Second Oil Leak -- and Nukes

[HCE SuiGeneris]

There is talk of a second major leak. ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4whiKQgnp4w&feature=player_embedded ) There is also talk of using nuclear devices to effect a stoppage. (http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0529/energy-expert-nuke-oil-leak/ )

:wow:

Seems to me that igniting a nuclear bomb in the midst of a gargantuan oil, methane, and natural gas field might be somewhat catastrophic. But, maybe that's just me.

[gateley]

1. Some folks on Oil Drum are doubting that Simmons is wrong in his assessment.

And I'm not sure how seriously the nuke option is being discussed by decision makers -- if at all. I don't think the conditions/area in the gulf are the same as Russia.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

2. From what I've gathered, the sea floor and crust above this huge oil field

is not all that stable, or is rather porous. I hope that the second leak is only a rumor, and I really, really hope we refrain from setting off major explosives down there.

[anigbrowl]

3. a nuke would need to be >1000 feet under the seabed

But you might be surprised to know that once you go a few thousand feet down the disruption is virtually nil, including fallout. Unlikely, but feasible in a pinch.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

10. 4 out of 5 success rate so far...

however, these are not identical circumstances to what the Russians had.

So, 20% percent chance or better of what? Sea floor collapse. Igniting the whole thing? In seems that we could unleash an apocalyptic event. Yet, we may already be experiencing one if we don't end this outflow soon.

[Confusious]

12. You need oxygen for gas to burn

Are you going to find that 1 mile under the ocean? or in the bedrock?

There's 5,000 feet of bedrock there. Almost a mile. A moderate weapon explosion doesn't even come close to that size.

Besides that, they usually expand laterally, not up or down, because of the pressure there.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

13. If these fissures and fields can hold billions of gallons of oil and gas,

can they not hold other gases as well?

[Confusious]

16. What gas burns without oxygen?

I'm sure there are a few rare ones, but nothing found in any major quantity on earth.

Besides that, this would be a pincher move, not a blow shit up move.

Use the expansion of the weapon to pinch the well. It needs to be set away from the well.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

20. OK. So the explosion doesn't actually come in contact with the oil,

it would just shift the ground over to effect a pinch on the well. Sounds plausible.

An intimate knowledge of the surrounding geology, hydrology, and characteristics of the soil and rock would be critical. no?

[Confusious]

26. Yes, very

I wouldn't say just do it. They would have to get core samples and see if the rock could handle it.

I just wouldn't rule it out.

3 months until they get the relief wells is a lot of oil, and a lot of dead sea.

We get a third of our sea food from the gulf.

You have bad option and shitty option.

[whopis01]

39. hydrogen will burn in chlorine. n/t

[Ruby the Liberal]

4. Unlikely. The Russians were stopping above-ground wells that were on fire.

A nuke in the gulf could cause a Tsunami of biblical proportions.

One only needs to view the video of the Russian nuke/oilfield collapse to see what happened and then extrapolate that to the seabed.

[Confusious]

11. yes, that's exactly what happened every time we

detonated a nuclear weapon at the bikini atoll. Billions died from the tsunamis.

Not that it would be on the surface or even under water in this case.

christ.

[Ruby the Liberal]

14. Teach me - I am not familiar with the 'bikini atoll'?

[Confusious]

18. video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QptDY5QdeXE

another

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2WQvtGnBQw&NR=1

Between 1946 and 1958, twenty-three nuclear devices were detonated at Bikini Atoll, beginning with the Operation Crossroads series in the summer of 1946. The March 1st, 1954 detonation codenamed Castle Bravo, was the first test of a practical hydrogen bomb. The largest nuclear explosion ever set off by the United States, it was much more powerful than predicted, and created widespread radioactive contamination.<3><4><5>

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

24. LOL, you totally beat me to it - verbatim. haha

[Ruby the Liberal]

25. HOLY CRAP!! That was mind bogging.

If I can tap you again, where was Bikini Atoll?

[Confusious]

27. NP

Marshall islands. About as far west from Hawaii as the continental US is from Hawaii.

[Ruby the Liberal]

29. It was said that the South Pacific Govts questioned France on testing nukes in the area,

"If they are so safe, why aren't you testing them in the Mediterranean?"

[Confusious]

32. No, the weapons F'd up the atolls

Nuclear weapons are bad shit. Just in this case, the option is worse shit.

Kinda like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYhT6FHEpwY

[Ruby the Liberal]

33. ROFL!

Oh dear God.

