it in the former or contain 90% in the latter. Remember the oil reservoir is nearly 15,000 ft under the ocean surface, so if you drill down 5,000ft with a controlled explosion the area impacted would be well above the reservoir... You just need to shift enough earth to plug the leaking well. The Russian situations were with gas wells and the example I saw was a land leak, not 5,000 ft under the sea. It wouldn't hurt to begin drilling a hole down in preparation for such an attempt before we learn if the relief wells would work.

[PJPhreak]

42. Please see my post above.

No.

Just Fricking NO!

[TheWebHead]

43. former nuclear submarine officer op-ed for conventional explosion in Monday's NYT

says nuclear would be overkill

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/22/opinion/22Brownfield.html

At best, a conventional demolition would seal the leaking well completely and permanently without damaging the oil reservoir. At worst, oil might seep through a tortuous flow-path that would complicate long-term cleanup efforts. But given the size and makeup of the geological structures between the seabed and the reservoir, it’s virtually inconceivable that an explosive could blast a bigger hole than already exists and release even more oil.

The task force could prepare for demolition without forgoing the current efforts to drill relief wells. And even if the ongoing efforts succeed and a demolition proves unnecessary, the non-nuclear option would give President Obama an ace in the hole and a clear signal that he’s in charge — not BP.

[Scuba]

44. No, no, no, no and no ....

...there are several potential outcomes, amont them...

A nuke could stop the leak and do no other damage. I'm no expert, but this looks very unlikely.

A nuke could stop the leak, but cause radioactivity and/or other problems. Perhaps slightly more likely.

A nuke could make the leak worse, but cause no other problems. A little more likely, perhaps?

A nuke could make the leak worse and cause radioactivity and/or other problems. Again, I'm no expert, but this seems most probable to me.

A nuke will absolve BP of any blame from that moment forward, and transfer it to the US Government (read: Taxpayers). Looks like a certainty to me.

[warren pease]

46. Only if Cheney and Hayward are strapped to the nuke. n/t

[MilesColtrane]

47. Fuck no.

[Ganja Ninja]

48. It's just not suitable for this geology.

There's already talk of the sea floor rupturing and releasing a huge gas bubble that is forming in the upper rock strata around the well head. Maybe a combination of several relief wells and conventional explosives would work. That is if there's still time left to do anything.