Time to nuke the Gulf leak?
posted at 8:50 pm on July 5, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
Call it the Option That Will Not Die. As long as oil continues to spew into the Gulf at a rate that equals the Exxon Valdex every three days, the crisis will look desperate enough for the most desperate measures. And one measure is about as desperate as it gets:
A nuclear fix to the leaking well has been touted online and in the occasional newspaper op-ed for weeks now. Washington has repeatedly dismissed the idea and BP execs say they are not considering an explosion — nuclear or otherwise. But as a series of efforts to plug the 60,000 barrels of oil a day gushing from the sea floor have failed, talk of an extreme solution refuses to die.
For some, blasting the problem seems the most logical answer in the world. Mikhailov has had a distinguished career in the nuclear field, helping to close a Soviet Union program that used nuclear explosions to seal gas leaks. Ordinarily he’s an opponent of nuclear blasts, but he says an underwater explosion in the Gulf of Mexico would not be harmful and could cost no more than $10 million. That compares with the $3 billion BP has paid out in cleanup and compensation costs so far. “This option is worth the money,” he says.
And it’s not just Soviet boffins. Milo Nordyke, one of the masterminds behind U.S. research into peaceful nuclear energy in the 1960s and ’70s says a nuclear explosion is a logical last-resort solution for BP and the government. Matthew Simmons, a former energy adviser to U.S. President George W. Bush and the founder of energy investment-banking firm Simmons & Company International, is another calling for the nuclear option.
Even former U.S. President Bill Clinton has voiced support for the idea of an explosion to stem the flow of oil, albeit one using conventional materials rather than nukes. “Unless we send the Navy down deep to blow up the well and cover the leak with piles and piles and piles of rock and debris, which may become necessary … unless we are going to do that, we are dependent on the technical expertise of these people from BP,” Clinton told the Fortune/Time/CNN Global Forum in South Africa on June 29.
The conventional blast doesn’t sound like it would work. The reasoning goes that the force and the heat of a nuke would effectively seal the hole and cracks in the field, as well as give it that healthy glow all young seabeds desire. Blasting it with conventional weapons might just make the situation worse, which is why Clinton added the ‘rocks and debris’ proviso. Unfortunately, that sounds like a replay of “top kill,” which turned out to be impractical at that depth.
Furthermore, the Russians (then Soviets) had practical experience at this kind of intervention, as the article mentions. At least one of those blasts were apparently above the surface, though, and not all of them were entirely successful. Getting it half done with a nuke would make it almost impossible to fix it any further, it would seem, except with another top-kill operation, and a nuclear blast in the immediate area just might complicate those efforts.
We still have other options on the table. BP is in the process of drilling relief wells that, if successful, will greatly reduce the pressure at the damaged wellhead and perhaps give BP a chance to cap it completely. That won’t take place until August, though, so the best idea is probably to sit tight and wait it out, or try other methods of capping it short of a cataclysmic explosion. The nuclear option is in this case a literal nuclear option and should be used only in the final extremity, it at all.
What do you think? Take the poll:
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
we are not here to be inspired…..we are here….to be…entertained.
Are you not entertained?
ted c on July 5, 2010 at 10:21 PM
Unsure. It’s worth having on the table, the question is, how, if at all, could it make things worse? Remember, we’re dealing with a whole bunch of progressives here. We’ve gotta remember the “unintended” consequences/results.
MeatHeadinCA on July 5, 2010 at 10:22 PM
Was the Comment of the Day™ awarded yet?
steveegg on July 5, 2010 at 10:22 PM
Having had some professional contact with some of their nuclear experts I personally wouldn’t trust anything most of them told me about anything. I know I’m speaking broadly but I’ve also had dealings with the Japanese, French, South Africans and British but the Russians were just different. They generally didn’t generate a feeling of trust and they never really trusted us either.
Oldnuke on July 5, 2010 at 10:23 PM
Different situation – that wasn’t nuked, but simply set ablaze after the cavern collapsed.
The one failure I know of involved a too-small device.
steveegg on July 5, 2010 at 10:25 PM
That’s what she said…
/tee hee.
massrighty on July 5, 2010 at 10:26 PM
Obviously, we have a lot of folks ignorant of the consequences otherwise it would be 100% NEVER.
