Nuking the oil spill: nuclear option being considered?

[Christa]

Before you attack the messenger, please read the full article.


Obama is bringing in nuclear experts to address the spill.

Nuking the oil spill: nuclear option being considered?

At 5,000 feet below water, battling the low temperature and high pressure is not easy. The pressure of the oil was so high that the BOP couldn't prevent the explosion- and the resultant spill-when eleven people died on 20 April. Also the leak appears to be more than the 5,000 barrels of oil a day estimated earlier, now analysts say the spill was about 13m litres a day with oil plumes more than 10 miles long discovered. As it could only get worse, now is the time to consider the option on a nuclear explosion:

/snip

Truth is that Russia has used it at least five times starting with a blast near Bukhara Uzbekistan in 1966. Then a 120 meter tall flame, fuelled by massive natural gas was blazing for three years with deafening sound. When all efforts to contain the flame in the desert failed, a 30 kiloton atom bomb was used. The explosion did seal the well-it worked displacing tonnes of rock over the spill thus cutting it.

Some people fear that a nuclear explosion would set the oil spill on fire. But Soviet Russia has used subterranean nuclear blasts as much as 169 times and the number would add up to more than 1,000 if all the tests by different countries are taken into account. And since the explosion would be underwater and in the absence of oxygen there is no chance of the well burning up. But yes, an explosion close to the surface can contaminate the water due to radioactivity but this spill warrants an explosion underground. The oil is beneath the rock and since there is no air in an underground nuclear explosion, the energy released would overheat and melt the surrounding rock, thus shutting the spill.

So that takes us to the next criticism-possible effects on the flora, particularly the phytoplankton and the marine organisms including fishes. But the spill itself, if unchecked, could cause more damage than the results of the explosion. Further, many tests have been carried underwater and no serious damage has been reported. Another blocker for the nuke option is that it would have to be government operated and a final solution. This goes against capitalism. There is much more money to be made by funding cleaning operations which have no end in sight. As dire times call for drastic steps, the better option is a nuclear explosion or be prepared to see carcass of innocent animals washed ashore.

http://www.oil-price.net/en/articles/nukes-to-stop-the-oil-gusher.php

Thoughts?

[dipsydoodle]

1. Did Russia

have the methane hydrate layer with which to contend ?

[pretzel4gore]

2. The USSR was not responsible for the Cold War- we were

the 'iron curtain' put up after WW2 was put up by US, not the USSR (though they feared the nuklear bombs we thretened them with, which forced the Red Army to stay as nearby as possible to our troops, iow forced them to 'occupy eastern europe when they couldn't afford it and had signed treaties, ie Yalta, that let them go home and a share in postwar reconstruction money)
The pigmedia has been lying about everything since the old days ('history channel' has a 'vietnam war' program that covers the rise of Ho Chi Minh and the 'gulf of tonkin attack'(!) ...saying the USSR was so stupid as to nuke oil leaks just typifies how stupid the pigs think we are

[jwirr]

3. "thus shutting the spill" or opening it further? Do we know for sure that it

will close the hole? I do not like this idea because I grew up learning to put my head under the desk. What do we know about the radiation? What a mess we have made for ourselves. And the people of that area want to continue drilling. How do they feel about nukes?

[nealmhughes]

4. One consideration I fail to note is that of the immense pressure at 5000 feet underwater.

One is forced to ask how a bomb designed for air burst or subterranean could withstand these pressures without simply imploding the bomb before it reached desired depth.

Why would a device need to be specifically nuclear or thermonuclear to produce an explosion needed to seal the complex? Once again, the pressures would destroy any device not vented or pressurized to meet the ocean depth.


Short of sending any device down in a bathysphere would be rather useless, I feel.

[salguine]

9. They make submarines that withstand the pressure. They can easily make a bomb to withstand it.

[Bitwit1234]

5. So and what in the devil would that do to the wildlife

they would never be able to be harvested for 200 years. And what would the radio active material do to the shores it washed up on.

[Jennicut]

6. Wasn't the Russians doing this on underground gas wells? I would think being under 5000 feet of

water would be more precarious.

[AnnieBW]

7. Wouldn't the shock wave produce a tsunami?

I'm no physicist, nor a geologist. But wouldn't the shock wave from setting off a nuke at the bottom of the Gulf produce a massive tsunami? Considering that you have several major cities along the Gulf Coast, I'd really be hesitant to do that if there's even the remotest chance of setting off a huge shock wave.

Doing it in the polar regions like the Soviets did is one thing. Doing it in an area with an enormous population is another.

[jeanpalmer]

8. It would be nice to get a 3rd party review

before they do it. BP and the administration are under severe pressure to stop this thing and I wouldn't trust either one to make an objective decision.