Nuking The Oil Spill !!! ... Holy mother of God....

[Dover]

THIS is an OPTION??? Two wrongs do NOT make a right.
How disasterous would this be? Let me count the ways... Beyond the obvious immensity of destruction to ocean life, toxicity, radioactivity issues (and what about the sound waves for many sea mammals,etc?), it certainly seems the Earth's mantle is currently very unstable. And Russia has already used this technique FIVE TIMES!!! What new set of disasters would this set in motion?
Is man capable of living life on this planet without destroying it?


Obama bringing in nuclear experts to address the spill.


The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico continues to spill black venom into the sea. The world has got to see stirring images of oil gushing with decipherable great force, enough even to turn a staunch critic towards environmental protection. Initially scoffed and sniffed at, a radical solution in the form of a nuclear explosion is now trotting as a viable option to stop the oil spill. Why? Because no effort should be spared and so far, the stratagems used by BP have been futile.


..snip..

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:

The public opinion, after the initial disbelief which was suspended by images of the spill has rallied in favor of a nuclear explosion. So, finally there's some hope at the end of the tunnel. President Obama has stepped in and has sent a team of nuclear experts to contain the spill. The man in charge to contain the spill is Steven Chu, U.S. Energy Secretary and also the one who helped develop the first hydrogen bomb in the 50s. The five member multidisciplinary team are a creative lot involved in the first hydrogen bomb, finding ways to mine in Mars and ways to position biomedical needles. The team will work along with BP's scientist to find a solution. Meeting at BP's crisis centre in Houston, Chief Executive Officer Tony Hayward said after the meeting, 'lots of nuclear physicists and all sorts of people coming up with some quite good ideas actually.' They are said to have reached 'one good idea' which he declined to reveal. A nuclear option perhaps?

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..cont'd

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

[soleft]

1. Ever see the 60's sci fi flick Crack in the World?

[zipplewrath]

2. I presume subterranian

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.

They are talking about a subterranian explosion. I presume around 200 feet + underground. At that depth, none of the explosion would reach the surface. It would probably leave a shallow crater in the ocean floor, that'd be about it. The very intent would be to crush the current hole being drilled. The after affects would be vastly less severe than what we are already doing to the environment.


Of course that's if everything goes to plan. If something went wrong......

Despite everyone's fears, quite honestly the worst case scenario is probably a dud. Now you've got a nuclear device buried 5000 feet down, and no way to get to it. I'm dubious they'll try. A relief well (or two) will probably be attempted before a nuke.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

3. my fear:

the pressures from one blast would impact the oil and gas pockets already being pumped with deep water rigs, the increased pressure from the blast would cause them to explode, creating dozens, maybe hundreds of leaking rigs. Not to mention the thousands of miles of pipeline, active and inactive that cover the Louisiana ocean waters.

[jdlh8894]

4. I't wouldn't be the sound waves

The shock waves from that depth would kill anything in the Gulf. Not to think about ships on the sea being forced upward or sideways.Or the potential tidal waves it could cause.We thought Katrina was bad.

[n2doc]

7. And maybe break all the rig pipes in the whole region

We could have 1000 spills......

[FBaggins]

10. Nothing so significant is likely.

I'm not saying that this is the way to go, but many MANY larger devices have been tested under water (and underground). It wouldn't kill everything in the gulf (or even more than a short distance away - most of which is far more impacted by the oil). Nor would ships be endangered (nothing would be within a dangerous radius when they set it off). And no, subsurface subteranean detonations of the size they're talking about don't have tsunami/tidal wave implications.

The better questions iare whether there is a good chance that it would work, what the chances are of making things worse (destroying the wellhead and fracturing the surounding materials), and how long such a plan would take compared to drilling a relief well (presumably well under way at this point).

[Nihil]

13. Half way between those two extremes

No, it wouldn't "kill everything in the Gulf" and the detonation
itself wouldn't have "tsunami/tidal wave implications" but it
*would* impact more marine life in that part of the Gulf than the
oil is doing (though admittedly not affecting birds or surface
creatures) and it *would* present a risk of destabilising seabed
structures (e.g., the canyon walls around the drilling area) which,
in turn, *would* have tsunami implications (as a major slump from
that zone would really upset the neighbours).

In addition, as the first thousand foot or so of the seabed is
really just mud (not consolidated rock), the effect of the shockwave
(specifically the reflections from the first rock layers) on nearby
drilling operations is not to be sneezed at.

As you say, there are already other reasons to disregard that approach
(e.g., the chance of it making the wellhead situation far worse and
the time needed to accurately emplace it) but the impact would be a
major unknown with seriously large downsides compared to almost any
other option.

:shrug:

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. Chu, born in 1948, helped developed the hydrogen bomb in the 50s?

Wow, the guy is even smarter than I thought. Or the author of this article is even dumber than I thought. Doesn't this evidence-free (and sometimes laughably wrong) speculation belong in the Sept 11 forum?

[Dover]

8. ???

:rofl:
We, here at DU, are so fortunate to have you and your vast intelligence around to sort it all out for us...feeble minds that we are and all.

As we have discovered over and over again, intelligence does not determine wisdom. And wisdom is in short supply.



Bloomberg-

Obama Sends Bomb, Mars Experts to Fix BP Oil Spill

... Members of the Chu team are credited with accomplishments including designing the first hydrogen bomb, inventing techniques for mining on Mars and finding a way to precisely position biomedical needles.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-05-14/obama-sends-bomb-mars-experts-to-fix-bp-oil-spill-update1-.html

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. Ah, just crappy writing, then

" The man in charge to contain the spill is Steven Chu, U.S. Energy Secretary and also the one who helped develop the first hydrogen bomb in the 50s. The five member multidisciplinary team are a creative lot involved in the first hydrogen bomb, finding ways to mine in Mars and ways to position biomedical needles."

The first sentence clearly claims Chu was "the one who helped develop the first hydrogen bomb in the 50s", and is 'the man in charge'. It then makes claims about the others ("positioning biomedical needles" sound like being a nurse to me).

Having said that, it appears English may not be the writer's first language - see http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010%5C04%5C12%5Cstory_12-4-2010_pg3_6 .

Still, the nuclear fantasies of Merlin Flower are of little interest to us. Where does her claim that "the public opinion, after the initial disbelief which was suspended by images of the spill has rallied in favor of a nuclear explosion" come from? That's not what I call 'hope at the end of the tunnel'. But a wish from a writer in India for someone to start using nukes is very irrelveant to the problems in the Gulf.

[kenfrequed]

6. I think...

A small tactical device might be the best possible option unless we could use a conventional explosive to attaint the same results.

A small contained contamination in a very limited area is a small price to pay to reduce the environmental apocalypse that would instead allow this thing to spew and geyser for another two months.

[jtrockville]

11. Here's another article on Russia's successful use of nukes in this situation

http://rt.com/Top_News/2010-05-05/nuclear-solution-oil-spill.html?fullstory

[Nihil]

12. Next time, try reading the link that you post ...

You said:
> another article on Russia's successful use of nukes in this situation

It says:
> But the situations are very different – the Soviet gas leak was in the
> middle of a desert, with not much flora and fauna to suffer from potential
> after-effects.
>
> The Gulf's wildlife is already critically damaged by the leak. A nuclear
> explosion, however small, may add to the ecological disaster rather than
> prevent it.

:eyes:

I'm just glad that (so far) the people making the decisions are far smarter
than the dopes suggesting "Nuke it".

[jtrockville]

14. Well, NOTHING has ever been tried in exactly this situation.

Yes, I should have said "similar" situations.

But I wouldn't call the Russians DOPES. I think we have much to learn from their experience.

Most of the solutions being tried (including the "top kill") have the possibility of making things much worse. Is everyone who tries something risky, like the "top kill", dopes?

[wtmusic]

15. It would be beneficial to differentiate between courses of action

which are potentially risky and those which are potentially very risky. :eyes:

[Javaman]

16. "yeah yeah, fill it up. And make sure it's the good stuff, not that glowing gas!"

it's a nuclear plant, no, it's a internal combustion engine! It's better than that! It's both!

No longer do you need to refill you gas tank when it runs out, just flip the switch and you are running on nuclear power!

Thanks to the good people at BP and their brilliant idea to nuke the oil leak in the gulf, they and their scientists have brought you the best of both worlds!

No more nuclear waste! Because it burns off in the CO2 and wafts harmlessly into the atmosphere!

Thank you BP!

[Nihil]

17. Whilst I understand your sentiment ...

.. I have to correct this bit:
> Thanks to the good people at BP and their brilliant idea to nuke the
> oil leak in the gulf,

The only people talking about "nuking the oil leak" are the braindead
muppets who have a total lack of comprehension of both the scale of the
actual problem and the other effects of a nuclear explosion in the Gulf.

This does *NOT* include BP (or any of the scientific team for that matter)
but, sadly, *does* include far too many people on DU.

:hi:

[Javaman]

18. I guess you missed that it was satire. I'll do better next time.

In the mean time, I understand your point.