Nuke the oil well

[bucs90]

Just a thought.....and left wing environmental nuts go "ear-muffs" for a moment, you won't approve.

Why not nuke the damn hole? I'm not a weapons expert, but wouldn't a nuke, right down the pipe, a mile deep far out into the ocean, do the trick? Any oil in there would be burned up, the rock around it would collapse and melt together probably. Nothing else is working, why not just nuke the damn thing? Sure, some fish would die. Seriously. Send a NAVY sub in. Drop a nuke right on top of the damn hole, blow the shit up, hole is sealed, Obama can take full credit.

 

[hortysir]

I like the idea, honestly......just a little suitcase nuke.
I thought I read someone else suggest it about a week ago.

I'd rather nuke it now than have a hurricane give me a tarball shower this summer

 

[bucs90]

My idea got moved to "humor", I don't know why, it was serious. Nuke the thing. Vaporize the oil and what rock is left will be molten and collapse around the well. It's very deep, and far offshore. Seriously. Do we have many options left?

Our current track leads to AUGUST at the earliest, if then. What if that fails? And the next idea? What if a NAVY admiral comes out in November, with oil still flowing, and says "Back in May we could've nuked the hole and sealed it permanently, but that wasn't politically attractive to anyone."

Anyone have any other ideas? It appears BP and Obama are fresh out of them.

 

[kyzr]

The nuke thing won't work. It belongs in humor. It wouldn't stop the oil, and it would create a massive tsunami. The Katrina storm surge was only 33' and nearly wiped-out NO. Keep thinking, but think your ideas thru before submitting. Some ideas are what they call "half-baked". There is no "bad idea", because it could lead to a better one, but that nuke one was close.

 

[bucs90]

The nuke thing won't work. It belongs in humor. It wouldn't stop the oil, and it would create a massive tsunami. The Katrina storm surge was only 33' and nearly wiped-out NO. Keep thinking, but think your ideas thru before submitting. Some ideas are what they call "half-baked". There is no "bad idea", because it could lead to a better one, but that nuke one was close.

Just a thought. Surely it would burn up a lot of the oil. And I'll admit this with some blushing.......got the idea from watching the Travolta movie Broken Arrow, where the nuke blast in an old mine basically melts all the surrounding rock? Thought to myself "Oil couldn't shoot out of that mine shaft now, why not try it?"

As for the tsunami, I don't know. We've tested nukes underwater before, but far out in the Pacific I believe. The blast would be very centralized, so I don't know that it would move enough water to make a tsunami, but I'm no scientist, so who knows.

It would just be a shame if this thing is still shooting out oil in November and no one can plug it. It appears that we can't do anything like a cap, something about too much upward force with the oil and the ice, combined to make it nearly impossible. I think we are getting from the capping ideas to more drastic stuff, like weapons and destruction of the surrounding area.

 

[The Infidel]

besides the whole tsunami thing..... what if it just made the oil leak 10,000 times worse

Dont like the idea one teeny bit.

Very humorous though

 

[AllieBaba]

The nuke thing won't work. It belongs in humor. It wouldn't stop the oil, and it would create a massive tsunami. The Katrina storm surge was only 33' and nearly wiped-out NO. Keep thinking, but think your ideas thru before submitting. Some ideas are what they call "half-baked". There is no "bad idea", because it could lead to a better one, but that nuke one was close.

A massive tsunami?

This, dears, is what we call "junk science". Kyzr has no idea what the fuck he's talking about and is basing his (or her) opinion on 1968 National Geographic specials.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

My idea got moved to "humor", I don't know why, it was serious. Nuke the thing. Vaporize the oil and what rock is left will be molten and collapse around the well. It's very deep, and far offshore. Seriously. Do we have many options left?

Our current track leads to AUGUST at the earliest, if then. What if that fails? And the next idea? What if a NAVY admiral comes out in November, with oil still flowing, and says "Back in May we could've nuked the hole and sealed it permanently, but that wasn't politically attractive to anyone."

Anyone have any other ideas? It appears BP and Obama are fresh out of them.

Sure, the nuke could melt & seal the hole. Or it could widen it considerably. Imagine the destruction if it widened the hole by a factor of ten. The entire Gulf could become a dead zone.

I think running the proper simulations alone would take longer than drilling the relief wells. But they should run them, and this idea should be held in reserve until the reliefs are completed.

The nuke could be a last, desperate "Hail Mary" scenario if they fail.

 

[Zander]

Very interesting
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpPNQoTlacU]YouTube - An Atomic Bomb will stop the Gulf Oil Leak L@@K![/ame]

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So far, Obama has been a miserable failure in plugging the hole. He's been in charge since Day One and Oil continues to vent from the ocean floor turning the entire Gulf region into a chocolate shoreline.

Every effort has failed.

The Russians insist that the only way to stop the leak is by detonating a nuke over it and fusing the hole shut.

But will Obama nuke the spill or is it time to go golfing?

I turn to the combined wisdom of the posters on USMB (and the Libs) for an answer

 

[fyrenza]

A good friend and I were talking about this,

Cripes!

a couple of WEEKS ago, and I was leery of trusting these bozo's with nukes, but it would appear that it IS, indeed, going to be the only way.

For anyone like me, that just thinks of nukes as humongus radio-active time bombs, I offer this link:

Operation Plowshare - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Another observation I've made is that if one of the BP execs, infected with AIDS, had a hole in his neck, and it was spewing blood,

I wEnder how long he and his cohorts could be put off regarding medical attention,

and whether they'd be willing to mill around, twiddling their thumbs, while the incompetent doctor that had caused the puncture wracked his brains, trying to figure out a way to cover his ass and placate them as he continued to fumble around.

 

[American Horse]

The nuke thing won't work. It belongs in humor. It wouldn't stop the oil, and it would create a massive tsunami. The Katrina storm surge was only 33' and nearly wiped-out NO. Keep thinking, but think your ideas thru before submitting. Some ideas are what they call "half-baked". There is no "bad idea", because it could lead to a better one, but that nuke one was close.

A massive tsunami?

This, dears, is what we call "junk science". Kyzr has no idea what the fuck he's talking about and is basing his (or her) opinion on 1968 National Geographic specials.

A Tsunami is almost a certainty; the Gulf is very very shallow until out beyond the continental shelf, and a displacement at 5,000-feet would seem to be the perfect situation to create a tidal wave effect.

The Gulf of Mexico basin resembles a large pit with a broad shallow rim. Approximately 38% of the Gulf is comprised by shallow and intertidal areas (< 20 m deep). The area of the continental shelf (< 180 m) and continental slope (180 - 3,000 m) represent 22% and 20% respectively, and abyssal areas deeper than 3,000 m comprise the final 20%

To say we don't have any options left is a huge exaggeration. To create an explosion with uncertain results except for the certainty that once it was exploded the containment vessel or the piping, would be destroyed would mean we would be left with no way to keep the oil contained. This could possibly magnify the problem by orders of magnitude beyond the present situation, let alone after the two relief wells are complete and the pressure behind the flow hs been proportionally reduced.

 

[AllieBaba]

I've never heard of a tidal wave starting in shallow water and moving outwards. They start in deep water as a ripple and move in; that's what makes them devastating.

 

[American Horse]

I've never heard of a tidal wave starting in shallow water and moving outwards. They start in deep water as a ripple and move in; that's what makes them devastating.

That is true Allie, and is exactly the case here; the wellhead is in 5,000 foot deep water 60 miles off-shore, and the "sea-bottom" becomes quite shallow (< 20 m deep) once a ripple got closer to the shore.

 

[larocque89]

idea maybe? what if they shot dry ice through a hole with a hose into the pocket of oil close to the tip of the hole whereit can freeze and plug the hole meanwhile underwater welders weld a cap over the pipe and problem solved tadah!