:rofl:

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

22. The US did many nuclear weapon tests on "abandoned" desert islands (atolls).

On land, over land, in land, in water... many of the test involved the ocean and effects on battleships.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-l6Q8Q1smwg

Wikipedia:
Between 1946 and 1958, twenty-three nuclear devices were detonated at Bikini Atoll, beginning with the Operation Crossroads series in the summer of 1946. The March 1st, 1954 detonation codenamed Castle Bravo, was the first test of a practical hydrogen bomb. The largest nuclear explosion ever set off by the United States, it was much more powerful than predicted, and created widespread radioactive contamination.

[Ruby the Liberal]

31. Thanks!

I learn something new here daily. :loveya:

[leftstreet]

5. ChernOILbyl

yikes

[WCGreen]

6. Seems I wasn't alone in my thinking about the blowing up the whole

Gulf of Mexico

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x321476

[Confusious]

8. Oh please.

A nuclear device close enough to the well in solid rock would create a pressure wave in the rock that would pinch the well closed like a straw.

There would be no radiation released. As for things blowing up, you need oxygen for things to burn, like gas. You going to get that 1 mile under the ocean?

It's either that, or 3 months of spewing oil into the gulf.

Maybe top hat 2 will work. Then again, top hat 1 didn't.

[WCGreen]

21. Oh please,,,,

What if it ruptured the sea bed around the drilling site and collapsed...

That's all I am worried about...

But I will defer to your obvious vast geological and physic training and background...

Me, I was just putting out something that I felt could happen never really claiming it to be fact...

[Confusious]

28. Well as long as you're not taking it as fact

The oil has 5,000 feet of rock over it. A weapon explosion isn't going to be that big.

I don't have a geology degree, though some of my friends do.

Geologists are always the coolest people.

[WCGreen]

34. I was under the impression that it was a thin shelf and that the

Oil being removed would compormise the whole situation...

I just want this damn thing over...

[Confusious]

35. Like the saying goes

A choice between shitty and shitter.

[jwirr]

7. Sinkhole anyone?

[Confusious]

9. how?

[jwirr]

15. By blowing up a porous seabed. I am not sure that can happen but

the way things have been going the last month or so - I am afraid to ignore the possibility.

[Confusious]

19. A sinkhole is made by sand and loose earth

A weapon blast in rock will fuse rock into glass.

[Ratty]

37. That's what I'm afraid of

A nuke could fracture the seabed and we'd have oil, truly unstoppable, seeping up from a million tiny cracks. Of course they'd have geologists saying it could never happen.

[KansasVoter]

17. Hardly anyone thinks there is another leak, and most experts say the nuke option will not work!

[Confusious]

30. Do you jave a link to that?

I like to read why they said it wouldn't.

Otherwise, considering BP's brilliant ( :sarcasm: ) plans so far, I would say we are F'd.

[bvar22]

38. Ther are other possible unintended consequences of Nuking the Well.

The hole you want to "squeeze" shut is currently cased in steel.
The nuke could probably "squeeze" the steel flat, and perhaps plug the well.
But it could also rupture the steel casing at the squeeze point.
If that happened, it would lead to what is known as an "Underground Blowout" where the high pressure oil & gas from 18,000' NOW has an open pathway to the lower pressure shallow porous (sand) formations, charging then up with very High Pressure bad stuff that COULD find its way to the surface through naturally occurring faults, or fissures created by the Nuke blast.

At least now, the oil is escaping through an intact casing & BOP, and the possibility of stopping or containing the oil from this single point source is better than using Nukes.

The time spent spotting a rig, drilling a hole that could accommodate a nuclear device, doing the necessary Geological Studies, clearing the area and prepping for the blast would be better spent on Full Speed Ahead Relief Wells.

bvar22
Direction Driller in a past life
and driller of a relief well on the Gulf Coast as a much younger man

[HCE SuiGeneris]

40. This is what is failed to mention too often in this discussion.

Thank you.

[UTUSN]

23. *and* we don't need no hysteria. n/t

[Karenina]

36. Little boys whacking off on blowing shit up...

:eyes: For my "Cassandra" part, I've already called this an "extinction level event." Press on, you bombers. Press on in spite of the overwhelming evidence that sometimes it's batter to do NOTHING. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. BP KNOWS THIS quite well when FORCED TO DO SO by the interests of those affected by their presence.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x470575

[Hubert Flottz]

41. I'll bet this is Joe the Plumber's idea.