Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

US's smallest nuke would be perfect to shut the well down...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
TampaAnimus2010 Donating Member (111 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-28-10 04:02 PM
Original message
US's smallest nuke would be perfect to shut the well down...
Edited on Fri May-28-10 04:05 PM by TampaAnimus2010
Here tis...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W54

Mk-54 (Davy Crockett) — 10 or 20 ton yield, Davy Crockett artillery warhead

Well I was somewhat shocked to find out there were sub-kiloton nukes, but this looks like it would work fine. This is the same as a few pallets of TNT - not the huge mushroom fireballs you see in the pictures. If they could get it down a mile or so, I seriously doubt this would have the ability to punch a hole through a mile of seabed to open it further - much less some of the more hysterical statements Iv'e seen here... like splitting open the earths crust.

Also, I would guess only minimal radioactive material would be ejected... mostly just the oil on top of it. Once sealed, pour in concrete...problem solved.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-28-10 04:03 PM
Response to Original message
1. So you want to fire an nuclear artillery shell into the Gulf...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TampaAnimus2010 Donating Member (111 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-28-10 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. as opposed to letting it keep spewing oil till everything is dead... sure.
Theres no way this could destroy an entire ecosystem like the oil slick itself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-28-10 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Because nuclear fallout is full of delicious nutrients that fish crave.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TampaAnimus2010 Donating Member (111 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-28-10 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #4
15. Exactly what makes you think much radioactive material could...
get through a mile of oil to be ejected into the sea? Also... even if there was a risk of that, compared to the oil now killing the ecosystem, thats microscopic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Number23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-29-10 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #4
44. You absolutely crack me up.
I'm starting to actually wheeze from laughing at this response.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheManInTheMac Donating Member (512 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-10 10:17 AM
Response to Reply #4
56. It's got electrolytes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
awoke_in_2003 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-10 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #56
90. I've never seen
plants grow out of a toilet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
awoke_in_2003 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-10 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #4
89. That was DUzy worthy. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-28-10 04:06 PM
Response to Original message
3. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-28-10 04:08 PM
Response to Original message
5. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-28-10 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Chulanowa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-28-10 04:10 PM
Response to Original message
7. Just curious about how you think physics work...
Do you believe that a gigantic explosion will make a hole smaller? Because it doesn't really work that way, you know?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TampaAnimus2010 Donating Member (111 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-28-10 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. You really didn't read what I said did ya. Who suggested a surface blast?
They use explosives ALL THE TIME to close oil wells.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chulanowa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-28-10 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. All the time?
I'm not sure how many wells they've actually closed that way. Can you give some examples? Were they gushers like this one, or were they dried wells that were non-productive without piping in water? Were nukes used, or conventional explosives? if the latter, why is a nuke needed for this one? As others have mentioned, there's a pretty thick layer of sediment and sand over the bedrock. How far down does the explosive need to go? If they can squeeze it down the hole just like that, then surely they could do the same with some variety of plug, or another pipe?

Sounds to me like you're just wanting to watch a real-life Bruce Willis movie.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TampaAnimus2010 Donating Member (111 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-28-10 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. Id says its FAR harder to shove 10 pallets of conventional explosives down the pipe..
vs this. Are you suggesting a 10 ton explosion can punch through a mile of seabed? Id say very few people would think a small explosion like that could pull that off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chulanowa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-28-10 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. Now you're just defending your idea becuase it's your idea, not on its own merits
Please, answer some of those questions, would ya?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TampaAnimus2010 Donating Member (111 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-28-10 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #17
21. No, your asking unrelated questions...
I'm still waiting for you to tell me what the difference is between a 10 ton TNT explosion and the equivalent nuclear explosion is... See, heres the formula, 10 Tons = 10 Tons.

Also, the Soviet Union used this method five times to deal with petrocalamities. The first happened in Uzbekistan, on September 30, 1966 with a blast 1.5 times the strength of the Hiroshima bomb and at a depth of 1.5 kilometers. Komsomoloskaya Pravda, a Russian newspaper, also notes that subterranean nuclear blasts were used as much as 169 times in the Soviet Union to accomplish fairly mundane tasks like creating underground storage spaces for gas or building canals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
charlie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-28-10 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #9
16. Explosives are regularly used to snuff flaming wells
But you still have to cap them afterward. How often have they been used to cap a well?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alphafemale Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-31-10 05:59 AM
Response to Reply #16
102. Explosives work on a "flaming" well because it uses up the oxygen.
It's like blowing out a candle.

And yes. You still have to cap the well.

Unless there is someway the intense heat of a nuke would solidify the oil and plug it up...not. This would just make the hole bigger.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheManInTheMac Donating Member (512 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-31-10 09:25 AM
Response to Reply #9
109. They use explosions to put out oil well fires
so they can then cap the well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-28-10 04:11 PM
Response to Original message
8. why don't we all swim out...all 300,000,000 & change of us and pray over the leak
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
awoke_in_2003 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-10 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #8
91. Prayer
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
customerserviceguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-28-10 04:17 PM
Response to Original message
11. From the looks of that picture
those bombs would have been produced a VERY long time ago. As your Wikipedia link shows, they're no longer around.

What's scary is that there is some sort of nuclear bomb technology out there in a size that could be more easily deliverable by terrorists. Hopefully, the plans for this one never come out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-28-10 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #11
37. There's nothing special about that "device".
A good neutron reflector, tritium boosting, and Bob's your ashed uncle.

Tesha
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FLPanhandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-28-10 04:19 PM
Response to Original message
12. What makes you think it just wont make it worse.
An explosion of that magatude could very well open this thing up more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TampaAnimus2010 Donating Member (111 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-28-10 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. That magnitude? 10 tons? Really? Thats just silly.
10 tons of explosives a mile down isn't going to open up anything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FLPanhandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-28-10 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #14
20. Doesn't matter how far down.
You have a pipe leading into an oil reserve. What physics principle are you counting on that placing a 10 ton explosion on top of the pipe will do anything but blow the crap out of the blow out preventer and allow that pipe to free flow?

Explain that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TampaAnimus2010 Donating Member (111 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-28-10 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. What happens to tons of rock when you vaporize it...
then cool it quickly using the surrounding earth and oil? It quickly goes back through phase transitions from gas, to liquid, to solid again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FLPanhandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-28-10 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. and the oil pressure is continuous.
So, by the the time it phases transitions, it basically will form a rock crater around a continuous oil flow.

Fail.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TampaAnimus2010 Donating Member (111 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-28-10 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. Too bad it worked when the Russians did it multiple times.
Also, the gaseous rock will be expelled in all directions... including down the hole pushing the upcoming oil backwards, crimping a plug at the bottom of the explosion, another one at the top of it on the outgoing tube, and internally when the vaporized rock solidifies there. Why is it the Russians can do it but you have trouble grasping the physics of it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FLPanhandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-28-10 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #26
29. With none of them underwater
With a broken BPO on top of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TampaAnimus2010 Donating Member (111 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-28-10 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. Any you think the added water pressure pressing the oil column down...
is a bad thing? Thats a GOOD thing... more weight pressing down on the oil column is that much more pressure on the up flowing oil to prevent it from exiting at an even higher pressure. Next try.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-28-10 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #26
32. I don't believe that story about the Soviets using nuclear bombs to stop leaking oil wells
It doesn't pass the smell test.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Codeine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-10 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #26
58. Which wells? When?
At what depth? Oil or gas?

There's very little evidence that this was ever actually done, but everyone has accepted it as gospel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-31-10 04:26 AM
Response to Reply #26
98. Sorry but you have no proof that the Russians 'did it' and using
just what little you think you know...how is my worry unwarranted again? After reading your post, it is obvious you have no idea what you are talking about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L0oniX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-10 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #23
95. I would suggest a "bunker buster" type of bomb that bores down into the land.
I don't know how far they go and what determines the distance but if it would move down far enough next to the pipe line possibly the weight of the mass above the explosion area along with the pressure at 5000 feet could be enough to plug it up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salguine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-31-10 06:23 AM
Response to Reply #95
103. Those only work when they don't have to travel through two miles of water to reach the rock.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-28-10 04:33 PM
Response to Original message
18. Oh fuck yes, that is just the ticket!
unbelievable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueJazz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-28-10 04:35 PM
Response to Original message
19. Sweet Jesus...it would look like this >>


.
.
.
I'm kidding...might not be a bad idea. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-28-10 04:43 PM
Response to Original message
22. The Russians used nukes five times to control similiar leaks ...

As BP prepares to lower a four-story, 70-ton dome over the oil gusher under the Gulf of Mexico, the Russians — the world’s biggest oil producers — have some advice for their American counterparts: nuke it.

Komsomoloskaya Pravda, the best-selling Russian daily, reports that in Soviet times such leaks were plugged with controlled nuclear blasts underground. The idea is simple, KP writes: “the underground explosion moves the rock, presses on it, and, in essence, squeezes the well’s channel.”

Yes! It’s so simple, in fact, that the Soviet Union, a major oil exporter, used this method five times to deal with petrocalamities. The first happened in Uzbekistan, on September 30, 1966 with a blast 1.5 times the strength of the Hiroshima bomb and at a depth of 1.5 kilometers. KP also notes that subterranean nuclear blasts were used as much as 169 times in the Soviet Union to accomplish fairly mundane tasks like creating underground storage spaces for gas or building canals.

These kinds of surgical strikes to shut off underground leaks, however, were carried out only five times, with the last one occuring in 1979. And there was only one misfire, near Kharkov, Ukraine, where a nuclear blast was unable to stanch a gas leak.

Happily, with a track record like that, “the chances of failure in the Gulf of Mexico are 20%,” KP writes. “The Americans could certainly risk it.”
http://trueslant.com/juliaioffe/2010/05/04/nuke-that-slick/


Maybe if BP fails we could hire the Russians to stop the damn leak.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taitertots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-10 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #22
67. The Russian history of nuclear and environmental calamity is not something we should emulate
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TampaAnimus2010 Donating Member (111 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-10 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #67
73. Ya, certainly not that component of it where they seal wells effectively.
That would be crazy now wouldn't it to be efficient at that!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taitertots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-10 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #73
78. Don't they have a burning pit that they can't figure out how to put out
The giant flaming crater that has been burning for 30+ years.

How effective has it been that they haven't had to do it for 30+ years? When exactly did they do it a mile under water?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-10 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #78
82. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Hempathy Donating Member (292 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-28-10 05:24 PM
Response to Original message
25. Are you at all familiar with the geology of the bottom of the gulf?
Apparently you MUST be, since you claim that the small nuke would be "Perfect" for the job.

Please explain to the rest of us luddites EXACTLY how the nuke would seal the 3-mile drill hole, and stop the flow of oil.

(AFAIK- there is about 1,000 ft of mud between the bott5om of the ocean and the layers of rock that go down another 15,000 ft or so before reaching the oil deposit layers)

But please- lay out just how that nuke would seal the hole so perfectly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TampaAnimus2010 Donating Member (111 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-28-10 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. Well, I could get the Russians to explain how they did it over and over...
But I dont think anything is going to shake that dogmatic perspective of yours where nothing good can come of nuclear energy. If you cant see how vaporizing a few tons of rock, then cooling it back down to a solid would fill the gap, Im not sure what to do with ya.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hempathy Donating Member (292 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-28-10 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #27
35. In the exact same type of scenario? with the same type of seabed?
you might want to check your...facts(?).

"But I dont think anything is going to shake that dogmatic perspective of yours where nothing good can come of nuclear energy"

wow. Would you mind also explaining to me what my "dogmatic perspective" is? you seem to have gleaned a lot about my psyche from my solitary response to your post- please, by all means- elaborate.

"If you cant see how vaporizing a few tons of rock, then cooling it back down to a solid would fill the gap, Im not sure what to do with ya."

so- Is your degree in Nuclear Physics, or Geology? or perhaps both?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TampaAnimus2010 Donating Member (111 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-28-10 07:52 PM
Response to Reply #35
39. Your suggesting every variable be identical?
1 mile of sand, rock, Pepsi, cocaine, or legos even isn't going anywhere with a 10 ton blast... it barely will move 20,000m3 of rock a few yards on a surface blast - see here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2KhGvBDzq0

One doesn't need to be a rocket scientist to see that THAT explosion, under a mile of anything, isn't going anywhere. Of course it wouldn't matter if it were the same type of seabed now would it... you would simply find some other variable that was different and complain about that. I'm not out to convince people like you... I cant expect to reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. Those people capable of thinking about it logically will see it would probably be pretty effective.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hempathy Donating Member (292 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-28-10 08:49 PM
Response to Reply #39
40. First of all- it's "you're", and no, not every variable- just the major ones-
Edited on Fri May-28-10 08:57 PM by Hempathy
mostly ocean depth and the makeup of the seabed.

how deep were the russian wells you refer to? (total depth of the wells, and ocean depth at the well site)

And- you have yet to address the specifics of my "dogmatic perspective" that you seem to be so familiar with...

Cat got your fingers?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TampaAnimus2010 Donating Member (111 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-29-10 09:02 PM
Response to Reply #40
42. You forgot to capitalize the first letter of your second sentence there grammar Nazi...
And you haven't shown how an explosion a mile under the seabed is affected AT ALL by any volume of water on top of it. Actually, the additional pressure should help push the oil down reducing its upward pressure. Look... it's pretty obvious to everyone here your a knee jerk anti-nuke type. We get it...nukes are evil and they cant be used for any good. Whatever... Enjoy that hermetically sealed reality you have there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-10 02:56 AM
Response to Reply #42
48. And radioactive tidal waves are good right? n/t
Edited on Sun May-30-10 03:05 AM by Catherina
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TampaAnimus2010 Donating Member (111 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-10 08:39 AM
Response to Reply #48
53. Sigh... how is it so many people here cant tell the difference between...
Edited on Sun May-30-10 08:39 AM by TampaAnimus2010
a 10 ton explosion vs 10 kilotons or 10 megatons? Thats like saying your going to splash all the water out of your pool by dropping in a grain of sand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chan790 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-10 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #48
59. As much as I'm not in favor of the nuke idea...
Edited on Sun May-30-10 10:45 AM by Chan790
I do feel compelled to point out that the total radioactive impact of a 10T (equiv. to 20,000lbs. of TNT) nuclear blast in >1,000,000,000 ft^3. of water (>62,400,000,000 lbs.) is less than:
  • ambient radiation
  • naturally-occurring isotopes
  • 1 day's sunlight.

    Utterly Negligible. You absorb more rads/lb. than that flying on an airplane...or taking a leisurely stroll in the park on a sunny day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TampaAnimus2010 Donating Member (111 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-10 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #59
63. OMG - someone that understands at least the radiation aspect.
I understand how one might be skeptical of the nuke angle - and honestly they should try as many alternate angles as is reasonable before this, but at some point it makes sense to give it a try. Worst case, you just created a cavity a mile down in the bedrock a few yards wide and the oil continues as it currently is. Best case, it seals the cavity at both ends and problem over.

I pointed out a few threads back a video on youtube showing a 10 ton explosion and its very small compared to a real city killer nuke. I wouldn't support dropping megatons down there, but this looks relatively benign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hempathy Donating Member (292 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-10 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #42
55. Please answr the question- How deep underwater were the Russian wells that were sealed by nukes?
It's a very simple question, and you seem like a very simple person, so you should be able to answer it without toooooo much difficulty. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chan790 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-10 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #55
60. I suspect the Russians consider that data to be classified and have never revealed those details.
It's a great thing about Soviet-style dictatorships and record-keeping...the only information you receive or are entitled to is what they say you are. There is no investigative media or freedom of information.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hempathy Donating Member (292 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-10 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #60
85. Which means that any claims that they successfully accomplished the task are just as suspect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chan790 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-31-10 08:13 AM
Response to Reply #85
105. I'd concede that.
However, I'm not the one you asked the question of initially.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TampaAnimus2010 Donating Member (111 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-10 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #55
64. Soon as you tell me why it matters...
Edited on Sun May-30-10 01:17 PM by TampaAnimus2010
I'm still waiting on you to explain what the difference is between dropping a 10T nuke down a hole a mile deep that would have any different impact if the hole was open to the surface, under 100 feet of water, or a mile of water. Lets go Einstein. Explain it to me, although I doubt your capable of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Codeine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-10 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #64
69. Eisenstein was a filmmaker.
I believe the person you wished to reference was Einstein. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hempathy Donating Member (292 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-10 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #64
84. Well- for one thing, it's under 5000 ft. of water...
Edited on Sun May-30-10 04:02 PM by Hempathy
And- if you really don't understand the difference between working on the surface, where human can access everything hands on, and the air pressure is a nominal factor- and working 5000 ft down, you might be more at home at a site like freerepublic.com.

But- no, I'm not a geologist nor a nuclear physicist by trade- and neither are you- YOU'RE just some guy who's quoting wikipedia of all sources...:rofl:

However- the fact that they AREN'T going with the nuclear/high explosive route obviously means that the guys who DO have the knowledge and insight have come to the conclusion that it's not a workable solution to the situation at hand.

So- why not let the people who made the mess and have the equipment and actual experience worry about it, and you can get a start on those contraction lessons. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-10 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #84
86. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-28-10 05:33 PM
Response to Original message
28. I think digging relief wells and sucking out the remaining oil is a much better idea.
100% of the profits should go to the victims, universities, and clean-up operations.

Blowing up the Gulf bedrock is simply an insane idea.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-28-10 05:40 PM
Response to Original message
31. As one with a bit of experience with explosives, I have one thing to say and I'll try to be tactful
Explosive charges produce results that are inherently unpredictable.

Besides the obvious problems of detonating a nuclear bomb anywhere other than deep in stable ground, it's possible that such a detonation would make the problem worse.

Not just a little worse. It could cause a far larger release of petroleum into the marine environment.

That is all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TampaAnimus2010 Donating Member (111 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-28-10 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. Given 10 tons of TNT isn't enough power to move a mile of cotton candy...
not to mention moving a mile of solid rock... Id be hard pressed to see how it could make it worse. The flow rate is still going to be limited by that mile of rock above the explosion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-28-10 06:26 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. It might replace the one big leak with thousands of little ones
It's really a dumb idea, in fact one of the dumbest ideas I've ever seen in my life.

Drilling a relief well or two WILL fix the problem. If none of the other parallel efforts succeed in the mean time, the leak will be stopped by relief wells.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TampaAnimus2010 Donating Member (111 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-28-10 07:40 PM
Response to Reply #34
38. I think that knee jerk mentality has some issues...
I can say with pretty good confidence that had I said we use conventional explosives (as if that much could actually be shoved down the well), half the people here complaining about this wouldn't have issues. It's the word nuclear that scares people so much - it's practically Pavlovian.

No... it wont replace it with other multiple leaks. A mile of bedrock is going to stop everything. Your just paranoid and because of it and everyone like you, that well is going to pump out twice the destruction it currently has (or more). You can take the No Nukes sign back to the 70s where you found it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iamthebandfanman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-10 03:39 AM
Response to Reply #38
51. lmao
take the no nukes sign back to the 70s where you found it?


maybe you should take urself back to free republic, where you found this idea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tammywammy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-29-10 09:13 PM
Response to Reply #34
43. +1
It's amazing to see pro-nuke threads on DU though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-10 02:43 AM
Response to Reply #43
45. Especially when there is NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE that a nuke has ever been used in that manner before
Repeating "the Soviets did it a couple of times", or "The Soviets did that, and it worked four out of five times", or whatever other version of the rumor one is stuck on, doesn't give me any confidence at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chan790 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-10 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #43
61. Um, there has been a strong pro-nuclear position on DU for a while...
not specifically on this issue but more on the energy issue.

Nuclear energy is a much safer and cleaner energy source than fossil fuels. (That can be taken as a statement of fact as much as it pisses off some people to hear it.) Is it a permanent solution? No. Is it a better bridge to a time when other, yet more environmentally-sound, options are on the table? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TampaAnimus2010 Donating Member (111 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-10 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #61
70. Actually your correct. It's a good stepping stone until at least fusion gets here.
Solar is great while the sun is shining. Wind is wonderful until there is no wind. Fusion will give us enough energy to last us for quite a while into the future.

There's actually a number of promising fusion approaches that might get it here quicker than the standard Tokamak reactors. Lawrenceville Plasma Physics just achieved a pretty nice goalpost along their move towards producing fusion power, by creating the first 1 mega-amp dense plasma fusion pinch.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/05/lawrenceville-plasma-physics-achieves-1.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chan790 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-10 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #43
62. dupe.
Edited on Sun May-30-10 11:02 AM by Chan790
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hempathy Donating Member (292 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-28-10 08:55 PM
Response to Reply #33
41. Can you say for certain how much pressure there is in the oil deposit...?
Edited on Fri May-28-10 08:56 PM by Hempathy
A large enough explosion might make that mile of fractured bedrock weak enough- even for a short period- for the pressure in the oil/gas deposit to explode out, ripping an even larger opening than the current drill hole.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TampaAnimus2010 Donating Member (111 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-10 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #41
71. Obviously a "large enough explosion" could rip the earth apart...
Given were talking a 10T explosion instead of a 1000000MT explosion though... no. It couldn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hempathy Donating Member (292 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-31-10 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #71
111. And when you combine the explosive force with the pressures exerted in the area of the oil deposits-
yes. It could.

But- as stated earlier on, the people with the ACTUAL knowledge about the situation being dealt with(of which you aren't one) have decided that it isn't a workable solution.

Sorry. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacefreak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-28-10 07:22 PM
Response to Original message
36. Well, it worked so well on Lost.
:eyes: :nuke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-10 02:44 AM
Response to Reply #36
46. I've never watched Lost, but this reply is as good as any to explain where the stupid idea came from
:nuke: back at you, peacefreak.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-10 02:52 AM
Response to Original message
47. You can guess all you want to, no thanks to the nuke idea
Edited on Sun May-30-10 02:53 AM by Rex
There are much less risky ideas imo. To bad BPs only intentions are to save the company and not the planet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TampaAnimus2010 Donating Member (111 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-10 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #47
66. Risky? are you one of those that think its going to blow the planet apart also?
This is a VERY small explosion that would be under a mile of bedrock. Go on youtube and look up what 10T worth of TNT actually looks like going off before you speak.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bonobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-10 03:13 AM
Response to Original message
49. Yeah, what could possibly go wrong? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-10 03:16 AM
Response to Original message
50. A suggestion for your high school project
Study the ramifications of disturbing such a massive bed of methane hydrate before thinking about detonating a nuclear weapon in it's vicinity, please.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-10 03:41 AM
Response to Original message
52. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
guitar man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-10 09:12 AM
Response to Original message
54. No no no!!
I want sharks, with fricken laser beams on their heads !!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
adamuu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-10 10:21 AM
Response to Original message
57. won't that turn our hole into a crater with a hole in the bottom?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TampaAnimus2010 Donating Member (111 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-10 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #57
65. It's exactly this uncritical type of thinking that cant tell 10T vs 10KT vs 10MT
Sad. Go look up on youtube what 10 tons of TNT actually looks going off before you spout off about how its going to create a mile deep crater.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
adamuu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-31-10 08:40 AM
Response to Reply #65
106. How rude.
I saw a Rear Admiral on The Ed Show discussing wacky proposals that won't work. This was one of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taitertots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-10 01:12 PM
Response to Original message
68. Is that going to smash the tube
or is it going to leave oil pouring out from a hole that will be in an even harder to work with condition?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TampaAnimus2010 Donating Member (111 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-10 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #68
72. Why do people keep confusing 10T vs 10MT... sigh.
Edited on Sun May-30-10 01:23 PM by TampaAnimus2010
No...there isn't enough power in this - your thinking megatons. Your wrong. Youtube up a 10T explosion and you'll see its patently obvious it couldn't widen the mouth of the hole a mile away from the blast.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taitertots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-10 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #72
75. I know the difference between the two
I've seen the videos of the portable rocket nukes. That looks like it could do any number of things to make the situation worse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TampaAnimus2010 Donating Member (111 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-10 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #75
77. No it cant. Your wrong and I think you know it.
A 10T explosion a mile down in bedrock isnt going to do Jack to the surface hole, and anyone that understands what a 10T explosion looks like would know that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnaries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-10 01:29 PM
Response to Original message
74. How would an explosion seal the well?
Sure, they used to use bombs to put out oil fires. The explosion would deprive the fire of oxygen. But it wouldn't seal the well. It would only put out the fire allow them to get close enough to cap it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TampaAnimus2010 Donating Member (111 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-10 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #74
76. The Russians have already done this a few times...
Read back a few threads and you'll see it discussed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnaries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-10 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #76
83. That's an urban legend. Explosions have only been used to
extinguish fires, not seal wells.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-31-10 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #83
112. I suspect this is correct. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TampaAnimus2010 Donating Member (111 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-10 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #74
80. Watch this video of Matt Simmons
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4whiKQgnp4w

Also... Joe Wiesenthal at Business Insider says the idea of using nukes will be getting a lot of attention now that the “top kill” procedure has failed.
Next, the so-called “nuclear option” is about to get a lot of attention. In this case, of course, nuclear option is not a euphemism. It’s the real idea that the best way to kill this thing is to stick a small nuke in there and bury the well under rubble. … By the middle of the coming week, it will be all over cable news, as pundits press The White House hard on whether it’s being considered and why not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-10 08:11 PM
Response to Reply #74
93. Imagine drilling a new hole next to the old hole (paralleling the old hole).
Drill into the bedrock a thousand feet or five. Have the new
hole located some appropriate distance from the old hole.

The bottom of the new hole is nowhere near the oil reservoir
(and they know this because they were logging the old hole
the whole way down; they know exactly what sort of geological
strata exists the whole way down to the reservoir).

Detonate an appropriately-sized explosion at the bottom of
the new hole. It delivers a shock wave to the old hole that
crushes the casing, pinching-off the old hole along a rather
long section of the casing.

Compared to all the jack-off stuff they've tried so far, this
probably has a pretty good probability of success along with
a pretty low probability of making things any worse.

Tesha
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daleo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-10 01:44 PM
Response to Original message
79. Do you mean detonate on the seafloor?
Or a mile deeper than that?

If it's the latter, it would take more time to drill that hole than it would take to drill the relief wells.

If it's the former, it is possible that it wouldn't do much more than move a lot of mud around. I don't believe nuclear explosions have been tested under anything like these conditions.

It was a mistake to allow drilling at this depth without the basic scientific research needed work at these depths and pressures. Clearly that knowledge wasn't there yet, or we wouldn't be facing this situation. The nuke option would repeat that basic mistake.

That being said, if the relief wells don't work, who knows what might seem reasonable? Desperate people do desperate things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-10 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #79
81. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Skip Intro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-10 04:24 PM
Response to Original message
87. It''s the only way to get us off this God-foresaken Island!!!
oh, wait...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madinmaryland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-10 04:33 PM
Response to Original message
88. And what happens when the nuke causes a much larger gash to open up and
spew hundreds of thousands of barrels out per day or multiples there of??

We can only "hope" that it works. That is not the hope that I voted for, nor the one the POTUS wants to give us.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shadow Creature Donating Member (105 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-10 05:29 PM
Response to Original message
92. unless
Unless it collapses the entire pocket where the millions of barrels of oil reside and release it all into the Gulf at the same time, utterly destroying any hope of recovery.

Otherwise, why not?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deaniac21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-10 08:22 PM
Response to Original message
94. This is a truly stupid post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L0oniX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-10 08:58 PM
Response to Reply #94
96. Thanks for the warning ...glad I didn't read it.
:crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
adamuu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-31-10 08:41 AM
Response to Reply #94
107. Then the OP went through with hostile responses to the criticism and, in my case, doubt
not cool.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flvegan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-10 09:13 PM
Response to Original message
97. It would appear that the OP is no longer with us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
B Calm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-31-10 05:24 AM
Response to Original message
99. Forgetting the earthquake fault lines in the Gulf of Mexico?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mendocino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-31-10 05:26 AM
Response to Original message
100. "The guys from Mad Men examine their latest ad project"
Nothing inspires confidence like 50 year old technology.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-31-10 05:51 AM
Response to Original message
101. I am starting to think that folks who suggest nuking it
just like the thought of setting off nukes, like this is some experiment that would be fun to watch. Its never going to happen. Give it up. Get a life. lol.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mendocino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-31-10 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #101
110. I remember some advocating
that we nuke hurricanes. Some can't get over the "Let's Nuke It" mentality, as if nuclear weapons can solve any problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-31-10 06:45 AM
Response to Original message
104. What could possibly go wrong?
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ezlivin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-31-10 09:19 AM
Response to Original message
108. Moot point: We no longer have that weapon
In 1991, President George H.W. Bush announced his decision to retire artillery-fired atomic weapons in the U.S. stockpile. The President made his decision unilaterally, apart from any arms control agreement with the former Soviet Union. The weapons, including all W-79s, were returned to NNSA for dismantlement at the Pantex plant. Source

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 09th 2024, 12:57 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC