Only Way To Contain Oil Leak Is With Small Nuclear Bombs

[John Ranalletta]

Yikes... Let's hope this fellow is wrong; or should we hope he's right?

[Ken H.]

Even if Simmons is right (and he's a very smart guy) how do you get a bomb down far enough against the tremendous up flow pressure of the oil stream?

[John Ranalletta]

How'd they get viscous mud down there? Beats me but it sounds as though it's been done before on dry land at least. Wonder if they'll wait 'til July 4th?

[Ken H.]

If I understand it correctly, with the mud they were just pushing it in the top of the well, via the blow out protector device sitting on top, the mud slowly being pushed downward by more mud above. A different story than trying the get a single item (e.g. a bomb) down the required distance against the oil flow.

[John Ranalletta]

Again, the possibility of nationalizing or taking over BP comes to the fore. I don't know how that would happen, but perhaps it would be a takeover of it's assets within 200 miles of US territory.

 

BP's stockholder equity is ca. $100 billion. This event may eclipse that.

[John Ranalletta]

Pravda reports that the Soviets used nuclear explosions five times (from 1966 to 1972) to stop underwater well blow-outs.

 

One of the reasons that it's critical to assess to true flow rate is it's a first step towards calculating the comparative

environmental damage from a nuclear explosion viz a viz a continuing leak for another two months. It's interesting that this

is not being discussed in the mainstream media.

[hANNAbONE]

nUKE...eH???

 

can you even get yo hands around THAT tsunami ?? dAY-yUM.!

[Harry_Wilshusen]

Again, the possibility of nationalizing or taking over BP comes to the fore. I don't know how that would happen, but perhaps it would be a takeover of it's assets within 200 miles of US territory.

 

BP's stockholder equity is ca. $100 billion. This event may eclipse that.

 

Why is it that nationalization of this or that company or industry always comes to the fore when a crisis too good to waste happens?

 

Do we want the the likes of Chris Dodd and Barney Franks (or perhaps in a couple years Sarah Palin and Rand Paul) running the oil industry?

 

I personally think not. If BP has trouble paying for the clean up the bankruptcy courts should pursue all BP's assets worldwide no matter how they are structured in order limit liability.

 

Harry

[John Ranalletta]

To make the full value of all the corporation's assets available for the remediation of damage it's caused beyond the paltry $75 mil limit our idiots in DC were paid off to set.

[upflying]

With all the lawsuits pending, I would think bankruptcy is the only option for BP.

[Allen Rowand]

Nuke it from orbit… it's the only way to be sure.

[Antimatter]

Again, the possibility of nationalizing or taking over BP comes to the fore. I don't know how that would happen, but perhaps it would be a takeover of it's assets within 200 miles of US territory.

 

BP's stockholder equity is ca. $100 billion. This event may eclipse that.

 

Why is it that nationalization of this or that company or industry always comes to the fore when a crisis too good to waste happens?

 

Do we want the the likes of Chris Dodd and Barney Franks (or perhaps in a couple years Sarah Palin and Rand Paul) running the oil industry?

 

I personally think not. If BP has trouble paying for the clean up the bankruptcy courts should pursue all BP's assets worldwide no matter how they are structured in order limit liability.

 

Harry

 

I think we've established that the worst impulses of politicians are replicated plenty of times in the private sector. If you think about it, the same group of people move through a revolving door from the government to corporate boards and officers, then back again. Having met a few CEO's in my time, I can say that they are very like politicians in their manner and appearance; tall, usually big head of silver hair, booming voice (I call them 'har-hars'). They tend to be sure of themselves, and usually willing to scream and holler if they don't get their way. And after they've left some company in the dumpster, they move on to a better gig leaving the employees and shareholders to pick up the pieces.

 

The whole culture of forging ahead without proper safeguards is pretty emblematic of today's companies. If it works, the folks at the top get huge bonuses. If it doesn't, they get a golden parachute and are on to the next gig. There's no downside to taking huge risks, and the potential upside makes it worth it.

[tallman]

that was my initial response to solving the problem, posted May 3rd.

Too bad they didn't do it right away.

The leak would've been contained and the petrologicalecodisaster most likely averted.

Where's Curtis LeMay when you need him...

[Selden]

The Russians did successfully shut some wells with nukes, but the success rate wasn't 100%.... Let's imagine we nuke the BP well, and the leak gets worse... heads would roll. Also, I believe that when they used this approach, they drilled a relief well (as BP is currently doing) and detonated the nuclear device in it, rather than in the main well -- not really surprising in the case of a flaming gas well.

 

I have no idea of the validity of this site, but it certainly has a lot of information (but with a sensational tone): http://www.viewzone2.com/oilnuke.html

 

Probably the most disturbing assertion is (again Matt Simmons) that the current BP well is not the real source of the oil; he speculates that the abandoned BP well, several miles away, may have blown. Sheesh.

 

 

[John Ranalletta]

Tonight's news is that the relief well will take 'til end August to drill/complete.

[Ken H.]

Yeah, and if such an approach were to fail, somehow radioactive oil washing up in Louisiana doesn’t seem all that attractive to me. But what do I know?

 

And it was to succeed, how big of a under the sea ‘forbidden for 10,000 years zone’ would have to be created? How far would the radioactivity spread within the oil reserves there?

 

[sgendler]

I've done some reading on this and there appears to be some overblown hyperbole here. One small nuclear device, detonated thousands of feet under the surface of the ocean floor is not going to create a tsunami, or even much of a ripple. Nor is it going to create some kind of 10,000 year dead zone. It would be unlikely to generate much by way of radioactive oil, even if it were to fail. It would work by detonating with quite a bit of solid rock between the bomb and the leaking well shaft, in the hope that that rock would be shoved over to close the shaft. Even if it were to fail to shut off the leak, it would be unlikely to cause oil to flow through any radioactive area in the relief well shaft, and if it did, I don't think radiation levels would be all that high. This would be a bomb as close to the minimum yield necessary for fission to occur - smaller than what we dropped in Japan, and detonated deep underground and beneath a mile of water. There have been undersea nuclear tests that were detonated directly in the water without nearly such dire consequences. and most of our underground nuclear testing didn't occur at the kind of depths we'd be talking about here.

 

The big risk would seem to be weakening the rock structures which contain the oil, potentially making the leak worse and possibly making it uncontainable by any means short of draining the reservoir to the point of equalizing pressure. That's a pretty darned big downside. Should the first relief well fail, someone may start considering this option for the 2nd relief well shaft as the solution of last resort. Here's hoping we don't have to go there. Far too many variables to have any real confidence in it. It is a solution of brute force that relies on the _hope_ that said force is so overwhelming that it can compensate for the large lack of certainty of outcome. That's not a great option.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

What with BP not being in possession of nukes (and this being common knowledge), this could only happen with the explicit approval of (and provision of a nuclear device by) the federal government.

 

Since it's not a nuclear test, I guess this would fall outside the jurisdiction of any test ban treaty, so we wouldn't be in any kind of international legal quagmire.

 

What's not to like?

[MattS]

Since it's not a nuclear test, I guess this would fall outside the jurisdiction of any test ban treaty, so we wouldn't be in any kind of international legal quagmire.

Is the United States signatory to any treaties that prohibit the use of nuclear weapons ... against itself?

[tallman]

Since it's not a nuclear test, I guess this would fall outside the jurisdiction of any test ban treaty, so we wouldn't be in any kind of international legal quagmire.

Is the United States signatory to any treaties that prohibit the use of nuclear weapons ... against itself?

 

Signatory status

ctb

[John Ranalletta]

Francois to the white courtesy telephone....

 

The Dutch have a solution.

[Selden]

The big risk would seem to be weakening the rock structures which contain the oil, potentially making the leak worse and possibly making it uncontainable by any means short of draining the reservoir to the point of equalizing pressure. That's a pretty darned big downside. Should the first relief well fail, someone may start considering this option for the 2nd relief well shaft as the solution of last resort. Here's hoping we don't have to go there. Far too many variables to have any real confidence in it. It is a solution of brute force that relies on the _hope_ that said force is so overwhelming that it can compensate for the large lack of certainty of outcome. That's not a great option.

Hope is not a strategy. The downside risks of nuking the well are so huge that I cannot imagine anyone going for that approach. Dr. Strangelove has been dead for quite a few years.

[MattS]

Since it's not a nuclear test, I guess this would fall outside the jurisdiction of any test ban treaty, so we wouldn't be in any kind of international legal quagmire.

Is the United States signatory to any treaties that prohibit the use of nuclear weapons ... against itself?

Signatory status

ctb

According to sources, yes we are signatory but no it's not in force.

 

Please call General Ripper and advise to commence Plan R.

[RightSpin]

Hope is not a strategy.

 

True, but it is becomming a policy.

[sgendler]

The big risk would seem to be weakening the rock structures which contain the oil, potentially making the leak worse and possibly making it uncontainable by any means short of draining the reservoir to the point of equalizing pressure. That's a pretty darned big downside. Should the first relief well fail, someone may start considering this option for the 2nd relief well shaft as the solution of last resort. Here's hoping we don't have to go there. Far too many variables to have any real confidence in it. It is a solution of brute force that relies on the _hope_ that said force is so overwhelming that it can compensate for the large lack of certainty of outcome. That's not a great option.

Hope is not a strategy. The downside risks of nuking the well are so huge that I cannot imagine anyone going for that approach. Dr. Strangelove has been dead for quite a few years.

 

Well, you might think that, yet the Soviets did it on more than one occasion, so imagination isn't really required. That said, I doubt would be anything more than an absolute last chance option. I hope so, anyway. But I can definitely imagine it coming to that.

[tallman]

Hope is not a strategy.

 

True, but it is becomming a policy.

 

I thought it was the birthplace of presidents, literal and figurative.

 

We've been "testing" nukes for decades.

Might as well get something good out of it.

[motoguy128]

Come on folks...didn't you see the movie "Armageddon". I you put a nuke down a well shaft, it could split the earth in half.

 

Although if we're lucky, the remote detonator will fail and we can put Bruce Willis in a mini sub to trigger it manually. That way, we won't have to suffer through anymore of his movies.

[AviP]

Even if Simmons is right (and he's a very smart guy) how do you get a bomb down far enough against the tremendous up flow pressure of the oil stream?

It could work or it could make a small hole into a big hole. Yeah, more deep sea drilling please. I think the best thing to do is to add some butter and spices to the oil because I like my shrimp buttered and spicy.

[Selden]

Well, you might think that, yet the Soviets did it on more than one occasion, so imagination isn't really required. That said, I doubt would be anything more than an absolute last chance option. I hope so, anyway. But I can definitely imagine it coming to that.

If I remember right, the Russians used nukes on gas wells on land, not on underwater oil wells. And, not all their attempts succeeded. Let's assume they had an 80% kill rate with nukes, and that the odds for success with an underwater approach are half that. Presumably, the nuke would be inserted in one of the relief wells -- when the drilling gets close enough, which could be anywhere from weeks to months.

 

If you were Tony Hayward or Barack Obama, would you authorize an attempted nuclear kill with a 40% chance of success? The first rule for this sort of thing is "Don't make things worse."

[AviP]

Well, you might think that, yet the Soviets did it on more than one occasion, so imagination isn't really required. That said, I doubt would be anything more than an absolute last chance option. I hope so, anyway. But I can definitely imagine it coming to that.

If I remember right, the Russians used nukes on gas wells on land, not on underwater oil wells. And, not all their attempts succeeded. Let's assume they had an 80% kill rate with nukes, and that the odds for success with an underwater approach are half that. Presumably, the nuke would be inserted in one of the relief wells -- when the drilling gets close enough, which could be anywhere from weeks to months.

 

If you were Tony Hayward or Barack Obama, would you authorize an attempted nuclear kill with a 40% chance of success? The first rule for this sort of thing is "Don't make things worse."

And weren't the nukes used to starve the well head of oxygen?

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

And weren't the nukes used to starve the well head of oxygen?

 

This can be (and typically is) accomplished by using conventional chemical high explosives in modest amounts; no nukes required here.

 

If the goal is to crush the well bore shut a mile or so underground, a nuke is the only convenient package for delivering the required explosive power; a 10-kiloton nuclear device is much easier to slip down a relief bore than the equivalent 20 million pounds of TNT.

[Matts_12GS]

I like this one...

[EddyQ]

Or how about a

.

 

Not nuclear, but very upsets the soil.

 

 

[Ken H.]

I've done some reading on this and there appears to be some overblown hyperbole here.

I’m sure you’re right. The term "nuclear" is very explosive (pun intended!) in the media and public persona. You make a good point that nuclear bombs have been detonated for much more with much less negative impact.

 

I can’t see how the idea would ever be publically palatable, but maybe that doesn’t matter.

[Dave McReynolds]

I can’t see how the idea would ever be publically palatable, but maybe that doesn’t matter.

 

It almost doesn't matter what the public thought about it beforehand. If it worked and solved the problem, whoever ordered it would be a hero. If it didn't work and made the problem worse, whoever ordered it would go down in the history books as a reckless fool. I can't see anybody in a position to order it being willing to take a 1 in 5 chance of going down in the history books as a reckless fool.

[Matts_12GS]

Or how about a

.

 

Not nuclear, but very upsets the soil.

 

 

I have another plan for those in my archives of Secret Evil Plans...

[tallman]

I can’t see how the idea would ever be publically palatable, but maybe that doesn’t matter.

 

It almost doesn't matter what the public thought about it beforehand. If it worked and solved the problem, whoever ordered it would be a hero. If it didn't work and made the problem worse, whoever ordered it would go down in the history books as a reckless fool. I can't see anybody in a position to order it being willing to take a 1 in 5 chance of going down in the history books as a reckless fool.

 

[yabadabapal]

I can’t see how the idea would ever be publically palatable, but maybe that doesn’t matter.

 

It almost doesn't matter what the public thought about it beforehand. If it worked and solved the problem, whoever ordered it would be a hero. If it didn't work and made the problem worse, whoever ordered it would go down in the history books as a reckless fool. I can't see anybody in a position to order it being willing to take a 1 in 5 chance of going down in the history books as a reckless fool.

 

 

 

You do have a way with words or in this case you said it all by not saying a single word. Good point!