Am I alone in thinking this may not be a good idea?:

[Jackpine Radical]

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2010/BP_nuclear-option.pdf

June 13, 2010--It is appearing increasingly likely that recourse to use
of a peaceful nuclear explosive, may become the only available option
to seal the damaged BP well in the Gulf of Mexico, 41 miles off our
coast.
Such a measure can be carried out with virtually zero danger of
radioactive release, according to experts including Milo Nordyke, a
former chief scientist on the U.S. Operation Plowshare program for
peaceful use of nuclear explosives.
A 10- to 15-kiloton nuclear device would be placed within 20 to
30 feet of the well bore at a depth below 6,000 feet, where no danger
of wave formation from deformation of the sea floor could occur. The
explosion would produce a shock wave that would push rock
horizontally against the well bore, sealing it shut. That would close
the hole, well below the probable cracks that may exist in the upper
1,200-foot layer of mud and soft rock. In a worst case scenario in
which the well failed to seal, the minimal amount of radioactive
material that might escape up the well would be so diluted upon
mixing with sea water as to render it harmless. Smaller nuclear
devices, carried by projectiles of a classified nature which could be
injected directly down the well bore, are also possible.
Whether or not it becomes necessary to use such a device, it is
urgent that preparations be made now for such an eventuality. There
is growing evidence that the well is releasing oil at a rate of 90,000
barrels per day or greater, while the likelihood of success of the relief
wells has been called into question. Stratigraphic studies, design and
building of the device, and preparations for deployment all take time,
time which has been lost by the Administration policy of denial.
Expertise in these matters resides among specialists at the Lawrence
Livermore and Los Alamos national laboratories.

[WeDidIt]

1. I see only one way that this would actually be used

IF the relief well hits the mark and the well still cannot be killed, then this will definitely be used.

[GodlessBiker]

2. The Law of Unintended Consequences should be consulted here.

The law of unintended consequences is an adage or idiom that warns that an intervention in a complex system invariably creates unanticipated and often undesirable outcomes.

[WCGreen]

39. How about just reading Dr. Suess's Cat in the Hat....

[leeroysphitz]

46. What is so complex about using a nuclear device to alter the Earth's crust

to block a a 90,000 barrel a day gusher spewing from an ancient geological formation a mile below the surface of the ocean?

[GodlessBiker]

47. Could be worse. Could be raining.

[Frustratedlady]

3. Good Lord. What about all the methane and the rumored methane pocket?

Boys and their toys.

Without even reading all of the article, I say NO! If you are going to err, err on the side of caution.

[dipsydoodle]

19. What methane pocket ?

That field is apparently 90% what you call LPG, aka methane, and 10% oil. Hardly a pocket. The methane is also in its solid state as a hydrate more or less lining the sea floor.

[Turbineguy]

4. On the other hand

if you open the hole big enough, the formation permeability may not be great enough to sustain pressure and the seawater will act to stop the flow.


















Eventually.

[hedgehog]

5. Or maybe the explosion blows the top off the entire oil dome?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

6. You're not alone.

There are all sorts of people actually taking this idea seriously.

[notesdev]

7. No you're not alone

I've been reading quite a bit about this and it appears that the bottom line is:

a) in order to deploy a nuke to stop the well, the relief wells need to be drilled anyway, which may provide for a less explosive solution; and

b) the composition of the rock strata underneath the GOM is not similar to that of the places where the Russians successfully used this technique, and attempting to nuke it may just make matters worse by forcing the oil pressure out in new directions that can't be relieved with the relief wells now underway.

[NightWatcher]

8. this needs to remain a horrible, scary, untollerable move

The minute that we begin to see legit merit with detonating a nuke below ground where we have already plunged a wound into the Earth, we have lost. We have already broken the planet by causing these ruptures within the well casing. I'm afraid a greater shock to the fragile area, might unleash a volcano of oil with rates of gush at 50- 200x's greater flow than today with NO way of ever stopping it before the reserve runs dry.

[Warpy]

What it would most likely do

is just create a crater with even more seabed fractures for the oil to come through. The only advantage we have now is that the narrowness of the drill pipe is reducing the amount of oil rushing through it. A nuke would also wreck the two pressure relief wells in progress, not a good idea.

Likely, the best option is multiple pressure relief wells drilled with all the safety rules BP ignored in place. Two is not going to do it. Chances are it will take ten or more.

The military has thousands of nukes and feels frustrated at not making the big firecrackers go bang. Likely trying it in the Gulf would cause more of a disaster than now exists.

[mopinko]

37. to say nothing of shaking up the gagillion other wells

there are currently a couple thousand oil wells in the gulf. i'm thinking a man made earthquake would fit neatly in the category of bad things.

[havocmom]

9. You are NOT alone. You are in damned fine company

http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/watch?v=lfpqX0pAHmc&feature=related

Seems one of the world's great scientist agrees, and states most other bright scientists agree the idea of nuking the well is folly

[gratuitous]

10. Of course it's a bad idea

But about all we seem to have left is prayer and blowing shit up. What else are we good at anymore?

[havocmom]

13. Prayer and blowing shit up. Wasn't that a scene from a Planet of the Apes movie?

Yep, that is what we seem to be left with. Oh, and delusional thinking. That's pretty big right now too.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

11. Not alone. Not in the least.

It's a terrifying possibility which could lead to even further destruction.

I'm just hoping the relief wells work, but the more I see of this being tossed about the more I realize there is a real chance they may not. If they don't, what then?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

12. You are NOT alone.

good god. Don't do it. Please. :scary:

[Dappleganger]

14. This entire thing scares the crap out of me.

And I'm a dumbass when it comes to science. Too many unknowns for my comfort, yet at the same time there has to be an answer somewhere in all of this. Sometimes the answer may hurt for awhile but it also will serve the greater good. It's not the road I wanted to see us go down at all but if that's the best one yet...do we have credible data to support using nukes at that level (from the Russians, perhaps?)?

[zipplewrath]

15. A dud

I suspect that this won't be attempted, mostly because of the dud syndrome. i.e. you put the warhead 6000 feet down and now it DOESN'T detonate. Now you've got a very leaky well, and live nuclear warhead, and no one will work above it because they're afraid it will go off.

[gateley]

16. They must be getting nervous in order to even consider this.

And, laying the groundwork to avoid protest?

"Such a measure can be carried out with virtually zero danger of radioactive release..."

A month ago it was No Way! Michio Kaku essentially said it wasn't even worth considering it was so crazy.

[dipsydoodle]

20. I don't actually believe

it is being considered.

[TZ]

25. Yep. But it was posted on teh internets, it must be TRUE!

I wish people were a lot less gullible.:banghead:

[gateley]

36. Yeah, I'll believe it when I see it. nt

[Child_Of_Isis]

21. "Such a measure can be carried out with virtually zero danger of radioactive release..."

Oh yeah, and we are all really buying this, right?

Nobody believes anything that comes out of their mouths anymore.

Who is going to be in charge of the nuking? BP? Even if this was a good idea, you can bet it would be done half assed & in a way that would cause even further damage.

[hayu_lol]

30. Consideration of the many 'fractures' in the rock around the well...

has to be thought about. Also, the huge 'methane bubble' could be ignited by such a blast far underground. More fracturing of the bottom allowing more or even all the oil held under pressure to immediately leak or flow into the water.

That would be worst case I would think.

BP shot craps with the rules already in place by not paying attention to the rules/safety factors. What we have as a result is horrific.

Don't like the use of nukes even being contemplated, not at this time at least. Were that 'methane bubble' to actually exist, the resulting fireball could, possibly, extinguish life on the Gulf as we have known it.

It might have been the lack of centralizers that created this entire mess. The job of installation would only have taken 10 hours.

Nukes, as a solution, would be a bad idea in my opinion(not a scientist).

Maybe we should close off the Gulf, drain the water out, and then fix the leaks. Impossible job of course.

We don't KNOW what the effects of a nuke explosion will do. Until we know precisely, we should not use one or more.

[TZ]

17. This is not going to happen

Despite what you think, this administration has nobel winning scientists working for them (Dept of Energy). Not whackjob Dr. Googles who beleive everything they read on teh internets.

[Jackpine Radical]

45. You seem to be quite well-informed on what I think.

And I may be a whackjob, but my doctorate isn't in Google.

[Swamp Rat]

18. Great idea!!!

If one wants to kill all of us here in New Orleans.

[Taverner]

22. Um, what if this disrupts a fault line?

And I don't think I'm too crazy thinking this

[End Of The Road]

23. laurence hecht is a nutjob. nt

[KamaAina]

24. Remember when "Nuke the Whales" was parody?

:scared: :scared: :scared:

[TZ]

26. I thought you were smarter than to believe tripe like this..

x(

[KamaAina]

31. I figured it was kind of tinfoil-hattish

but it fits in with my absurdist aesthetic to think of that old bumper sticker coming to life.

[pscot]

27. Got a plumbing problem?

Just flush an M80 down the toilette. You will be amazed at the result.:rofl:

[Sebastian Doyle]

28. I could almost see the idea of some sort of bomb as an absolute last resort measure

But nuclear for fucks sake??? Yeah, let's add a nice big bucket of radioactivity into the biggest man-made fucking environmental disaster in history. :nuke:

OUT.OF.THE.FUCKING.QUESTION. :scared:

[struggle4progress]

29. It's a stupid idea: it risks fracturing the reservoir and uncontrolled release

[nadinbrzezinski]

32. Relief well, relief well, relief well

no nuke needed, no nuke needed, no nuke needed.

This is the I WANT IT NOW mentality Jack... serious.

They will solve this one the SAME WAY they have done every other incident of this nature since we started doing this... RELIEF WELL. The best I can recommend to you is PATIENCE.

Oh and incidentally, a nuke, due to the need to drill anyway, WOULD TAKE JUST AS LONG, and the risks (law of unintended consequences) are very high thank you. As is ENOUGH methane is already escaping. Substrate fracturing... oy...

[backscatter712]

33. A nuke could very well make things worse.

Sure, you'd glass the top layers of the seabed, and that might seal the gusher, for a while.

Then, as the glass layer settles, it'll crack, and oil will flow through the cracks.

At that point, the oil flow will not only be unstoppable, but also radioactive.

Really, the best long-term solution is the relief wells. Let's hope they don't miss and have to retry 20 times to get it right.

[stray cat]

34. I think this idea was nixed long ago because it is unlikely to work at ocean depths

it only is feasible above ground - you can get an explosion under water but it was decided it would likely do more harm than good

[walldude]

35. Zero danger of radioactive release?

When you set off an atomic bomb? Yeah.. I'm buying that one :eyes:

[JerseygirlCT]

38. Yeah. I mean, I'm no geologist or engineer, but the thought

is really scary.

[agent46]

40. Nuke the fissures in the ocean floor?

What could possibly go wrong?
:shrug:

[TexasObserver]

41. I don't think it will happen.

First, there's so many things that can go wrong.

Second, even if it goes right, there's no telling want radiation in the ocean might do.

Third, it makes the use of such weapons too acceptable.

Fourth, a relief well remains the only likely method of truly fixing the problem.

[Turborama]

42. If all else fails, throw our biggest toy at it and see what happens

...seems to be a common attitude these days. Where does it come from? Hollywood movies?

I have to say that I think it is probably the most ridiculous, idiotic and irresponsible idea I have ever heard.

(edited to add idiotic)

[damntexdem]

43. As I understand it, the creation of a lasting seal is doubtful.

There is the possibility that the "bubble" created by the explosion could collapse.

And there is the further risk of cracking open the pool of oil much more widely, greatly increasing the gushing of oil into the Gulf.

[hootinholler]

44. No n/t

[Codeine]

48. That story is pretty packed with the whackadoo.

"The urgent need for preparing the nuclear option thus
provides one more reason why BP must be expropriated under
national security emergency measures, its records seized, and its top
executives jailed and held for trial on crimes including the criminally
negligent homicide in the death of 11 oil rig workers. That will require
the removal of the British tool presently occupying the master
bedroom at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

The intentional suppression of that just described economic
future has been the central feature of British empire policy over at
least the past half century. The specifically stated intention of leading
British figures, including Prince Philip, the late Lord Bertrand
Russell, and former H.G. Wells collaborator Julian Huxley, has been
to carry out a drastic reduction in human population, to less than 2
billion persons."

Also some abiotic oil nonsense. I'm fairly sure we can dismiss anything this site has to say with little lost.