Kermit on July 5, 2010 at 10:29 PM
I don’t know much, if anything about oil wells or geology but I’m fairly familiar with radiation and it’s effects. Can’t say whether an explosion would seal the well or not. One thing I can say for sure is that if we decide to use a nuke you’d better understand the consequences and they’d better be the lesser of two evils and that’s win or lose. So far no one has convinced me that this solution is not worse than the problem. And FWIW Obama will NEVER choose the nuclear option even if it turns out to be the best because he could be held accountable for it.
Oldnuke on July 5, 2010 at 10:30 PM
How ’bout a really big bomb. It would collapse the entire shooting match but not render the place radioactive.
Mojave Mark on July 5, 2010 at 10:31 PM
Lamest counter argument ever?
NotCoach on July 5, 2010 at 10:31 PM
I get the collapse part, but why do you think that a really big bomb wouldn’t cause radioactive contamination?
Oldnuke on July 5, 2010 at 10:34 PM
Or he will say it was forced on him by the public, namely conservatives, who thought they knew the In n Outs of a nuke detonation on a well.
He will never take full responsibility. Never.
journeyintothewhirlwind on July 5, 2010 at 10:34 PM
Precisely and since he, personally, is the only one who can authorize a nuke he will never do it. That authority cannot be delegated.
Oldnuke on July 5, 2010 at 10:37 PM
First, it appears that we are about a week away from relief well success.
Additionally, we are a week away from all the production being captured by a floating riser setup with a new improved containment cap and a ship known as the Helix Producer to capture virtually all of the outflow. The Helix Producer was scheduled to serve as a floating production platform to offload to shuttle tankers (300,000 bbls each) from another deepwater field in the GoM, but obviously BP is paying a lot of money to get its owners (Helix Energy Solutions) to delay production from their own field.
Since the top flow and top hat are now recovering the very gaseous flow, it is quite obvious that it is not much more tha 35,000 bbls per day if that much coming out of the hole.
Kermit on July 5, 2010 at 10:37 PM
Keep on listening to Prison Planet and the Russkies. They obviously are both quite credible to some.
Kermit on July 5, 2010 at 10:40 PM
Ed, we wouldn’t detonate the nuke on the seafloor, it would be detonated a mile below the seafloor. I don’t know what radiation you are speaking about. It wouldn’t complicate any further efforts at all, as the radiation would be sealed by over a mile of rock on top of it.
thphilli on July 5, 2010 at 10:47 PM
IIRC, there was a theory back a ways about the Bermuda Triangle, where there were a boatload of methane hydrates in deep water and every so often there’d be a mudslide on the edge of the continental shelf and a few acres of water would turn into methane foam — which, being lighter than water, would be insufficient to float a ship.
Also, IIRC, the site sits in the alluvial fan of the Mississippi, and they had problems with hydrates clogging their salvage operation.
While a small nuke wouldn’t cause a seismic incident, I’d want to be very careful about starting underwater landslides — and I’d like to know about the Soviet experience with nuking alluvial deposits, if any.
cthulhu on July 5, 2010 at 10:47 PM
We tried golf balls to stop this thing. Nuking sounds entirely more reasonable than that.
But apparently, the August solution is supposed to have a fairly strong chance of working (the others were kind of Hail Marys). Something as drastic as nuking should wait until after our best solution fails.
BtM on July 5, 2010 at 10:50 PM
Why would that be of concern to you? Incidentally, this is a conventional and proven method. It is called an explosion to seal a well. The nuke element simply makes the amount of explosive used a lot less.
keep the change on July 5, 2010 at 10:52 PM
No, an actual argument is credible to me. Your post at 10:37 is what you should have posted in the first place.
NotCoach on July 5, 2010 at 10:56 PM
I know that, but their answer to just about everything is explosives. If you have a lot of territory, no Sierra club and total control of the media, its not a bad thing. It didn’t work in Turkmenistan and we only have their word about the effectiveness of the nuclear option.
It wasn’t a bad idea, the solids were there to give the chemicals something to stick to. I don’t know what they used, but back when I was drilling, bentonite was the top of the line stuff to seal wells.
cozmo on July 5, 2010 at 11:09 PM
It is not like the reporting on this site has been that credible in the first place. The reporting across the internet, and all forms of media, has been rather atrociously inaccurate to begin with. Why wouldn’t the vast majority of the public be quite ignorant? Media has been so horribly ignorant in the first place by asking questions which had no bearing on anything that only those in the industry would even have a clue.
Congress has actually called up ambulance chaser expert witnesses to help it with new legislation. They all have great resumes on paper but when they opened their mouths in testimony, obviously don’t have a clue.
The funny thing is that some real experts have been able to get through to Stupak’s office and are working with him since no one else seems to listen to reason thus far. Hopefully he will not squander such consultation unless Pelosi Galore squashes it.
Kermit on July 5, 2010 at 11:13 PM
This site is not a ‘reporting’ site. It is a blog that aggregates and comments on news. Occasionally there are real news scoops that count as true journalism.
What is great about sites like this is people like you, who are knowledgeable about a particular topic, such as this. You are free to come and post informative comments that give real illumination into a topic that may be remote to most people.
Squandering 400+ words on bitching about the site doesn’t strike me as rational or helpful, which is contrary to my gut feeling about you and your opinions.
Keep commenting and illuminating facts and flaws. It is appreciated beyond your initial comprehension.
Inanemergencydial on July 5, 2010 at 11:23 PM
Just talking out of my a$$ now, but what if they nuked it and it caused some major earthquakes and that caused more cracks and fissures for oil to leak, spurt, or just shoot out of there?
Mirimichi on July 5, 2010 at 11:56 PM
BP doesn’t want to close the well as BP is making revenues from the recovered oil. Closing down the well will cost them big money.
The Administration doesn’t want to close the well as that’d lessen the crisis and hence the administration’s opportunity to “leverage” the crisis.
desertdweller on July 6, 2010 at 12:07 AM
Yes. Let’s nuke it just before the relief wells are in place! Genius!
The relief wells will work. They’re almost dug. Do it right, don’t run half-cocked into panic-driven decision making.
Oh wait, panic-driven decision making is what this administration does best. So when do we nuke it?
Nethicus on July 6, 2010 at 12:14 AM
You people need to get over the, “Oh my god! We can’t nuke it!” attitude.
Subterranean nuclear tests are a known commodity. People have the misconception that nuking the oil well means nuking it at the sea floor 5000 feet down. It’s easier than you think… They’re already drilling relief wells which are supposed to make the leak point easier to cap but back in ’79 with the Ixtoc spill in the Gulf of Campeche they did that as well and they still couldn’t plug it.
If they use the relief well drill points that they are drilling right now, they could insert a nuke into the newly drilled relief well shafts and plug it with concrete. Imagine, the reservoir that they are pulling this oil from is 18000 ft below the sea floor which is 5000 ft below sea level.
All they have to do is drill a few thousand feet down parallel to the leaking well, insert the nuke into the shaft, plug the hole and blow the nuke. Go look up pictures of the Arizona nuke test grounds where they did tests in the 60′s. Each one of those tests created a cavity several hundred feet below the surface of the planet and the earth above the blast zone caved in and covered the hole.
Putting the nuke below the surface of the sea floor limits the exposure of radiation fallout and caves in all the earth above the blast zone, thus cutting the leak off. The nuke basically cauterizes the earth around the blast zone into a great big ball of glass.
Even IF the nuke only reduces the leak to a trickle, that’s infinitely better than the gusher we have rght now. It buys time for BP to drill other relief wells to make sure it stops leaking totally.
SauerKraut537 on July 6, 2010 at 12:23 AM
If the well casing is gone?
I like the nuke idea,but,what would happen,from the blast,
shock wave,in relation to the Tiber Well that is capped,
and is down at a depth of 35,055 feet!!
========================================
Release date: 02 September 2009
BP announced today a giant oil discovery at its Tiber Prospect in the deepwater US Gulf of Mexico.
The well, located in Keathley Canyon block 102, approximately 250 miles (400 kilometres) south east of Houston, is in 4,132 feet (1,259 metres) of water. The Tiber well was drilled to a total depth of approximately 35,055 feet (10,685 metres) making it one of the deepest wells ever drilled by the oil and gas industry. The well found oil in multiple Lower Tertiary reservoirs. Appraisal will be required to determine the size and commerciality of the discovery.
http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7055818
=========================================
BP Makes Giant Deepwater Discovery with Tiber
http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=79913
canopfor on July 6, 2010 at 12:31 AM
Why wasn’t there a poll choice on “Nuke Washington DC, then suck up all the oil in the gulf; refine and use it.”
LegendHasIt on July 6, 2010 at 12:41 AM
I have only one thing to say to mr. obamao (notice, no capitalization on purpose)
Plug the f’ing hole you worthless excuse for an American!!!
Vntnrse on July 6, 2010 at 1:03 AM
Canopfor… The Tiber well is several hundred miles to the west of Deepwater Horizon. I’d be a little more worried about the other wells in the vicinity than that one but the blast would be several thousand feet below the sea floor, if not a mile down, and blowing a nuke that far down below the sea floor would create at best what we would call a 1 or a 2 on the richter scale. That’s nominal to say the least.
The worry that was expressed by someone else in this thread about the land slides… Are you really worried about a land slide under the surface of the Gulf or are you more worried about all the damn oil that’s killing off people’s livlihoods, and making the gulf coast a toxic zone where no tourism and fishing is gonna be happening for 10′s of years?
SauerKraut537 on July 6, 2010 at 1:04 AM
Reading the pros of the nuke idea, I see a lot of “it could”, “if”, “maybe”, “possibly”, and other qualifiers. It might actually work, but since it has not been done before, every outcome, good and bad, is hypothetical. But it might actually NOT work for the same reasons, and if it does not work there could be some severe downsides to having tried it at all. What could be worse than having the entire gulf coast slathered in oil? Well, for one, having the entire gulf coast slathered in radioactive oil.
MikeA on July 6, 2010 at 6:23 AM
I see two problems that need to be addressed before the nuke option is considered.
Is it really methane causing the bubble in the seabed floor at the well head site?
And …what do the mud logs tell us about the strata…
jerrytbg on July 6, 2010 at 7:16 AM
An interesting watch…
jerrytbg on July 6, 2010 at 7:23 AM
Just like Obamalinsky, this is above my pay grade. Best left to experts. No comment……
adamsmith on July 6, 2010 at 7:35 AM
Operation Gasbuggy showed that a lot of radioactive gas was released into the atmosphere with subterranean nuke and kept that area radioactive for some time. The Russkies were “successful” in 3 out of 4 times in a much simpler scenario and never underwater.
Give me the Helix Producer 1 in perpetuity instead, should relief wells (which work 95% of the time at first attempt and over 99% of the time always).
As for nearby wells, the nearest is 20 miles away. Tiber is not only a few hundred miles away but UNDER the geological salt layer unlike Macondo which is above it.
Kermit on July 6, 2010 at 8:20 AM
It is quite obvious that all of these types of reports have come out about the time that forces were in play to drive BP’s stock price downward. It is sooooooo Alex Jonesy in substance, and ROV’s skimming along a seafloor stirring up the sediment is NOT any oil plume.
This is exactly the type of layer (that at the seafloor) that becomes oil and/or natural gas with the proper geological conditions far down the road.
Kermit on July 6, 2010 at 8:26 AM
The top kill failed because of the limited radius of the mud lines. The releif wells will have a much larger radius. The flow goes up as radius to the 4th power.
If you don’t understand what I just said, then you can exit the conversation, now.
Thanks for playing.
WWCathodeRay on July 6, 2010 at 8:28 AM
Use a bomb…gee, good idea, let’s use a bomb that could create and even larger hole/problem. Nobody knows the results of a explosion.
I could see it know, big explosion, big seam created, oil pouring out at 100 times the rate, and every bit being washed up along shore…now who do you think steps forward and says “This was my idea, sorry”…
No offense, but posters have no “money in the pot”…
right2bright on July 6, 2010 at 9:09 AM
Alas, the truly ignorant ones will not exit the conversation. I saw a lot of this during my two years working in SoCal. Everyone seems to be a pundit there, with neither experience or factual basis.
