We're totally screwed. Bring out the nuke!

BP and the government are both lying about the seriousness of the problem. From numerous sources, I've been able to determine that there is a high likelihood that the well casing was blown out of the hole during the initial explosion, therefore making anything we do to stop the leak short of a nuclear detonation, a losing proposition.

Anyone else starting to feel this way?

http://article.nationalreview.com/435325/nuke-it/daniel-foster?page=1

but there's little or no relief until then.

But it's the best bet we have.

can't take that chance.

What are your qualifications for determining that a nuke is a viable solution?

What sources?

NUMEROUS sources.

a suggestion as the giant cork idea.

That's all I need to know. Nuke 'em, Duke! :sarcasm:

His methods are very effective!



Rockin!

relief wells. Period. We just have to wait. Period.

Nuke their ass and take their gas.

Nationalize all oil now.

oil. Congress could, and created the USRA in 1917, nationalizing the railroads. But it was a temporary emergency matter during World War I and they were returned to private ownership.

There are no votes in congress and the Senate to do such a thing. Since BP isn't an American company we would, at best, just take ownership of their facilities here in the U.S.

Worked for eight years.

then if it's still fucked up we can't get anywhere near the fucking wellhead. Maybe just a bigger nuke, how about a megaton or two?

The relief well will intersect the original well and we won't have to resort to nuclear weapons.

Why take the chance of something else going wrong?

Relief wells must be made mandatory on ALL existing and new rigs. Period. The relief wells are required by other countries, they should be required here as well.

And they need to seriously beef up the safety requirements and inspections. A third agency must oversee the inspectors, to eliminate corruption.

No more subsidies for oil companies. They'll have to find a way to get by on their measly $10-25 million monthly profits for a change.

If BP uses a nuke it should be considered an act of war.

I kind of doubt they have stray MX or Polaris warheads or MIRV's sitting around one of their sites.

If BP used a nuke it would be the US Department of Defense doing the nuking and that ain't going to happen.

Everything I'm hearing says BP is significantly more powerful than the British government.

I doubt BP or Halliburton would think twice about aquiring a weapon if they were offered one in the past.

If (very unlikely) a nuclear device was ever used for this or any future disaster it would be done by US Army.
They would transport the device, emplace the device, guard the device, arm the device, and detonate the device.

Why US Army?
Only branch with nuclear demolition charge (baby nuke).

to someone in Yemen in exchange for drilling rights.

The only thing a nuke could do for you is to collapse the original bore. You'd have to drill down at least a couple hundred feet, possibly more, to place the nuke deep enough that nothing would reach back to the surface. And of course you want to obliterate as much of the original bore as reasonable to ensure success. And god forbid the nuke doesn't go off. Now you've got a REAL problem.

Don't think it hasn't been discussed at some level. Heck, with all the gas and oil gushing out, it has probably occurred to someone that all you really need is an oxidizer and an ignition source.

If man can't solve his problems with the atom, lets just end them all. Im sick of man. He is a collective asshole

look at a lot of the crap that goes on each day. For a supposedly intelligent species (and I seriously question that) mankind sure does do a lot each day to F-up the earth and life for everything.

But, wait...are you not human? Can you take me back with you to Orion 3 when you leave? I don't eat much.

:rofl:

well casing is damaged. I think that might have been known awhile. I've been suspicious about the slow closing of the vents, all of the oil still flowing out, and the casual hinting that this will now go on possibly into the fall. I think we are far from knowing the "real" story on this leak.

If you are under the impression there was an explosion below the rig, your "sources" are unreliable!

I know two people that were on the rig.
One of my best friends is doing the analytical work on the cement recipe.
Another close friend works for Cameron (the blowout preventer company).
I've been in the drilling industry 12 years.

Those are my "sources"!

There was NO explosion at the well head, the surface annulus is intact as indicated by the video and casing still attached.

If you want to know what the annulus is, look it up.
You might benefit from the knowledge.

on ignorance, it seems. You don't appear to have any information about this at all.

"National Review Online is America's premier website for conservative news, analysis, and opinion"

I read it. It also has no real information in it.

Do you disagree that a nuclear explosion has a kaboom in it!????

Kaboom, indeed. I think he should have used "Kablooie!" That's more in keeping with the AP stylesheet.

in the conversation is coming from your direction.

Please post up YOUR "sources" that dispute my statement that the surface annulus and casing integrity are both still intact.

Outside of that, your statements are cast out of sheer ignorance.

I never said I had proof, I was citing something I'd read about, and was asking for opinions. I didn't ask their opinion of me, but of the concept. Seem like a lot of you can't discuss an issue without name-calling.

It wouldn't seal the leak, and might open up other fissures. Plus all that stuff about radioactive isotopes and such.


I've wondered if they drilled a hole about 500 feet deep and about 20 feet to the side of the current gusher, packed it with C-4, and blew it up if that would move enough dirt over to seal it off. But that's just me speculating.

Under the pressures involved, the oil and gas would move through the fractured material like it wasn't even there. And it's not dirt you're talking about. I'm not sure what is at the stratum 500' down, but you can be sure it's not dirt.

It's all so complicated that laypersons simply can't contribute to the solution. Truly.

"It's all so complicated that laypersons simply can't contribute to the solution."

We in America love the notion of "common sense solutions", but in a situation like this that line of thinking is as dead as an end can be.

"Common sense" isn't common, and often doesn't make sense. When it comes to things like deep geological structures, it's something that almost none of us know anything about. I have a strong knowledge of geology, but have not a clue about what is going on at the depths we're talking about. I don't know the strata in that area, and it's all complicated by a 65 million year old asteroid impact that formed the Gulf of Mexico.

When this first started, there were people taking about submarines and divers, for pete's sake. I stayed out of those discussions, because I just couldn't participate without insulting people. Now, the nuclear device argument is resurfacing.

There is nobody on this planet who knows what would happen if we used one in this situation. Not a single person. We don't even know how to drill at those depths with any safety factor.

This is a mess. We shouldn't have been drilling there in the first place. That much is certainly clear by now. We hope we have an idea of how to stop the flow of oil, but we have no real assurance that it will work. We've overstepped our knowledge in this thing, and we're trying like hell to figure out what we do now.

I admit to having no idea whatsoever what will stop this. I hope very much that the people who are working on solutions have an idea that will work. I'm crossing my fingers for them. The CEO of BP hasn't any more of a clue than I do, and neither does anyone holding elected office in this country.

We're in a tight spot, boys...a tight spot. Instead of blame-placing and hand-waving, I'm just hoping that the people who do know something about this come up with a solution, and soon. If not, it will truly be a disaster that will affect us for decades at least.

Uff da!

You're talking about a column of oil 18,000 feet high, and the pressure at the bottom of the column is enough to push up all that oil into the ocean.


Water has a density of 1,000kg per cubic meter, the crude is probably about 850 or 900 kg per cubic meter. Call it 875 kg/m³


So the column of oil 18,000 feet high... call it 5,500 meters high. So then the weight on the bottom of the column of oil is 4,812,500 kilograms per square meter. Earth's gravity is 9.81 m/s², so the pressure is 47,210,625 Pascals, or 47.2 MPa, or 6,847 psi.


On top of that is a column of water 5,000 feet high... call it 1,525 meters. The weight on the bottm of the column of water is 1,525,000 kilograms per square meter, so the pressure it 14,960,450 Pascals, or 14.7 MPa, or 2,170 psi.

So the pressure driving the oil up and out from the pool has to be at least 9,017 psi!

And it's moving up the pipe fairly briskly, too. I think I figured it out at 4 inches per second for every 5,000 barrels per day that leaked. If it's leaking 100,000 barrels a day, then you're looking at something like seven feet per second... pretty good for a cold, thick fluid. There must be a good amount of net pressure on the oil to get it coming out that fast.


Obviously the only thing we can do is dump a shitload of mercury on it. Balance a couple of hundred feet of concrete culvert on it, 5 or six feet across, and pump it full of mercury. :crazy:

Confusing issue?
Nagging problem?

Now problem... just nuke it away!

Down a very deep shaft sealed behind it. 1000 feet under the seabed. Explosive like C4 depends to some extent on there being oxygen to aid the reaction, a nuclear detonation does not. It would not disturb the sea bed - assuming the geological stability at that depth was controlled for.

...would be that the intense pressure of the water would limit the displacement of the seabed. The bubble caused by the sudden converstion of cold solids into hot gasses would be fighting thousands of psi to expand, plus the weight of the surrounding sediment.


Hmmmm... although detonating a nuke 1,000 feet below the ocean floor doesn't sound that bad. I think we used to do underground nuclear testing, and I think France still does.

I thought the nuke would be detonated on the seabed so the heat would fuse the sand and try to seal up the hole, which of course would irradiate the dirt and water. Plus contamination by radioactive by-products.

Well, at least our nukes are adjustable for yield.

That seems the epitome of overkill, literally and figuratively.

devices. In fact, there is not a person on this planet who knows what effects using a nuclear device in this particular situation would have. Not one. And you know even less than that. You're talking in this thread like you think you have some sort of clue. You do not. Nobody does.

You're wasting everyone's time.

Post links. You can't just say you have sources. Demonstrate them.

Numerous sources or I read a lot won't cut it. You posted this thread. You should be ready to make your case. You haven't even come close yet. So, let's see these facts, research and educated opinions from expert sources. Otherwise, you got nuthin'

Use google.

can also give one the impression that there were no planes on 9-11, that the moon landings were faked, that President Obama is a Seekrit Mooslim, and that we're all being poisoned by chemtrail mind control magic.

So, yeah -- "It's my impression from reading a lot on the internets" is really not an answer as such.

That's all that matters.

you must be the one projecting, DUDE.

and apparently fabricating it out of thin air. Do you feel more manly when you say, "Just nuke it"?

I am not endorsing the nuke idea...yet. But we have carried out a ton of underground tests and we do in fact have copious data on what happens in such a situation. Go read up on it at fas.org and stop making such ignorant remarks.

in an oil field deep under the ocean, in oil-bearing strata that were disrupted by an asteroidal collision 65 million years ago. When did we test that, do you think?

I don't need to look up our nuclear testing program. I've been following it since I was 10 years old in 1955. We do not know what would happen if we detonated a nuclear device under these circumstances. Nobody knows. We might make a guess, and even an educated guess, but we do not know. And we're not going to take a chance on it, I guarantee you.

The idea is to use one adjacent to the narrow shaft dug for extraction. Setting one off in the field would be a complete waste of time.

Happens on DU all the time.

So there's plenty of rock to absorb a detonation. It "probably" would be okay.


And I know that Bush and Cheney would turn absolutely PURPLE with envy if Obama got to detonate a nuke and they didn't! :rofl:


But we don't know, and we don't do it. Hell, we don't even know if the casing and components of a nuke can withstand the pressure at that depth. We'd have to stick it in some kind of pressure vessel to even try to get it down there.

Two nukes :nuke: :nuke:

Cause a nuke will make a megacatastrophe even worse.

You have no expertise in the use of nuclear weapons at those depths and in those strata. Nobody does. So, you're just posing here. You have no sources. You have no information regarding this. Leave it alone.

devices. There's some good in everything. Rant on.

"That is not really an option in this situation. This reservoir is extremely methane rich and detonating a blast would lead to major destruction and destabilization of a significant area of the slope in the vicinity of MC252. In my opinion, this option is far too dangerous to be seriously considered."

http://gulfblog.uga.edu/

Seems to me that the substrata below the 1000' of sediment apparently is sandy, and at least somewhat porous, maybe that is why the Deepwater Horizon rig drill was experiencing "burps" along with the need to increase the volume and pressure of the drilling mud which indicated instability, in the area that they were drilling prior to the blowout and explosion, which resulted from switching to just seawater.

about their progress in researching the oil spill in the GOM and any additional information on the oil plumes/dispersant.

ROVs frequently go to the bottom of the BOP and you can see for yourself that the wellhead is intact. In addition, there are no leaks at the bottom of the BOP.

If your sources suggest that the wellhead was blown off, then those sources suck.

Relief wells are the tried and true method of stopping the leak. However they also take a lot to time to complete and work.

Not to mention that relief wells will still work if the wellhead does become compromised.

Nuking the Gulf will only create a bigger hole and will create a bigger problem than we have now...Imagine radioactive particles in the loop current for example. That will make the dispersant and oil pollution look like child's play in comparison.

Erm...

he already cited one conservasource. You only need one.

But, they'll recommend an organic coffee enema for the well, I'm sure.

and Charles Kruthammer... Yeah let's use their plan, they have been so right about everything for so long we couldn't possibly come up with a better solution than DROPPING A FUCKING NUKE on it.

Really, it's the brilliant right wing strategy at work. If you can't beat it, blow it up.

Frankly I have to give you kudos for having the balls to link to the biggest pile of bullshit news in the country next to FOX news.

On edit: Let me ask you this, What are the side effects of dropping an atomic bomb on the floor of the ocean not 200 miles from land? The flash heating of a section of ocean? Introducing highly radioactive substances into the eco system? Do you or any of the geniuses at National Review even given a thought to this? Has any of your intense reading of right wing propaganda sites even talked about the side effects? Not to mention that it hasn't been proven anywhere that this stupid idea would work.
After reading your sad responses to questions of where you get your information, I can safely say that you need to get out of mommy's basement and start looking at the REAL WORLD. Living in the tea party reality is not conducive to intelligent thought.

Not to mention their idea of how to fix anything is to blow it up.

but the only way this well will be stopped is using the relief wells.

If it fails, the only solution will be to let it all flow out, or nuke it.

The Russians used it on natural gas fields, not 5000 feet down. We don't even know if that would work or what the consequences would be. NOT going to happen. Relief well is all we have.

whos gonna clean up 1000 miles of glowing oily coastline?

Worst case fail with a nuke? The whole oil reservoir comes to the surface - all four billion barrels. Not to mention the entire nuke's toxic fallout being placed in the Gulf Stream.

Sure it's a worst case. But is there an insurance company willing to take odds on it?

And I mean that in the nicest way...