 

[Douger]

Russia has already done it on five different gushers. They had total success on four of the five.
They already offered assistance. BP declined.
Inbreds are funny that way. They don't like people smarter than they are.

 

[trailertrash]

Just a thought.....and left wing environmental nuts go "ear-muffs" for a moment, you won't approve.

Why not nuke the damn hole? I'm not a weapons expert, but wouldn't a nuke, right down the pipe, a mile deep far out into the ocean, do the trick? Any oil in there would be burned up, the rock around it would collapse and melt together probably. Nothing else is working, why not just nuke the damn thing? Sure, some fish would die. Seriously. Send a NAVY sub in. Drop a nuke right on top of the damn hole, blow the shit up, hole is sealed, Obama can take full credit.

It would only work if life were a cartoon amigo. But this is the real deal.

"Down the pipe?" How is that accomplished? They ain't no nukes that small.

A Nuke carves our a large depression which is lined with vitrified material. The depression then fills with mud and other shit and is sealed... except for one thing. In the time of the event when all the various stress factors are busy resolving themselves it is almost certain that the sea floor would rupture in other areas as a result of new directions away from the blast being taken by the fighting pressure from below, which is of almost unimaginable strength. Imagine the shock waves bouncing back and forth in that chamber looking for a way out. Now we have the first hole perhaps blocked for a while anyway and the probability that some other equally dramatic leaks are venting oil.:cuckoo

But even if the hole were sealed...

OK here is the fun part. Radioactivity. Strontium 90 in the ocean going all around killing off what sea life is still there within a radius of at least.... well let's not worry about that. But don't fret. It will only last 40,000 years or so.

OK there is the other fun part. A nice oily, radioactive wave going up the Mississippi all the way to Memphis at least. Wow huh?

OK here is another fun part. In a couple of months when the hurricanes get here and scoop up all that radioactive oil, carry it as far north as Ohio and then dump it out on the hapless citizens who then begin having strange tumors and birth defects....

I could keep going but certainly you are smart enough to see that it's a bad idea. Simply put, radioactive oil on the country is worse than regular oil.

Oh yeah oil in the gulf stream.... Precious. Drill baby drill and drill some more. Gimmie the fuckin' oil mate. It's mine and I want it.

 

[trailertrash]

Russia has already done it on five different gushers. They had total success on four of the five.
They already offered assistance. BP declined.
Inbreds are funny that way. They don't like people smarter than they are.

You are right about BP shying away from assistance. But it's also true that all the wells that Russia nuked were surface wells with much more predictable results and also with "easy" containment if something went wrong.

 

[editec]

Just a thought.....and left wing environmental nuts go "ear-muffs" for a moment, you won't approve.

Why not nuke the damn hole? I'm not a weapons expert, but wouldn't a nuke, right down the pipe, a mile deep far out into the ocean, do the trick? Any oil in there would be burned up, the rock around it would collapse and melt together probably. Nothing else is working, why not just nuke the damn thing? Sure, some fish would die. Seriously. Send a NAVY sub in. Drop a nuke right on top of the damn hole, blow the shit up, hole is sealed, Obama can take full credit.

Sounds pretty dicey to me.

What if it just ends up blowing up the hole and releasing the crude at an even quicker rate?

How can any of us seriously posit these technical fixes from our vantage?

We don't know, and I doubt the "experts" really know what the outcome of a nuke will be, either.

 

[Ravi]

I've never heard of a tidal wave starting in shallow water and moving outwards. They start in deep water as a ripple and move in; that's what makes them devastating.

This was in shallow water.

Meanwhile, lagoon water rushing back into the space vacated by the rising gas bubble started a tsunami-like water wave which lifted the ships as it passed under them. At 11 seconds after detonation, the first wave was 1,000 feet (305 m) from surface zero and 94 feet high.[68] By the time it reached the Bikini Island beach, 3.5 miles (6 km) away, it was a nine-wave set with shore breakers up to 15 feet (5 m) high, which tossed landing craft onto the beach and filled them with sand.[69]

Operation Crossroads - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia