Drill, baby, DRILL!

[/dev/null]

Nuking an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico? Sounds great!

What could possibly go wrong?

 

Sounds like the kind of idea those two guys in the Guiness commercials would come up with

 

Brilliant!

[IDBillzFan]

Nuking an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico? Sounds great!

What could possibly go wrong?

Yeah, I'm not what you might call an environmentalist, but we're in the situation we're in just from poking a hole in the earth. Somehow I think adding a nuke to the equation is probably a bad idea.

[Booster4324]

Yes. The nuke alone, you're talking about trashing the entire gulf coast with very big waves. Then add an oil slick.

 

Plus the idea on its own ignores the engineering realities of the problem (such as: it's not just a damn hole in the ground that's leaking, it's a broken equipment that's leaking, or that a "suitcase nuke" isn't necessarily engineered to even survive, much less detonate 5000 feet underwater.

 

"Nuclear" isn't synonymous with "magic". Really. It's not as simple as dropping a small nuke onto the hole. You do actually have to put some thought into using them.

 

Thanks. Those seem valid points you raise, I didn't think of the wave action that would generate. I assume it would be modest really, maybe an extra foot or so when it hits the booms some 50 miles away. Or would it be more than that? Your best guess of course.

[Booster4324]

Yeah, I'm not what you might call an environmentalist, but we're in the situation we're in just from poking a hole in the earth. Somehow I think adding a nuke to the equation is probably a bad idea.

 

Partisan hack, this is a neocon's dream. "Nuke em, it is the only way to be sure."

[DC Tom]

Thanks. Those seem valid points you raise, I didn't think of the wave action that would generate. I assume it would be modest really, maybe an extra foot or so when it hits the booms some 50 miles away. Or would it be more than that? Your best guess of course.

 

I'm not sure what the wave action would be (I actually have a "Handbook of Nuclear Effects" that Paul gave me that at least would let me make an order of magintude calculation...of course, I can't find it now.) I do know that back in the 60's the DoD wanted to do deep-water testing of nukes off the Atlantic shelf, and wisely consulted a few oceanographers before hand, who all said "Unless you want to turn the whole eastern seaboard into Surf City, you really don't want to do that."

[Booster4324]

I'm not sure what the wave action would be (I actually have a "Handbook of Nuclear Effects" that Paul gave me that at least would let me make an order of magintude calculation...of course, I can't find it now.) I do know that back in the 60's the DoD wanted to do deep-water testing of nukes off the Atlantic shelf, and wisely consulted a few oceanographers before hand, who all said "Unless you want to turn the whole eastern seaboard into Surf City, you really don't want to do that."

 

I am sure there is a valid reason they haven't shut it down this way. BP is losing a fair amount of money in publicity alone. The wave action seems the best bet upon reflection. Keep in mind, we are talking a very small nuke if you ever find the book. Thanks again.

[DC Tom]

I am sure there is a valid reason they haven't shut it down this way. BP is losing a fair amount of money in publicity alone. The wave action seems the best bet upon reflection. Keep in mind, we are talking a very small nuke if you ever find the book. Thanks again.

 

I can think of four excellent reasons:

 

1) They're working with existing but broken well equipment on the sea floor. Nuking all that out of existence might be counterproductive.

 

2) It would be a hail mary pass. You try that when you're completely out of ideas - because even IF you somehow detonated it, there's a good chance that if it doesn't work you wouldn't be able to try anything else...because you've just nuked all your existing equipment out of existence.

 

3) The PR damage of nuking the seabed in the Gulf of Mexico. The average person would consider it wildly irresponsible, "irradiating" the "entire" Gulf.

 

4) It's not like BP has nukes just laying around. And "why don't they just nuke it" really means "why doesn't the government take over the site and nuke it". Because if the government took over the site and effort, they'd just contract it back out to Halliburton and Transocean anyway, and not set up some sort of half-assed nuke test that no one has any clue would work.

 

Again...it's not magic. It's a big-ass explosion. You don't "just" blow up anything (if you want a constructive outcome, at least. If you just want destruction and mayhem...have at it.)

[Booster4324]

I can think of four excellent reasons:

 

1) They're working with existing but broken well equipment on the sea floor. Nuking all that out of existence might be counterproductive.

 

2) It would be a hail mary pass. You try that when you're completely out of ideas - because even IF you somehow detonated it, there's a good chance that if it doesn't work you wouldn't be able to try anything else...because you've just nuked all your existing equipment out of existence.

 

3) The PR damage of nuking the seabed in the Gulf of Mexico. The average person would consider it wildly irresponsible, "irradiating" the "entire" Gulf.

 

4) It's not like BP has nukes just laying around. And "why don't they just nuke it" really means "why doesn't the government take over the site and nuke it". Because if the government took over the site and effort, they'd just contract it back out to Halliburton and Transocean anyway, and not set up some sort of half-assed nuke test that no one has any clue would work.

 

Again...it's not magic. It's a big-ass explosion. You don't "just" blow up anything (if you want a constructive outcome, at least. If you just want destruction and mayhem...have at it.)

 

At what point did I imply BP has nukes lying around? Obviously the nuke would come from the government. I never implied it was magic; big-ass explosion is exactly what I was looking for. I wanted to know the ramifications of said big-ass explosion.

 

The Russians did use this technique successfully (against different types of wells), so this isn't exactly pure rampant speculation. Admittedly, it is close.

 

If you prefer we can quibble over Obama and his policies. Perhaps call one another various derogatory names.

 

Oh and hopefully this is all theoretical, this last attempt to draw off most of the oil seems promising.

[RI Bills Fan]

I don't remember ever seeing anything official about the russians using suitcase nukes to cap underwater gas wells, I'm not saying they didn't but...

 

Does anyone have a link to that info?

 

The major problem here is that even a so called suitcase nuke creates one hell of a big explosion. A baby nuke, something as small as a 5 kiloton package, is still equal to 5000 tons of TNT. An explosion of that magnitude creates an interesting effect underwater. The explosion creates a vacuum bubble, essentially the water for "X" distance from the center of the explosion is pushed outward by the force of the explosion, creating a huge sphere of vacuum. But nature abhores a vacuum so when the force created by the explosion dissipates... And underwater shock waves are magnified by water pressure. Sea Pressure increases at 44.4 pounds per square INCH for every 100 feet of depth. Do the math.

[/dev/null]

I don't remember ever seeing anything official about the russians using suitcase nukes to cap underwater gas wells, I'm not saying they didn't but...

 

Does anyone have a link to that info?

"Official" link, no. I do have this

http://trueslant.com/juliaioffe/2010/05/04/nuke-that-slick/

 

There's a link in the article to a Russian newspaper/website Komsomoloskaya Pravda. But I have no idea what the Russian article says or what those funny looking Cyrillic squiggles are trying to say

 

The major problem here is that even a so called suitcase nuke creates one hell of a big explosion. A baby nuke, something as small as a 5 kiloton package, is still equal to 5000 tons of TNT. An explosion of that magnitude creates an interesting effect underwater. The explosion creates a vacuum bubble, essentially the water for "X" distance from the center of the explosion is pushed outward by the force of the explosion, creating a huge sphere of vacuum. But nature abhores a vacuum so when the force created by the explosion dissipates... And underwater shock waves are magnified by water pressure. Sea Pressure increases at 44.4 pounds per square INCH for every 100 feet of depth. Do the math.

Gee, ya think?

[RI Bills Fan]

"Official" link, no. I do have this

http://trueslant.com/juliaioffe/2010/05/04/nuke-that-slick/

 

There's a link in the article to a Russian newspaper/website Komsomoloskaya Pravda. But I have no idea what the Russian article says or what those funny looking Cyrillic squiggles are trying to say

 

 

Gee, ya think?

 

Underwater Nuke Tests

 

Read the deep water test section.

 

And let's just say I'm not likely to believe a lot of what Pravda reported about Russian Nuke Tests in the 60's and 70's. Particularly in light of this. Fat Man & Little Boy

 

They used a bomb 1.5 times more powerful to cap an underwater gas well? With no reprocussions?

[/dev/null]

http://i.imgur.com/UQ7JL.jpg

http://www.eatliver.com/img/2007/2101.jpg

[DC Tom]

They used a bomb 1.5 times more powerful to cap an underwater gas well? With no reprocussions?

 

 

I didn't see where that article said they capped an underwater gas well. I did see where it said they capped a well with an underground explosion in Uzbekistan - not a region known for it's deep-water wells.

[Jim in Anchorage]

One thing I haven't touched on in this thread is the possibility of using a suitcase nuke to close the well. I have seen it suggested tons and was sorta confused why they didn't. I had vague recollections of that being used in the past, but assumed I was wrong. Turns out I was half right. This technique was used in the past, by the Russians, but to seal off natural gas wells.

 

So we are discussing this over lunch and this guy who is probably DCTom's cousin chimes in, "Yes, but you realize the plate in the gulf of mexico is thinner, as a huge meteor hit there millions of years ago, there is a distinct possibility it could crack into the whole oil reserve."

 

Is that even remotely correct? It sounds plausible, but none of the articles I pulled up on a quick Google search referenced a thin plate. Also, if that is complete ****, why don't they just nuke the damn thing?

 

Mystified in Memphis

Looks like BP took your advice.

 

[RI Bills Fan]

"Official" link, no. I do have this

http://trueslant.com/juliaioffe/2010/05/04/nuke-that-slick/

 

There's a link in the article to a Russian newspaper/website Komsomoloskaya Pravda. But I have no idea what the Russian article says or what those funny looking Cyrillic squiggles are trying to say

 

 

Gee, ya think?

 

 

I didn't see where that article said they capped an underwater gas well. I did see where it said they capped a well with an underground explosion in Uzbekistan - not a region known for it's deep-water wells.

 

Check the link Dev provided. It may (or may not) be the source for this idea.

 

The technology needed to set off large conventional (or Nuclear) explosions very deep underwater has been around since the 50's.

 

I just doubt that the article is accurate. Using nukes in the manner described would create more problems than they would solve. (Extremely high yield conventional explosives are another story entirely)

[DC Tom]

Check the link Dev provided. It may (or may not) be the source for this idea.

 

The technology needed to set off large conventional (or Nuclear) explosions very deep underwater has been around since the 50's.

 

I just doubt that the article is accurate. Using nukes in the manner described would create more problems than they would solve. (Extremely high yield conventional explosives are another story entirely)

 

I was actually referring to /dev's link (sorry, I should have been clearer).

 

And while don't doubt the technology exists (since, after all, nuclear ASW weapons do exist), I'm also pretty sure than nuking a hole in the ground a mile under the sea isn't a simple as pulling a low-yield weapon off the shelf and dropping it on top of the hole.

 

 

Edit: just read some of the comments in that story. Someone actually suggested using a giant laser to melt the sea floor and seal the well?

[John Adams]

Edit: just read some of the comments in that story. Someone actually suggested using a giant laser to melt the sea floor and seal the well?

 

You don't know that won't work.

 

Goddammit, I'd piss on the spark plug if I thought it'd do any good!

[RI Bills Fan]

I was actually referring to /dev's link (sorry, I should have been clearer).

 

And while don't doubt the technology exists (since, after all, nuclear ASW weapons do exist), I'm also pretty sure than nuking a hole in the ground a mile under the sea isn't a simple as pulling a low-yield weapon off the shelf and dropping it on top of the hole.

 

 

Edit: just read some of the comments in that story. Someone actually suggested using a giant laser to melt the sea floor and seal the well?

 

What? You never watched "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea"? I just love standing in front of that giant picture window and watching the deep sea life cavort in the well lit ocean depths.

 

Actually there aren't any UW to UW Nukes in service today. the last one went out of service years ago. The linked article isn't wholly accurate but it is close enough for Government Work.

 

Survivability of the launching ship is one of many factors not mentioned that lead to the SubRoc's demise. The Sea Lance just sucked and advances in torpedo warhead yield, range, and guidance resulted in both systems becoming unnecessary.

 

This site is a good primer on US Navy Torpedoes in use since WWII.

[Wacka]

Edit: just read some of the comments in that story. Someone actually suggested using a giant laser to melt the sea floor and seal the well?

Wouldn't it be easier to get sharks with frickin laser beams?

[/dev/null]

Quick turn on CNN!

Campbell Brown is interviewing Bill Nye