About the nuke option

[DMac]

Let's say the bottom of the well has been compromised and that oil is in fact seeping up through the sea floor.

If the nuke goes off around 10k feet or so, which seems to be the depth I've read, and this doesn't seal the hole into the basin holding the oil, could we see a truly nightmarish scenario unfold?

The oil continues to seep through the sea floor with the added bonus of passing through the radiated rock left over from the nuke.

Radioactive oil in the ocean?

Radioactive oil rains?

Is this an impossible scenario?

[Spectrism]

Let's say the bottom of the well has been compromised and that oil is in fact seeping up through the sea floor.

If the nuke goes off around 10k feet or so, which seems to be the depth I've read, and this doesn't seal the hold into the basin holding the oil, could we see a truly nightmarish scenario unfold?

The oil continues to seep through the sea floor with the added bonus of passing through the radiated rock left over from the nuke.

Radioactive oil in the ocean?

Radioactive oil rains?

Is this an impossible scenario?


This whole thing is likely to be a catastrophe unlike anything else. There have been some bad ones- Chernobyl, Norilsk mine nickel poisoning, Bhopal India- Union Carbide, and many under-reported messes. But this one has the potential to wipe out the Atlantic ocean as well as the GOM. The oil will eventually (years) be eaten by microbes, but the suddenness of great volume will destroy much quickly. Also, the poisonous gases and condensable VOCs are a major threat to the southern states.

[Libertytree]

The scenario I've heard about concerning nuking it is that it is very close to the New Madrid fault line and the possibility exists that a nuke could trigger one hell of an earthquake, running from the mouth of the Miss. River up through Missouri, then east to Maine.

[the riot act]

I was reading somewhere that this oil deposit is one continuous pool from LA. to Hugo's home town Venezuela.

The person writing the article said that there are 3,550+ wells nearby directly/indirectly tied into this layer below. Point of discussion was if they nuke it what will happen to the others within the shock radius. Seems people think that this is the only rig in the area. Plus all the undersea pipelines that crisscross the seabed from those 3,500+ wells.

I personally do not think that they can ever stop this. That angers me, but I'm not wasting time on anger, I'm planning to get away.

[k-os]

Excellent points, the riot act, about the possibilities of all of these nearby rigs being in the shock radius. I don't think Big Oil is anywhere near wanting to take that chance with them.

There is no nuke option. It seems there is no option at all.

I just wish we didn't have to speculate so much, because of where my mind goes . . . worst case scenario.

[Quixote2]

The nuke option is no good. When you nuke underground, you have a large cavity with a layer of melted rock on the bottom and hundreds of feet of fractured rock that falls from the ceiling of the cavity. Deep enough and the rock fall does not reach the surface (recall the depressions after underground nuclear testing in Nevada). Around the cavity there is massive fracturing/cracking of rock in all directions, nuclear detonations were proposed and tested to fracture rock (gas containing shale) for natural gas wells.

The intent of a properly placed nuke in shutting down an oil well to to place the device far enough away from the well casing that the casing is collapsed and pinched shut flat like pinching a straw with the rock moving under the pressure shock. The last thing we want now is create more fractures to open up more paths for oil to travel from the reservoir to the surface.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underground_nuclear_testing

[philo beddoe]

Excellent points, the riot act, about the possibilities of all of these nearby rigs being in the shock radius. I don't think Big Oil is anywhere near wanting to take that chance with them.

There is no nuke option. It seems there is no option at all.

I just wish we didn't have to speculate so much, because of where my mind goes . . . worst case scenario.
There is a nuke option. They used shaped nuke charges on 9-11, so they have the technology.

[ximmy]

Excellent points, the riot act, about the possibilities of all of these nearby rigs being in the shock radius. I don't think Big Oil is anywhere near wanting to take that chance with them.

There is no nuke option. It seems there is no option at all.

I just wish we didn't have to speculate so much, because of where my mind goes . . . worst case scenario.
There is a nuke option. They used shaped nuke charges on 9-11, so they have the technology.


Who knows how many times they have used micro-nukes to solve problems... one think is certain, nuke technology far surpasses oil spill clean up techniques.

[wildcard]

It's a 21 inch diameter hole right? We don't need the Tsar bomb here, just a little tac nuke should get the job done.

*I'm not an engineer and I don't play one on TV, but my thought is that liquid doesn't compress very well. So that shockwave is going to go through the liquid to someplace. What happens then?

[DMac]

"Radioactive tar balls"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KP8ObhJuY3I

[gunDriller]

i believe Matt Simmons when he cites the Russian oil field history where they did use nukes in very similar situations.

of course, Russia didn't have BP management gumming up the works.

there's a big difference between salt, sandstone, granite, and many other kinds of rock that oil companies drill through to get to the oil.

this is the kind of situation where you need a team of geologists, engineers, physicists, super knowledgeable oil guys like Matt Simmons and his Russian counterparts, to determine if the rock is stable enough to withstand a nuclear explosion and do what happened in the Russian cases - simply melt the rock & seal the well.

i also think this is the kind of situation where they need Plans A, B, C, D, E, and F all lined up, ready, waiting to go. it is shocking to me that they are not even using the plans they already have - the old tried and true suck-the-oil-up-into-the-tanker solution. they have all the equipment to do that, and they're not doing it. admittedly sometimes the oil seawater mix is useless; sometimes the oil can be recovered.

this is a disaster not just of BP's recklessness, but also of Obama's inability to work on deeply technical cross-discipline issues. he obviously has to delegate - given his background as community organizer - but so far he has delegated to BP.

how much is he going to let them fuck up before he gets a new project manager ?

[I am me, I am free]

it is shocking to me that they are not even using the plans they already have - the old tried and true suck-the-oil-up-into-the-tanker solution.

They're not even doing much of that, 'cause if they were it wouldn't be impacting the coastline to the degree it is.

[gunDriller]

it is shocking to me that they are not even using the plans they already have - the old tried and true suck-the-oil-up-into-the-tanker solution.

They're not even doing much of that, 'cause if they were it wouldn't be impacting the coastline to the degree it is.


i think part of the situation is that BP has an established reputation among oil industry pro's for cutting corners, shaving costs, etc.

so you have a situation where the "low bidder" is presented with an impossible clean-up situation, and they just kind of muddle along, not rising to the occasion.

combine that with a president who doesn't know how to manage a problem of extreme urgency but requiring the cooperation of several different disciplines to solve.