Nuke the oil well

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.
It wasn't used on gushers. This story misrepresents what the Soviets did.
 
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.

This is actually what the Soviets do when they have a similar problem.

The heat is enough to melt the ocean floor and seal the well.

I made this suggestion the first week of the spill on here and got laughed at but hey....we may have had glowing water but at least it wouldn't be covered in oil 3 months later.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ojCbqfRRr8]YouTube - Nuke the oil spill: Could nuclear bomb be answer for huge leaks as at US Gulf coast?[/ame]
 
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.

It has worked before, so how can you claim it will not stop the oil. The only real problem is the tusnami, but we would know it was coming and could prepare. I would have to do some math to be sure, but I don't see that it would even be as high as the storm surge from Katrina. Quite a few people who should know have advocated the idea from the beginning, but Obama nixed it as soon as it came up, probably so that the left dosn't entirely abandon him.
 
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.

Tsunamis are caused by the way the crust shifts, not by the depth of the quake. If this is done properly there will not be a massive underwater rock slide, which causes the largest tsunamis.
 
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

That was an underwater blast, which is not what is being discussed here. this would be an underground blast, and the ground would be underwater.
 
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.

It has worked before, so how can you claim it will not stop the oil. The only real problem is the tusnami, but we would know it was coming and could prepare. I would have to do some math to be sure, but I don't see that it would even be as high as the storm surge from Katrina. Quite a few people who should know have advocated the idea from the beginning, but Obama nixed it as soon as it came up, probably so that the left dosn't entirely abandon him.
Where has it worked before? Not in Russia, those were natural gas wells and not deepwater oil wells.

Also, how do you prepare for a tsunami that would wipe out the physical coastline and push the oil that has already leaked on to said coastline?

No offense, but this is a silly pipe dream along the lines of people thinking hurricanes can be nuked.
 
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

That was an underwater blast, which is not what is being discussed here. this would be an underground blast, and the ground would be underwater.
What would keep the nuke from igniting the oil? And can a nuke travel through oil and the pressure the well is pumping out?
 

That was an underwater blast, which is not what is being discussed here. this would be an underground blast, and the ground would be underwater.
What would keep the nuke from igniting the oil? And can a nuke travel through oil and the pressure the well is pumping out?

Gee, I don't know, physics? It might vaporize some of the oil, but unless their is a supply of oxygen oil cannot burn. Is their a large air pocket down there they haven't told us about?

Trust me, the shockwave from a nuke will have no trouble traveling through solid rock, it won't have any trouble dealing with the oil. It is not inserted into the well, it is set off near the well to seal it.
 
That was an underwater blast, which is not what is being discussed here. this would be an underground blast, and the ground would be underwater.
What would keep the nuke from igniting the oil? And can a nuke travel through oil and the pressure the well is pumping out?

Gee, I don't know, physics? It might vaporize some of the oil, but unless their is a supply of oxygen oil cannot burn. Is their a large air pocket down there they haven't told us about?

Trust me, the shockwave from a nuke will have no trouble traveling through solid rock, it won't have any trouble dealing with the oil. It is not inserted into the well, it is set off near the well to seal it.

trust you? did you vote for Bush?
 
I think that they should let the oil continue to flow as i am working at developing a "backyard personal refinery" for folks to use to refine their own gasoline and fuel oil.

If there isn't ready supply of free oil to be had for the taking, I won't be able to sell them.
 
I think that they should let the oil continue to flow as i am working at developing a "backyard personal refinery" for folks to use to refine their own gasoline and fuel oil.

If there isn't ready supply of free oil to be had for the taking, I won't be able to sell them.

It it will also grill burgers you will have a winner!
 
That was an underwater blast, which is not what is being discussed here. this would be an underground blast, and the ground would be underwater.
What would keep the nuke from igniting the oil? And can a nuke travel through oil and the pressure the well is pumping out?

Gee, I don't know, physics? It might vaporize some of the oil, but unless their is a supply of oxygen oil cannot burn. Is their a large air pocket down there they haven't told us about?

Trust me, the shockwave from a nuke will have no trouble traveling through solid rock, it won't have any trouble dealing with the oil. It is not inserted into the well, it is set off near the well to seal it.
But you just said it would be an underground explosion...now you're saying it would be set off near the well to seal it...so tsunami you. :lol:

From what I understand there is also a lot of methane in the well, and both the oil and the methane flow to the surface.
 
We should declare a WAR ON OIL LEAKS.

After all, we know from decades of experience that declaring war on things always works.

Look how we wiped out poverty by declaring war on it. And then drug abuse. And then terrorism.

Or maybe if we all wear buttons reading: WOLN (whip oil leak now); that'll fix it.

After all, didn't those WIP (whip inflation now) buttons do the trick back in the 70s?

And I agree that dropping a nuke makes sense too.

Now, where is the BP headquarters again?
 
What would keep the nuke from igniting the oil? And can a nuke travel through oil and the pressure the well is pumping out?

Gee, I don't know, physics? It might vaporize some of the oil, but unless their is a supply of oxygen oil cannot burn. Is their a large air pocket down there they haven't told us about?

Trust me, the shockwave from a nuke will have no trouble traveling through solid rock, it won't have any trouble dealing with the oil. It is not inserted into the well, it is set off near the well to seal it.
But you just said it would be an underground explosion...now you're saying it would be set off near the well to seal it...so tsunami you. :lol:

From what I understand there is also a lot of methane in the well, and both the oil and the methane flow to the surface.

Methane does not burn without oxygen either. Do you have a point here or are you just babbling to see your name in the thread?
 
Methane under there has a lot of pressure to be released whether it burns or not down there.

I can see it now, giant methane cloud floats into NO and kills thousands.
 
An underground nuclear explosion would seal the well, stopping the leak.

They don't want that, yet.
 
What if it blows an even bigger hole and the Gulf of Mexico becomes the
images
of Mexico?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top