Kermit on July 6, 2010 at 9:17 AM
OK-oakland-where did you study geology?
Seriously, I’ve read a few of your comments from the 1st page here & they pretty silly.
You are not going to cause earthquakes in China, or anywhere else.
WTF are you smoking?
I did go to undergrad school at Laramie & I knew a few of you guys in the geology department there.
In field camp, they smoked weed & got Fs on their cross sections.
Badger40 on July 6, 2010 at 9:21 AM
Best answer here yet.
Let’s quit talking out of our a$$e$ here, Al-The Earth’s Core is Millions of Degrees- Gore style, about causing earthquakes & $hit if we nuke & just let the engineers & geo oil & gas people, etc. do their jobs.
Badger40 on July 6, 2010 at 9:25 AM
Are you new to this planet? This is a blog with open forums. People comment whether you like it or not. This is as bad as your post from July 5, 2010 at 10:29 PM.
I can tell you that most people will simply ignore you with an arrogant attitude like this. Maybe you have something constructive to add or maybe you don’t. But it isn’t likely to get through if you insist on continuing to try and demonstrate how supperior you are to the rest of us.
NotCoach on July 6, 2010 at 9:26 AM
BTW-I’m all for nuking stuff if it contains “Iran” & “Afghanistan” in the same sentence.
Badger40 on July 6, 2010 at 9:27 AM
Remaining ignorant on the subject and hoping magical oil fairies will fix all of our problems is not very smart. The more we all know the more pressure we can put on the Ditherer-in-Chief to actually do something. When we sit around waiting for the so called experts to solve our problems, we are just simply waiting for our own end.
I want a serious debate and investigation of the feasibility of ALL options. Not derisive dismissals from this administration. If a nuke is ultimately not the best solution then lets get down and dirty and hash out all the whys and why nots of it so we all understand the best course of action.
NotCoach on July 6, 2010 at 9:33 AM
When I say experts, I mean people not associated with the politics of anything.
BP has experts on staff.
I would think that other experts from other ‘places’ would be willing to get involved to stop this mess.
None of us here seem to have any connections to the inside info on this disaster.
We have no idea what people are really working on this problem.
I can understand that incompetence occurs in this industry.
It would be nice for the media to be able report on exactly WHO is getting together (engineers etc.) to decide the fate of this thing.
And if you are suggesting that I am advocating that we all remain ignorant of things, you are sadly mistaken.
But if you also think that you are going to gain enough meaningful knowledge of the geology & physics of this situation by just debating this $hit on a blog, you are seriously mistaken.
You can’t get a virtual degree in geology or petroleum engineering by blogging.
From my experience in undergrad geology education (which I have a degree in), the $hit ain’t as easy to understand as you’d like it to be.
And ignorant people postulating here on a blog does nothing to calm people’s fears.
It’s just silly gossip.
Badger40 on July 6, 2010 at 9:49 AM
Never! If you ever want to sit on the dock at Mallory Square and watch the sunset sipping a pina colada again! Nobody has a clue if this will work and what will happen to the sea floor. This is not a place we can experiment with a nuclear bomb. What if the robot arm hits it and it drifts off before going off? hmmmm.
Kissmygrits on July 6, 2010 at 9:51 AM
I think I would rather see the oil leak until every last drop came out, with the area having skimmers, and every other cleanup device possible than have it nuked. That isn’t based on science as much as it is a condemnation of the current administration which I wouldn’t trust with two matchsticks and a 99 cent sparkler.
DrAllecon on July 6, 2010 at 9:56 AM
We work with what we are given. Unfortunately I have seen more intelligent debate and information on this subject here than anywhere else. Just for that reason this option should be pushed so we can get push back from actual analysis of the feasibility.
NotCoach on July 6, 2010 at 9:57 AM
I said nuke it on “Day 1″. Its the only way to stop it.
But…they dont want to stop it, never did.
xRos on July 6, 2010 at 10:00 AM
We don’t know what a nuclear explosion will do at that depth, number one; number two, nothing we have can be exploded at that depth without substantial modification; number three, we take the risk of making a small hole a really really big hole.
Tennman on July 6, 2010 at 10:04 AM
How do you know it’s intelligent?
I mean, I guess if you have a degree in physics, or engineering, or geology, then go ahead & feel comfortable enough to say that.
From my limited undergrad geology education, few of the arguments I’ve seen here are very intelligent.
Most of the stuff people are saying here is plain guess work w/ no education behind it.
My ex-husband used to tell me how features of the earth were created & to him, every single rock he saw was ‘feldspar’! He was sure proud of the limited knowledge he had acquired. And when I would gently tell him what the real situation was, he would respond with “Why can’t you let me be right!” Ha ha!
I really am amused by some of the stuff here, ala Guam tipping over-style.
LMAO!
BTW- people who postulate about things they really know nothing about, well here on our ranch, we call them DUDES (AKA greenhorns).
Badger40 on July 6, 2010 at 10:04 AM
My point is that there is an actual discussion here. Why is there no actual discussion on the pros and cons of this option out of the administration or in the MSM?
And Guam tipping over is a sarcastic reference to a House members comments recently during a congressional hearing about Guam in relationship to Guams population. He actually believed that too many people on one side of the island might cause it to tip over. Any references to that in this thread are attempts at humor.
NotCoach on July 6, 2010 at 10:14 AM
The material in one nuke is not going to make for a significant amount of radioactive oil — particularly if we are talking about a hydrogen bomb.
Count to 10 on July 6, 2010 at 10:14 AM
I know how to stop the leak, but my phone’s not ringing.
franksalterego on July 6, 2010 at 10:16 AM
Get over yourself.
strictnein on July 6, 2010 at 10:19 AM
Not so. BP’s plan from the very beginning was to seal the well. That is what the relief wells are for. There only purpose is to seal the well. BP started drilling them within days of the original incident.
Obama’s plan is chaos.
The BP find of oil at this location is obviously very significant. So once this tragedy is over it would make sense to drill again in a nearby location.
Dasher on July 6, 2010 at 10:24 AM
Not all fallout comes from fission products, a lot comes from neutron activation. Read this, pay particular attention to the last two paragraphs.
Oldnuke on July 6, 2010 at 10:25 AM
I have presented many a valid argument and explanation in the past. I was the first person by several weeks on a number of blogs (including HotAir) to point out the Jones Act roadblocks.
I am tired of trying to point out fallacies in all media reports, which have been fraught with them from day 1.
The main problem with virtually all websites like HotAir is that they moderators really have no clue about such operations are have bought into bogus info from places like “Oil Drum” whose purpose is to preach doom and gloom about “Peak Oil”. It is NOT a place of expert opinion except with some of the posters there.
Every paranoid person on the net seems to be drawn to YouTubes and reports originating from outright communist inspired Unitarian Church on the corner of Jefferson & Claiborne in New Orleans. Truth be known this is a den of “New World Order” folks that makes ACORN look like pikers when it comes to stealth infiltration.
Kermit on July 6, 2010 at 10:27 AM
The main problem with virtually all websites like HotAir is that they moderators really have no clue about such operations are have bought into bogus info from places like “Oil Drum” whose purpose is to preach doom and gloom about “Peak Oil”. It is NOT a place of expert opinion except with some of the posters there.
Nice grammar and sentence structure you have there, Narcissus.
kingsjester on July 6, 2010 at 10:35 AM
Working with something like this is not going to be easy and nuking it isn’t going to be the end all.
The other “wells” did not have the pressure that this well has and is gushing. The Russian’s who drilled, were drilling oil that was very thick and there wasn’t the pressure behind it. China as well had one with a tad more pressure then the Russian well. But here is the kicker everyone…. there weren’t any other drilled wells around it.
So with that said… how do you think that nuking is the only option? You want the seafood to be radiation free.. right? What happens if it creates a void and the water goes in, starting a small tsunami? What if the oil pool and methane come up after the explosion and what you thought was bad turn 100 times worse? What if you kill everything in that area, sea life wise?
You have to take the variables as well as the non.
The insanity is that it is people who are not geo-engineers, ocean-engineers, bio-engineers who are not being asked the outcome. Make sure you figure out who your enemy is before you start slinging arrows.
upinak on July 6, 2010 at 10:35 AM
No “gotta nuke something” option? For shame. For shame.
lorien1973 on July 6, 2010 at 10:36 AM
The nuclear option runs a pretty high risk of making this particular leak a lot worse. Part of the problem here is that the seabed in this area is somewhat unstable, and prone to cracking. That’s part of what caused this problem in the first place.
A nuclear blast runs the risk of creating cracks in the sea floor that would leak oil from hundreds of different points. That would make the clean up a lot harder.
hawksruleva on July 6, 2010 at 10:37 AM
The bigger problem, of course, is that we’re not getting up the oil that’s already spilled before it reaches land. And we could, if efforts were coordinated, serious, or intelligent.
hawksruleva on July 6, 2010 at 10:38 AM
I never studied geology.
You are saying that you knew some guys in geology?
Please tell me how you are certain that a subterranean detonation would not ever result in a quake.
Also, how is it that a concern about I-131 is “silly”?
oakland on July 6, 2010 at 10:39 AM
Nobody in the “industry” even referrences Peak Oil anymore unless they are trying to project the doom machine themselves nor do they go to the Oil Drum as the greenies took it over.
Peak Oil in the industry, was how far it peaked per capita via per country. No one knows that it seems.
upinak on July 6, 2010 at 10:39 AM
Take your own advice, retard.
Take heart – I got what you said. Haven’t forgotten everything from my science classes. :)
Dark-Star on July 6, 2010 at 10:40 AM
You are an idiot. She said Minor. Which means she has the degree. FYI for you, that you obvously can’t read.
Also I work in the industry and it seems you don’t have a clue as to what you speak of. Sit down, shut up and learn instead of being a troll hijacking a thread.
upinak on July 6, 2010 at 10:40 AM
Exactly. Risk assessment means one humbles himself to the unknowns. No pun intended here, but with nuking wells, we are in unchartered waters.
oakland on July 6, 2010 at 10:41 AM
I would be very surprised if anyone who works here takes Peak Oil seriously. And I am really not sure what your overall point is. HotAir is a news aggregator with opinionated commentary on the news from its resident bloggers, Ed and AP. But I am sure you know that. HotAir never was and never will be a leading edge news site, but a site for smart conservative commentary from its bloggers. At least from Ed anyways. No comment on AP.
NotCoach on July 6, 2010 at 10:42 AM
I’ll be fair, i only voted “Should have done it already” because i want to see something nuked.
Yes, i’m that childish.
madne0 on July 6, 2010 at 10:43 AM
well, at least you are honest.
upinak on July 6, 2010 at 10:44 AM
My, how defensive. Don’t like debate?
You are referring to some posting that I haven’t read.
Also, any reasonable person reading my comments can see I don’t claim any expertise.
Do you have any constructive comments. Please enlighten me and us.
oakland on July 6, 2010 at 10:45 AM
Oh LOOK a Newbie.
How about you go read some more. I have nothing to say to someone who obviously can’t keep up on the thread and obviously can’t read. How about reading everyone post before making the blind jump.
upinak on July 6, 2010 at 10:47 AM
It would make for some fantastic television, you’ve got to give me that.
madne0 on July 6, 2010 at 10:48 AM
Hey oakland… who let you in BTW.. Ed or Allah?
We know there hasn’t been any open registration.
upinak on July 6, 2010 at 10:48 AM
upinak on July 6, 2010 at 10:39 AM
Then, m’lady, what you are saying is that this individual’s self-proclaimed soooper-genius assessment of the Gulf Oil Crisis and reality have taken divergent paths.
kingsjester on July 6, 2010 at 10:49 AM
you mean like the discovery channel “OMG the Well” crap they aired? No one really knows what happened or how this well became out of control. it is ALL specualtion. Yet there was Discovery…
sighs.
upinak on July 6, 2010 at 10:50 AM
Could be. No one is ever going to see all the paper work on this well. Why? Via the Federal Government… MMS and BLM will ALWAYS have any “exploration” well confidential. No regular person will ever ever EVER see those papers until the Fed Gov decide the well is not worth the time. And very rarely does that happen.
upinak on July 6, 2010 at 10:52 AM
Obviously, you have no light to shed on the matter.
oakland on July 6, 2010 at 10:52 AM
upinak on July 6, 2010 at 10:50 AM
I’m sure someone from BP and/or the gubmit knows how the leak happened, but they certainly have not shared it with Americans.
kingsjester on July 6, 2010 at 10:53 AM
How about you ask… King, or Badger40, or anyone who has been on this “blog” obviously longer then you. I do work in the oil industry. I do know what I am talking about and I have even mentioned the probability of what happen via this well and rig. I don’t have to prove myself to you. :) BBL I have a meeting to attend too.
upinak on July 6, 2010 at 10:54 AM
Of course, one more thing about nuking the well is that Iran could immediately say that it’s in the process of making “oil field safety equipment” instead of “devices to eliminate Tel Aviv”.
cthulhu on July 6, 2010 at 10:59 AM
Funny,
my phone’s STILL not ringing,
isn’t it.
franksalterego on July 6, 2010 at 11:06 AM
A lefty bumper sticker once told me:
One nuke can ruin your whole day.
/
Disturb the Universe on July 6, 2010 at 11:06 AM
One of the more stupid ideas that I have heard. BP is a couple of weeks away from intersecting the wellbore with a relief well, the only viable option from day one.
Vashta.Nerada on July 6, 2010 at 11:10 AM
LOL
strictnein on July 6, 2010 at 11:20 AM
I know that trained experts SHOULD be able to control a blast, nuclear or otherwise. I just can’t shake the image of Hiroshima and Nagasaki only taking place over a mile underwater, after even (relatively) safer and simpler methods have been tried and failed.
I’m certainly not pretending to be an expert, but do you REALLY have to be an expert to be concerned with this millenia’s version of the 3 stooges setting of a nuclear explosion?
(I would have gone with the Marx Brothers, but for obvious reasons it would have been misinterpreted)
DrAllecon on July 6, 2010 at 11:33 AM
I understand where you’re coming from and can totally sympathize. This administration is making the Bush Bunch look like Raegan’s cousins…I am highly skeptical of them being able to wield nuclear power at all!
I mean, if Obama has openly said he won’t even let loose our arsenal in a doomsday scenario, who’s to say he won’t actively screw up a peacetime deployment of a nuke just to score points with his base?
Dark-Star on July 6, 2010 at 11:51 AM
What bothers me about the nuclear option is that BP has been having troubles with this well for a long time due to the surrounding seafloor fracturing and cracking. My guess is that they’re in a situation they’ve never faced before, making stuff up as they go along, which led to the unconventional well closing sequence they used that led to the blowout. You plant a nuke on the wellhead and I’m not sure what the seabed is going to do. The technique has never been used underwater before, and all that seawater under tremendous pressure is going to focus the force of the blast on the weakest point, which could be a seabed that can’t take the pressure.
Too many unknowns, don’t do it.
Socratease on July 6, 2010 at 11:55 AM
Isotope so.
Dr. Charles G. Waugh on July 6, 2010 at 11:56 AM
Doh.
lorien1973 on July 6, 2010 at 12:02 PM
the other problem is that many of the people (BP and MMS) who okayed anything concerning drilling and such… are only college chair quarterbacks. They have NO experience with drilling, never stepped on a rig… nor have they ever actually worked in the field.
That smart power crap really is great, isn’t it!
upinak on July 6, 2010 at 12:09 PM
The wells in Siberia that the Russians nuked, people who worked there said were done not to seal a leak, but because they wanted to frac the reservoir (break up the rock to increase oil flow). They ended up fusing the whole thing–I had heard–by accident.
Western companies still won’t let their employees near those because of the radioactivity.
If they did use nukes to stop blow outs, I have to wonder why they didn’t drill a relief well. In the West, that technology has been used and advanced for a long time.
TwilightAuthor on July 6, 2010 at 12:10 PM
LOL!
Dark-Star on July 6, 2010 at 12:13 PM
Have Red Adair’s folks, Coots ‘N’ Boots, and a bunch of Cajun roustabouts git ‘er done.
And keep Kap’n Suckass the hell away from the Gulf. He’s only making it worse.
Christien on July 6, 2010 at 12:14 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »