Nuke it? do you really believe that would have a chance of closing a hole where the pressure is pushing up at somthing like 75,000 PSI?
With the BP oil spill in constant news cycle, it is no surprise that solutions to the crisis are coming from far and wide. As conventional methods for halting the gusher continue to fail spectacularly, more non-traditional ideas are cropping up everywhere. Everything, including using hair, hay, garbage, and used golf balls has been suggested, but so far none of these remedies has been tried. One solution that is getting increased attention on the web and in the European press is the terrifying sounding nuclear option which, essentially, would detonate a nuclear bomb underground near the oil well shaft.
Such a suggestion is likely to set off alarm and irony bells especially for those who lived through the Cuban Missile Crisis, which took place near the mouth of the Gulf. Still, this method for collapsing the well and stopping the leak is not an untried fantasy of science-fiction. In fact, according to the Russian newspaper Pravda, since 1966 this technique has been used five times already to deal with analogous disasters in that country.
It sounds simple enough, in theory;"the underground explosion moves the rock, presses on it, and, in essence, squeezes the well's channel." A sign of the times, this technique already has its own Youtube video which has garnered nearly 7,000 hits so far. The footage comes from a Soviet-era propaganda film and shows precisely the steps involved in collapsing a compromised natural-gas mining shaft.
Could a similar technique work in the Gulf? According to a CBS News report, Russian science editor Vladimir Lagowski says 'maybe.' According to CBS, Lagowski wrote in a recent column "that the probability a nuke detonated a mile under the gulf would seal the Deepwater Horizon leak is perhaps 20 percent: 'Americans could take a chance.'"
But, for a post-Cold War America still reeling from terrorist attacks on our soil and fearful of the specter of dirty bombs and rogue nuclear attacks, could this solution ever be palatable? What are the lasting effects of such an explosion? Is there a potential for them to be even worse than the pollution from the dispersants already used to "solve" or abate the problem? Even more practically, perhaps, how long would it take to drill a mile below the Gulf to insert the bomb given that a relief well which is currently being drilled may take 90 days? Should we take a chance on a delayed solution when there might be faster and less frightening sounding options available?
As the geyser of oil continues to erupt and there appears to be no end in sight, President Obama's cool exterior and trademark patience seem to be cracking somewhat. According to the UK's Daily Telegraph, Obama has charged BP and its partners in the mess with "falling over each other to point the finger of blame at someone else." He continues that "...the potential devastation to the Gulf Coast, its economy, and its people require us to continue our relentless efforts to stop the leak."
To that end, there appear to be signs that a nuclear option may be one of the "relentless efforts" in Obama's solutions arsenal. Today, the administration sent a group of nuclear physicists to the Gulf to help stem the tide of the disaster. Again according to the Telegraph, BP CEO Tony Hayward described a "five-hour meeting [which] involved a 'very deep dive' into the situation at hand, with 'lots of nuclear physicists and all sorts of people coming up with some quite good ideas, actually.'" Asked to elaborate, he said they had "come up with one good idea," but said no more.
When the pressure was 75,000 PSI before a hole was drilled, what held it back?
They've spent nearly $1 billion to date trying to cap the well. Apparently nothing they've tried so far has been inexpensive. Less expensive than other options, maybe.so just now they are going to use the expensive robots to cut off the head and put a real cap on it., after the inexpensive solutions were tried first. hmmmm... sounds like the earth has a price. if this isnt a call for hydrogen or just electric cars then i dont know what is.
The government would probably need a month just to generate the environmental impact report.
My guess is this oil is going to keep gushing all through June.
I haven't read the details, but my supposition is that any nuclear device would be sunk very deeply into the well and detonated in order to fuse the rock, creating in effect a mass of melted and re-solidified rock to act as a plug. I don't think it would require a huge device (relatively speaking), just something to generate a lot of heat quickly.
If that's wrong, I'd appreciate someone correcting me.
Problem is how long would it take to construct a device that will work reliably under the given pressure AND withstand the stresses involved in the transport methods to get it down where it needs to be?
Russia's done it successfully. Why not ask them? Would fit nicely with Obama's foreign policy, and for once I'd actually agree with it.
