Skip to comments.Nuke the BP oil spill & environazis that get in the way, too much at stake
Posted on 05/21/2010 8:13:04 PM PDT by steve0
click here to read article
Seriously, this would be a stupid well to try to “seal by nuke.” Too close to land.
Why a zot? This is a serious topic, and it’s not too close to land. A mile of water does a lot to limit the range of damage, and a relatively small nuke would do the job.
The word “nuke” or “nuclear” scares people, though.
Really? Why? No fallout from a sub-seabed nuclear explosion. No fault lines to worry about. Let's stop being chickensh#ts about this and do what's right.
“Seriously, this would be a stupid well to try to seal by nuke. Too close to land.”
How is it too close to land? How many nuclear weapons have we exploded in the west? There have been hundreds....
Thank you!!. The reader makes my point we need to get away from the leftist propaganda that all nuclear technology is dangerous, polluting, toxic etc. We would feed millions more and save billions in dollars if we would only use Food Irradiation. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_irradiation
# 1970 Establishment of the International Food Irradiation Project (IFIP), head quarters at the Federal Research Centre for Food Preservation, Karlsruhe, Germany
# 1980 FAO/IAEA/WHO Joint Expert Committee on Food Irradiation recommends the clearance generally up to 10 kGy “overall average dose”
# 1981/1983 End of IFIP after reaching its goals
# 1983 Codex Alimentarius General Standard for Irradiated Foods: any food at a maximum “overall average dose” of 10 kGy
# 1984 International Consultative Group on Food Irradiation (ICGFI) becomes the successor of IFIP
# 1997 FAO/IAEA/WHO Joint Study Group on High-Dose Irradiation recommends to lift any upper dose limit
# 2003 Codex Alimentarius General Standard for Irradiated Foods: no longer any upper dose limit
# 2004 ICGFI ends
Just because the stuff that would otherwise be fallout doesn’t go into the air doesn’t mean it doesn’t go somewhere it is not particularly helpful. Also does the word tsunami mean anything to you?
Really, the best thing to do with the well would be to salvage it, even if another oilco has to do it because BP is so incompetent. However, the Bummer admin has nixed measures, such as barriers or oil dispersants (helps it biodegrade) that BP has suggested. It is just a fuster cluck.
Irradiating food and exploding a nuke underwater are vastly different enterprises.
This is in no way a serious topic for those of us old enough to remember real spills.
The tin foil hat crowd grows tiresome in short order.
Yes, but do both endeavors rely on the use of proven nuclear technology.
Exploding a nuke on Bikini Atoll is not the same as doing it within 50 miles of populated mainland.
Oh, and the Rooskies sealed gas wells, not oil wells.
I like how your so scientific and all dismissing it out of hand in a knee jerk fashion. All options must be on the table. This is proven technology. See: A first test in the fall of 1966 proved successful in sealing up a well in southern Uzbekistan, and so the Russians used nukes four more times for capping runaway wells.
“The second ‘success’ gave Soviet scientists great confidence in the use of this new technique for rapidly and effectively controlling ran away gas and oil wells,” according to a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) report on the Soviet Union’s peaceful uses of nuclear explosions.
A last attempt took place in 1981, but failed perhaps because of poor positioning, according to a U.S. Department of Energy report.” Thank you for proving my point about the anti-nuclear hysteria the left has spread to Americans. I suppose your against food irradiation?
It will be a catastrophic miscalculation.
For one thing, it will release Godzilla.
And for another, it won't kill enough hippies.
Hippies? In Louisiana?
Nice, who should be zotted now? You insult all Freepers with your unscientific broad generalizations and stereotypes.
Cajun’s FReep-age is enough to be your grandpa. And I could be your daddy.
You lost any claim to science whatsoever when you started portraying this comparatively small well leak as a catastrophic disaster meriting apocalyptic solutions.
Are you an unemloyed anthropomorphic global warmist looking for a new gig?
Did you sell Y2K survival kits?
It may not be a huge spill in size, but it (or the LSM hype surrounding it?) is already having significant economic impact on the Gulf Coast states.
A small nuke would seal it. Been done before. The Russians will do it again.
But for some reason people want to mock even looking at the idea. I just don’t get that.
Just stick Obamas head in there or Michelle feet...that’ll stop it...both are big enough.
So my “Freep-age” is what determines how conservative I am? Keep piling on the nonsense when your arguments fail.
why does it have to be a nuke explosion?
If anybody has publicly done the math that shows how much of a wall of water this would kick up on shore the continent, I’ve missed it. But almost all of what would have been “KABOOM” sound in the air will become kinetic energy in water. Nobody is even asking about tsunamis? Massive wildlife kills? Unreal.
Russkies sealed gas wells, not oil, and none in the ocean this close to a populated area.
“Just because the stuff that would otherwise be fallout doesnt go into the air doesnt mean it doesnt go somewhere it is not particularly helpful. Also does the word tsunami mean anything to you?”
Dozens of Nukes have gone off in the atmosphere and ocean with NO tsunamis. Similarly radiation is only harmful if you are close by and in the right path.
Otherwise (for one small example) I live under 10 miles from TMI, as do a growing population, and that had DIRECT air releases of steam and other gases. We are in a thriving and growing area. NO proven or documented health problems.
The worst documented thing of TMI accident was power prices had a spike in price for a while.
I thought hippy-nuke-phobia was gone as people got smarter and lived by the facts rather than by irrational fears.
Guess you proved that (hippy-nuke-phobia) is still alive and well. As a note, if you use the HD aluminum foil it makes a better emergency helmet.
No, just you and your ridiculous thread (blow it up with a nuke).
I have 30 years in the oil industry, technology end (smart end).
Oh by the way, how many years do you have in the oil industry?
How many years do you have in the nuclear bomb industry?
How many years do you have in the geology industry?
The idea seems to be to create a high temperature sufficient to melt the sea floor into a glass cap. If it does not, instead, open up a gusher orders of magnitude worse than original, accompanied by the most amazing oil fed flames ever seen on earth.
Ok maybe I will agree to that. And I can understand some of our more liberal Freepers getting all hissy, like now, if we had, dare I say it personal nuclear weapons? Ok there is your humor for the night.
Three Mile Island never suffered an event akin to the detonation of a nuke. You’re being silly.
...or it will rupture the reservoir and caprock, like a super=frac, and then there will be numerous uncontrolled and uncontrollable seeps in the floor of the Gulf until the reservoir depletes, instead of one 10 inch pipe.
Keep your skivvies on.
The blowout in '79 took nine months to get under control and the gulf recovered. If anything, a relief well can be drilled in 1/3 or less time than that took, and the well sealed by more conventional means, without radiation.
The Russians had a couple that did not work, iirc. Maybe you should talk about those.
Now if the Bummer admin will stop forbidding measures to mitigate the spill in the meantime! Such as barriers to hinder it from getting to land, and dispersants to hasten its biodegradation.
In a nutshell, this has not been done before, because the Russians didn't do it under a mile of ocean.
Eat your chicken, put your firecrackers away, and let the professionals handle it.
Why would they do that? They want a disaster so they can promote windmills and electric cars that won't go when it is 30 below. This nuke crap would be a wet dream for them, in terms of disasters.
Very,very baaad idea!...
I don’t want to hear it unless you take my anti-nuke hissy fit pansy identification test.
Indicate whether you support or oppose
1. Food irradiation: s o
2. Consideration of Nuke technology to deal with Potentially Hazardous Asteroids (PHAs): s o There are currently 1131 known PHAs.
3. American Nuclear Power: s o
4. Neutron bomb: s o
5. Nuclear powered deep space vehicles: s o
Thank you for your answers
You probably want to ban Dihydrogen Monoxide (DM), from the environment.
I repeat, it *won't* kill *enough* hippies.
The only thing we could hope for is an AIDS benefit/Decriminalize Pot chartered cruise ship to be anchored over Water Zero.
Most earth and soil nuke detonations had MUCH less. Heck the US set off several tests in Nevada, some of which were not as contained as they wanted. Most of the Midwest and some of the east got fall out from those.
Several like Bikini atoll test were done just above the atoll and were air bursts. France also did several Pacific tests, and Russia did a few in the Sakhalin islands, including IIRC, a 100 mega ton air burst. That used to be viewable online you-tube I believe, and probably still is.
To get a burst with particulate fall out you usually must get particulate matter into the air. The ones suggesting using a nuke probably are NOT thinking along the lines of our tests in Nevada/New Mexico etc... A fractional KT would barely put anything in the air. Minimal to no wave.
Aluminum foil hats NOT needed this weekend.
In Smokin’ Joe yer talkin’ to a 30 year roughneck. That trumps pencil neck nuclear geex.
I do not have objections to any of those programs.
I do have 30+ years in the oil patch as a Geologist, many of those years spent on wellsites, and a scattering of experience in the engineering end of the patch as well.
So I really don't care what you think of what I think of nukes, the oil industry is my area of specialization, and this is not a job for a nuke. The means in use have worked, without fail in getting wild wells under control. Nukes don't carry that same record, nor have the Russians had an exactly stellar environmental record of their own. Colleagues who have worked in Russia have related cases of what in the Gulf would be horror stories well beyond the present mess.
There is a very good chance that trying to nuke the well shut would only cause more problems, ones which are far harder to fix.
Oh silly, the leakage from Three Mile Island couldn’t hold a candle to what is emitted from the tiniest nuclear explosive device ever tested on the earth. People keep wanting to compare it to the Chernobyl disaster and it’s like comparing a lightning bug to lightning.
I’d rather nuke Washington and get the feds and media out of the way of the experts.
The nuke sounds like a nice theory, but the Rooskies never nuked anything quite like this. I’d want to see it tried in mile deep water in the middle of the Atlantic or Pacific Oceans on oil wells whose underground geology mirrors this one, before goofing around with it in the Gulf.
WOW, what an amazingly complex question (that was old 20 years ago).
Now back to my questions for you:
How many years of experience do you have in the oil field, nuclear and geology industries?
Oh by the way, I've worked on particle accelerators, neutron detectors, gamma detectors, sonic and ultra sonic and electromagnetic exploration tools with their telemetry systems and computer controls.
Oh, nearly forgot, I've also worked on tools capable of delivering shape charge "Guns" into a well that measure pressure and temperature at the time of perforation.
You are incorrect about the amount most nuke tests put in the air. Silly wrong. Now since you are online, you can look all this up. You can even see the pictures and movies online.
Oh, and for extended wearing of the aluminum foil hat, put a cool,,, slightly wet rag on first as that will keep the heat down. Minimum further brain damage will occur.
Good night all. That silly thing is NONE of this will happen mainly because of our government and it’s base. They don’t even want drilling, let alone nukes!
Go to bed.
You are right but for the sake of extended release over US soil it was at least some example.
Oh, and did you see the special on Discovery a few years back about how much the Chernobyl area has recovered? Plants, animals, bacteria, etc. Are back like all over there.. some types that the Ruskies had killed off everywhere else in Russia are thriving.
The people who were directly exposed have not done so well... but then we would NOT be talking of that type of exposure here.
It will never happen here anyway, so this discussion is all for fun and intellectual stimulus.
Oh, and this well is spewing a combination of oil and gas.
The oil should be easier to seal up with an explosion than gas. Oil is move viscous and would flow much slower through the blasts overburden than gas.