PDA

View Full Version : Nuke The Leak!



Sid_Vicious
06-02-2010, 12:44 PM
"No, were not going to send a B-2 bomber and nuke BP headquarters, although Im sure some people would like that idea. If this latest attempt to stop the oil flow fails, some engineers are suggesting using a nuclear device to blow-out the well. Believe it or not, this method has been used before, by the Soviet Union. In four out of five uses, a small, low-yield device successfully stopped a major oil leak."

Believe it or not, this method has been used before, by the Soviet Union. In four out of five uses, a small, low-yield device successfully stopped a major oil leak.

The way this scheme works is a new hole is drilled near the existing well until it reaches well inside of solid rock. The nuke is then lowered down. Once exploded, the idea is that the blast will push solid rock deep against well pipe, pinching the pipe and choking off the discharging oil."

I keep saying, nuke this sucker and smash the underground pipe. An H-bomb would work too. You'll read above that the Russians have successfully used this method 4 out of 5 times. We are wasting lots of time with these mickey mouse ideas at a mile deep, coupled with the enormous pressures of the oil gushing out. Those relief wells may be the perfect idea, but it isn't feasible to allow this disaster until August. Blow the sucker up, like the russians have already successfully done. sid

LWW
06-02-2010, 01:53 PM
I'm sorry ... but that is just nuts.

The Russians have zero respect for the ecosystem and there sole concern was the money.

In that light it makes sense.

In the big picture however you are suggesting taking something that, based on prior spills, will be essentially "HEALED" in 20-30 years and making it into something worse than the south Pacific nuke tests.

LWW

Deeman3
06-02-2010, 02:19 PM
Sid,

Back off on the meds a bit. If you think they get upset when we nuke an Asian country, you won't believe the political mess when we nuke a sea bed! Hell, that would be worse than lighting up a cigarette in NYC. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Now if we dropped a couple on Iran and one "accidnetly" wandered over into the Gulf of Mexico, how do you say it? oops! Sorry Charlie, only nuke Tuna gets in a Starkist can!

Sid_Vicious
06-02-2010, 03:12 PM
Y'all miss some key points. First, underwater nuclear tests have been pretty much standard issue since inception on the nuclear age. Next, the methodology here has the nuke(or a couple of buried H-bombs if you are squeemish of the nuke)buried down to a depth to get to solid rock structures, then lit up. This ain't the same thing here as detonating a nuke above the 1 mile depth plus the buried depth added in. Even the nuke tests under water over time wasn't that shielded! AND if you doubt the russians were generally safe, then why wasn't there any Chernobal type news stories about their nuclear aftermath following their uses to seal the leaking wells?

I stand on my idea, and personally...I think everyone else who automatically jump back at this possibility due to the nature of exploding a bomb, are electing to be on the ignorant side. Do I know everything about nukes/H-bomb buried in the seabed beyond a mile of seawater?, no. How much do you know? How much do we know about the H-bomb, tailored down and smaller and buried and detonated?

Until I see where the Russians created a bigger problem with their successful leak fixes using nukes, you can't convince me that this is not the best way for us to go with ours. Look at the impact of lingering for another 60 days. Our gulf, Florida and the keys will be gone, and probably international disasters too, when it gets in the loop currents...sometimes you take the pill which tastes the worst for a remedy. sid

eg8r
06-02-2010, 03:43 PM
Sid did you check to see if any of these successful Russian examples happened in the same type of environment? Just because 4 out of 5 times a person in New Hampshire can ice skate on a lake in the winter doesn't mean it will work even once during the winter in the Florida Keys.

Your knee-jerk reactions are incredible. Any idea of what actually failed on that one failed russian attempt? Did it make matters worse? At a few miles down what would happen if that same sort of failure occured? Would it be worse?

eg8r

wolfdancer
06-02-2010, 03:51 PM
I don't think the Russkys have the same safety standards that we try to have. Wasn't there a story of some nuclear accident that they had, in the Ukraine....where thousands were exposed to radiation?
I know....different story...but they would have already nuked the well, and worried about any consequenses later on.

Deeman3
06-03-2010, 08:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sid_Vicious</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Y'all miss some key points. First, underwater nuclear tests have been pretty much standard issue since inception on the nuclear age.

<span style="color: #FF0000">Any detonation of a nuke is against international law. </span>

Next, the methodology here has the nuke(or a couple of buried H-bombs if you are squeemish of the nuke)buried down to a depth to get to solid rock structures, then lit up. This ain't the same thing here as detonating a nuke above the 1 mile depth plus the buried depth added in. Even the nuke tests under water over time wasn't that shielded! AND if you doubt the russians were generally safe, then why wasn't there any Chernobal type news stories about their nuclear aftermath following their uses to seal the leaking wells?

<span style="color: #FF0000">I may or may not be the only one on this site to actually touch, assemble and move nukes. This does not make me an expert on the explosion but no one knows exactly what will happen when you detonate one at depth in an area already evacuated by large quantities of oil (Open areas under the Gulf) and I think we would be foolish to be the first to find out. If you did not seal the leak, you might spring 20 more or open up a natural gas cavity to an undeground explosing/disruption that would make things 1,000 times worse. </span>

I stand on my idea, and personally...I think everyone else who automatically jump back at this possibility due to the nature of exploding a bomb, are electing to be on the ignorant side. Do I know everything about nukes/H-bomb buried in the seabed beyond a mile of seawater?, no. How much do you know? How much do we know about the H-bomb, tailored down and smaller and buried and detonated?

<span style="color: #FF0000"> I do know more than you on this subject, and just enough to know I would be marching beside the zany left in protest if they were to propose this. </span>

Until I see where the Russians created a bigger problem with their successful leak fixes using nukes, you can't convince me that this is not the best way for us to go with ours. Look at the impact of lingering for another 60 days. Our gulf, Florida and the keys will be gone, and probably international disasters too, when it gets in the loop currents...sometimes you take the pill which tastes the worst for a remedy. sid

<span style="color: #FF0000">Sid, my pal, calm down and take that pill. Thanksfully, you don't have to be convinced to not do ths as wiser folks than you and me will decide (God, I hope I am not wrong here). Even Obama is not that dense, again I pray. </span> </div></div>

eg8r
06-03-2010, 08:57 AM
I agree which is a good reason NOT to use them as an exmaple.

eg8r

Deeman3
06-03-2010, 09:58 AM
Sid,

My final argument on this. It is a little like Tazering your neighbor's Democratic wife, Yes, while ther are many upsides to it, there can be negative consequences as well. She might not understand the necesity of it, could have a heart attack and while it would most probably endear you to her hubby, the bigger world might not accept it in some parts of the country, you know, the East and West Coasters who, in general, are less temperate about these things. While Chopstick and I do this all the time, you might not believe the "pretend outrage" it wouold cause in, for instance, Martha's Vinyard or near Berkely. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Let's put the nukes away for now and let James Camerom and Mr. Obama work on it a while longer then, if we muct, we can call in Bruce Willis and his crew. If you Dems sure want to nuke something let's start with North Korea, then Iran where at least the fish will be safe.

eg8r
06-03-2010, 11:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I stand on my idea, and personally...I think everyone else who automatically jump back at this possibility due to the nature of exploding a bomb, are electing to be on the ignorant side. Do I know everything about nukes/H-bomb buried in the seabed beyond a mile of seawater?, no. How much do you know?</div></div>This is the difference between a thinking mind and you. We admit to also not knowing everything so we ask more questions. You just push the button.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Until I see where the Russians created a bigger problem with their successful leak fixes using nukes, you can't convince me that this is not the best way for us to go with ours. </div></div>Judging by your logic, "you don't know so let's try it", I don't think anything would convince you other than an even larger catastrophe. How much research have you done in reference to the one failed experiment. 4 out of 5 means one failed. What happened? Why did it fail. Is the environment even closely related? Do you know what the differences in depth and temp might cause? There are a whole host of other attributes to investigate which is probably why this "fantastic" russian application of exploding nukes was not the first, second, or third option.

eg8r

Chopstick
06-03-2010, 12:29 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sid_Vicious</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Y'all miss some key points. First, underwater nuclear tests have been pretty much standard issue since inception on the nuclear age. </div></div>

Yeah. How'd that work out?

http://blogs.wickedlocal.com/newton/files/2007/01/godzilla.jpg

Deeman3
06-03-2010, 12:34 PM
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Sev
06-03-2010, 01:16 PM
One possible side effect of a nuclear blast could be the ignition of the Methane and blowing out out of the seabed. This could occur if the shape of the oil field is a caldera.

The next thing that could occur is a tsunami. Quite possibly the least of our worries.
The Mississippi valley is a geologic spreading zone.
A nuclear concussion combined with a large subterranean explosion could send enough shock waves up the Mississippi valley to cause the fault line to shift.
This area is known as the New Madrid Seismic Zone.

Please see the New Madrid earthquake 1911-1912.
Wiki is pretty accurate on this one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1812_New_Madrid_earthquake

Of course there is now way of really knowing unless we perform a little experiment.

Deeman3
06-03-2010, 01:47 PM
Sev,

But Sid said he can just jump real quick, being airborn during the earthquake and a little methane explosion is not enough to frighten a Texan! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Chopstick and I am very familiar with the New Madrid quake as we used to water ski on Realfoot Lake, the largest in Tennessee, formed by that very quake in the days afterward! Of course, it was few years after the event that we hit the water. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif We are not as brave as Sid....

Sev
06-03-2010, 02:32 PM
HAHHAAH!!!

Good one D.

I learned about it in my geological studies.

eg8r
06-03-2010, 02:32 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But Sid said he can just jump real quick, being airborn during the earthquake </div></div>Dee I usually get a good laugh when I read Sid's "serious" posts, but I always crack up after reading your responses. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r

wolfdancer
06-03-2010, 03:39 PM
nah, plug the leak instead. I think stuffing Rush Limbough in the pipe might do the trick....but a 21 yr old woman has a better idea, maybe?
"I can plug oil leak, says NY genius"

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/leak_solution_Zw3RdLcmYcdsA4UAz6WMwM#ixzz0ppQZuRoK
XXX (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/leak_solution_Zw3RdLcmYcdsA4UAz6WMwM)

Deeman3
06-03-2010, 03:57 PM
You gotta give her props for thinking. Reminds of the old story about a welder who told a pilot he would rather have a bunch of weld cables all around him than a parachute if he bailed out of a plane. He said, "Damn, weld cables get stuck on everything!"

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

wolfdancer
06-03-2010, 04:31 PM
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Chopstick
06-04-2010, 08:39 AM
So, dis genius wants to inflate automobile tires under 5000 feet of water. Inflate them with what? Titanium? Still, it would make a great tire commercial.

Deeman3
06-04-2010, 10:24 AM
Chopstick,

I am sure the gal is not up on the air compressor needed to overcome a mile deep, now just maybe, Sid can come up with a nuke air compressor. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

If you did fill them with air at the surface, the tires would be almost completelycompressed at depth but if you could drill just a thousand feet below the leak, insert an underinflated tire and let it go up the weel, it would expand to fill the pipe. Still we have the problem of a super compressor at that depth.

This is gonna take a community organizer to solve. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

pooltchr
06-04-2010, 02:56 PM
Forget the leak.....nuke Washington!!!!!!!!!!!!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Steve