It's interesting that people want to blame Obama or BP for this. What these people really want is to have cheap gas and no bad news. If something does go wrong they want a scapegoat. Drilling for oil in the Gulf is a challenging technological feat and sooner or later it was inevitable that something like this would happen and collectively We the People wouldn't have it any other way.
Every now and again I have said that an Apollo-like national energy program is needed. Usually the response was that we're spending money on it. Nothing like Iraq, or the bailout or what passed for health care reform, but something.
By the time the TCO of this mess hits fully I expect a trillion dollar price tag. Guess who will pay for it? We the People.
We're short-sighted cheap ass bastards who would rather spend a dollar to fix a catastrophe than invest 10 cents to prevent it.
so just now they are going to use the expensive robots to cut off the head and put a real cap on it., after the inexpensive solutions were tried first. hmmmm... sounds like the earth has a price. if this isnt a call for hydrogen or just electric cars then i dont know what is.
every thing they have tried has had to be built for this job. EVERYTHING. these are not thing you can go to home depot and get! it probably took at least this long to design and build a device that will work at those pressures and temperatures to try to cap the well.
peoples stupidity makes me angry. everyone thinks this is easy, that they are just stupid. Ever see something designed to go miles into the earth?
(like the tools i use on a daily basis) the design factors get damn complicated.
Quote: Originally Posted by irishScott Russia's done it successfully. Why not ask them? Would fit nicely with Obama's foreign policy, and for once I'd actually agree with it.
At what depth? Again strapped for time it's hard to get something sooner than later. Then the differences between that well and this one. With such a dramatic one shot approach it has to be right like the window when re-entering the Earth's atmosphere during the Apollo days. If the superheated rock does not cool fast enough and blows open even wider it would be worse as well. Sounds risky. As happened in 1979 this will probably continue until relief wells are drilled and it can be shut off safely.
every thing they have tried has had to be built for this job. EVERYTHING. these are not thing you can go to home depot and get! it probably took at least this long to design and build a device that will work at those pressures and temperatures to try to cap the well.
peoples stupidity makes me angry. everyone thinks this is easy, that they are just stupid. Ever see something designed to go miles into the earth?
(like the tools i use on a daily basis) the design factors get damn complicated.
In 2008, BP paid C$1.2 billion ($1.8 billion) for rights to explore three parcels in Canada's Beaufort Sea, north of the Arctic Circle.
It has yet to announce plans to drill in the region but shortly before the U.S. disaster, BP and other oil companies urged Canadian regulators to drop a requirement stipulating that companies operating in the Arctic had to drill relief wells in the same season as the primary well.
This is a perfect example though for why the well shouldn't have been drilled in the first place. If you can drill 5000 feet down and only have 1 or 2 lightly tested disaster response plans and this kind of thing can happen then maybe you shouldn't be allowed to drill 5000 feet down until you can show beyond a reasonable doubt that you have a working plan for all eventualities. Basically they had the blowout preventer and if that failed... oh fuck it we'll deal with that when it happens. That's not acceptable.
This is a perfect example though for why the well shouldn't have been drilled in the first place. If you can drill 5000 feet down and only have 1 or 2 lightly tested disaster response plans and this kind of thing can happen then maybe you shouldn't be allowed to drill 5000 feet down until you can show beyond a reasonable doubt that you have a working plan for all eventualities. Basically they had the blowout preventer and if that failed... oh fuck it we'll deal with that when it happens. That's not acceptable.
You shouldn't allow airplanes to fly unless they can show beyond a reasonable doubt they wont fall from the sky.....oh wait......
If falling from the sky took out an area the size of a state and cost something like 300 billion to clean up then definitely YES!
Ya.....
How much do you think September 11 cost?
Sept 11 was not a possible "natural" outcome of flying. Crashing due to mechanical failure IS. Likewise well blowouts are natural possible outcomes of drilling. That's why they had the blowout preventer in place, but they didn't have any plan beyond that. Most modern planes have multiple redundant safety features in place.
Um. A 737 crashed into the Empire State Building without terrorist involvement so yes, planes crashing into building are a possible "natural" outcome.