Nuking the Oil Well

Source: kvue.com

by JIM BERGAMO / KVUE News

kvue.com

Posted on May 24, 2010 at 9:31 PM

Updated today at 10:19 PM

Using a nuclear explosion to contain an oil spill may sound startlingly reckless to many, but the idea may not be that outlandish. One oil-price website reports Russia has used the technique on numerous occasions with a high success rate, and an Austin expert says BP should be strongly considering that option right now.

The latest effort to stop the flow of thousands of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico involves pumping mud and oil into the well. "This is very difficult to do at 16 thousand feet," said Martin Chenevert, PhD. This UT professor specializes in petroleum engineering. He says BP should have a back-up plan and believes there are only two alternatives. "They could still use a chemical explosive, but if they can't, if they can't do that, then the only way is to use some sort of nuclear explosive to close the well in," said Chenevert.

The use of nukes underwater has been met with the expected skepticism.

All I can think of is the 3-eyed fish on the Simpson's series," said Patrick Abbott of Austin. That sentiment was echoed by D.K. Ezekoye of Austin who said, "Yeah I think about the marine life, I think about the fact somebody tosses a stick of dynamite and you see the fish start bubbling up."

Read more: http://www.kvue.com/news/JIM-BERGAMO--KVUE--94792529.html

Why do we have to go nuclear, with all the radioactivity and such? Maybe a shitload of conventional munitions would do the trick?

At least, that's my understanding on why the USSR didn't simply use large amounts of conventional weaponry.

:)

fuel+water doesn't make quite as good of a bomb.

te short term effects of a small nuke might be worth it when compared to the long term effects of letting the oil spew out at its current rate, personally though I for one hope they dont need to use a nuke to seal it shut.
Whatever is done I think all 3 companies (BP, Haliburton and Transocean) should have 99% of all profits siezed until all the damage is made right and if that takes 50 years then to damn bad for them and they shouldnt be allowed to weasel out of it.
Furthermore all the executives all the 3 companies who were in charge of the platform up and down the ladder should have to forfeit all their assests as part of the restitution.

Where there is devastation there is opportunity. A 99% seizure until payouts in full is bad for a company’s stock price. Now how else would they make a buck?

Plus on the brightside it might teach other companies that they they had best not try to cut corners themselves.

Damn right.
Oh is that too Commie for Little Rand?

I don't know anything about this. But I don't trust BP to go fucking around with this sort of thing.

When I read, "BP should be strongly considering that option," in the article I thought, "I'm not sure it's really up to them" unless we've got a more serious proliferation problem than previously thought.

I've heard David Bowie's song about "putting out fire with gasoline," but this sounds like it could turn into us putting out gasoline with fire. It makes me nervous is all I'm sayin'.

Simple version:
Drill a shaft about 500m deep "near" the leaking well. Insert nuclear device. Tamp the shaft (backfill with material). Detonate the device. The shockwave is now parallel to leaking well. Like squashing a straw between two hands you flatten the well. Rather than single pinch you have a mile wide front where the well collapses. Millions of tons of rock filling the shaft making a seal.

Russians did it at least 5 times. We did some experiments on nuclear demolitions in the 1960s.

Obviously requires some careful planning and analysis to determine the correct amount of force. The advantage of nuclear devices is they have variable yield. You can "dial in" how much force is required.



SADM (Special Atomic Demolotion Munition). A 68kg device has an variable yield of 10 tons & 1000 tons of TNT (1 kiloton). At max yield it is roughly 1/20th the yield of the atomic bombs used in WWII.

Hopefully the other ideas will work though so they dont have to resort to using the nuke option but if it comes to down to having to use a small yield one to save the gulf then it might be the price we have to pay.
Keep in mind by small I am talking as small as it is possible with as little radiation as possible and not one of the big ones that they would use to attack major cities in a war.

you are talking about using a nuclear weapon to fix something.

Think that completely through.

A nuclear weapon to fix something.

Say that out loud.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Atomic_Demolition_Munition

Russian have used similar charges at least 5 times to close "stubborn" blowouts.

like I said they wont have to but if they literally cant shut it off any other way they might just have to if they want to even have a chance at saving any of the remaining marine life in the gulf.

one of the more powerful ones meant to take out entire cities the size of New York but we arent and the oil could do far worse dmg if its allowed to continue at its current rate.
Furthermore no one here is suggesting that the nuke option is the best plan rather it would and should only be an "if all else fails" type thing where there is no other way to cut the oil off from leaking before the oil wipes out the marine life in the gulf.

I respectfully suggest you put the shovel down and educate yourself further because all radiation is not the same.

And what would be the ecologial impact?

I mean, they could run it like a test, drill a deep shaft, put the bomb in the shaft, fill it iwth concrete, and set it off so that subsidance destroyis teh well architecture, but that takes time.

Anybody know how this is done. Would Obama want to be the second sitting U.S. President to use nuclear weapons in anger.

What the Heck?

I don't know that we would want the lol cats in charge of deciding the issue but an engineering study could be in order. The risks might be outweighed by the benefits.

Unless you tied the BP executives to the device.

Lastly it wouldn't be a nuclear weapon. It would be a nuclear demolition charge.

The Russians do not exactly have a stellar record on environmental disasters or of telling the whole truth about them.

:evilfrown:

:eyes:

is completed.

BP is currently drilling 2 wells and should make the connection sometime in mid August. In the event they decide to use one they will likely need to send it down one of the relief wells and explode it deep underground. It's a last resort at best.

Lets all just hope it doesn't come to that.

?

A flaming Tsunami :P :sarcasm:

:mad: