Per haps they should nuke it.

[arcadian]

The Federal government experimented with all sorts of peaceful uses for nuclear weapons in the 1950s and 1960s. Several of the projects involved nuclear weapons in mining operations. The only thing is that it may not be effective or it might make matters worse. But if they could seal the well with a nuke I think that may be the only viable option.

http://www.onepetro.org/mslib/servlet/onepetropreview?id=00001273&soc=SPE

Project Gasbuggy was instituted to design, conduct and evaluate a nuclear fracturing experiment and it is a joint undertaking by the United States Atomic Energy Commission; Bureau of Mines, U. S. Dept. of the Interior; the U. of California Lawrence Radiation Laboratory at Livermore; and El Paso Natural Gas Co. The experiment is designed for the detonation of a 10-kiloton fission explosive at a depth of 4,150 ft to evaluate the stimulative erect on gas production from the Pictured Cliffs formation in the San Juan Basin, N. M.

Nuclear-explosive stimulation of natural gas reservoirs is technically feasible; but only from analysis of production data obtained by this and future experiments can the economics be determined. Favorable results from Project Gasbuggy could pave the way for substantially increased recovery from many known but low-productivity hydrocarbon reservoirs.

[MadHound]

1. The ultimate "Hold muh beer and watch this!" solution.

Sorry, but nuking the hole shut could radically backfire, depending on the geological nature of the area around the leak. It could shut it, it could blow it wide open, and frankly nobody has enough information on the area to truly make an informed decision.

Not to mention the problems with fallout, radiation, and what the effect of a nuke would have on the surrounding area.

We all long for that one shot wonder that will miraculously solve this problem, but until the relief well is drilled, there isn't a magic fix. Employing a nuke could easily cause more problems than it solves.

[Poll_Blind]

2. Among all the other problems with that, there is slowly coming out the possibility that...

...there are fractures in the rock and erosion of the well bore very deep down. That would mean, and I want to underscore that it's speculation at this point mostly based on the failure of the "kill shot" with the heavy drilling mud, that even a small nuclear detonation would not make this better and could make it biblically worse.

PB

[cliffordu]

5. Planet killer.

Thanks for all the fish.

[XemaSab]

3. Atoms for Peace

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIK7084f8FM

[cliffordu]

4. That's right. Nuke it from space. Just to make sure.

[FLPanhandle]

6. And we might end up with radioactive oil washing up on our shores

No thanks.

[arcadian]

7. Yeah.

I'm just throwing it out there for discussion. :hi:

[Ichingcarpenter]

8. By collapsing it underwater you risk a massive Tsunami

thus moving a massive wave radioactive material from the blast to the shorelines.

It might be possible on dry land to stop a blowout with a nuke by collapsing it
but scientist think that the Tsunami scenario is possible at this depth

[MindPilot]

9. Why does that idea make me think of the exploding whale?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Vmnq5dBF7Y


I can envision radioactive globs of oil in Orlando and hot saltwater rain in Las Vegas.

[Baclava]

10. Regular oil isn't good enough, you want radioactive oil on the beach?

Oh no

no no no



What could possibly go wrong

[yella_dawg]

11. This idea is horribly insane.

I don't understand why it keeps popping up over and over with greater and greater support. It's completely fucking insane. It can't possibly work. Hitting things with hammers may work some of the time. But its not a good way to wipe the sweat off your brow. A nuke turns this from a century long disaster into a forever disaster. Lousy trade-off.