Exactly.
-XT
I agree.
The President should have pulled out all the stops getting containment equipment into the area as well as turning the Army Corps of Engineers loose on engineering a containment field around well. The current boom system used on the ocean is basically the same as that used on a wave-less backwater. It is not much of a mechanical challenge to funnel a liquid into a skimmer/pump setup. It’s simple a question of scale. This is the area where general technology and money would be the best utilized.
The second area I would expect the President to act on is a plan to collapse the well as a last resort which means drilling a third well specifically for this purpose. Nuclear treaties do not trump environmental safety.
So how does one skim oil anyway? Is it really something you want every swinging dick with a boat doing at once? And when there’s a few thousand propellers churning the water, is skimming going to be that easy? In short I think filling the Gulf with boats would cause a lot of accidents and make even more of a mess.
As for the politics of this whole thing, is it so hard to admit that the problem is greater than any ideology can fix? The Democrats don’t have any good solutions. Neither do the Republicans. Yet for some reason the Republicans are slinging mud as if the solution is something totally obvious and the Democrats just haven’t figured it out yet. Thanks for the help there guys.
But useless crap window dressing wins elections. Substantive matters rarely do.
Until I really started reading about this underwater drilling system, I (and I’m willing to say, a fair number of other Americans still would) would probably have as much insight into the disaster as Obama’s daugher: “Why can’t you plug the hole, daddy?”
When looking at any problem you allocate resources according to the best return on money spent. In this case, there are no government agencies involved in deep sea drilling.The technology and skill-sets are all in private industry. It would be a reinvention of the wheel and therefore a waste of time and money. What the government does have is an engineering corps that is more suitable to simpler projects on a large scale. Taking something like Kevin Costner’s (brother’s) oil separator machine and scaling it up would make a world of difference.
Just so we’re clear… you want him to detonate a nuke in the Gulf of Mexico?
Nothin wrong with that, so long as it gets the job done.
As a side effect, it’d probably also silence all that “Obama is a wimp” talk from the wingers.
We don’t want the oil to harm the sealife and contaminate the coastline, so we’re going to set off a nuclear bomb instead? I think I spot a small flaw in that plan.
Hey, a lot of people on this very board have been saying we should be transitioning from petroleum to nuclear energy.
Radioactive crude oil sounds like the perfect first step to me.
I heard someone on one of the talk shows today say: The only thing worse than a leaking oil well is a radioactive, leaking oil well.
No, under the Gulf of Mexico, if needed as a last resort. They should be drilling a hole for it if needed.
Here are Part 1 and Part 2 of a profanity laced damning of BP’s booming methods and Obama’s response. A remarkably good read IMO. I would love to hear a more educated opinion on these rants.
Oh, well I guess that’s okay then. :dubious:
Wait, no, it isn’t. Has anyone actually proposed nuking the seabed (or underbed, as the case may be)? I really hope the answer is just you.
Lots of people like the idea. Heck I suggested using a nuke in the Pit nearly a month ago now. Here’s a GQ thread with some details, vid and such:
Why not Nuke the oil leak?
Sadly, the White House is being old fashioned about the matter: Nuking leaking oil well not an option: White House
So say we go for the nuke. We have to have a nuclear weapon that will fit inside a drill shaft and operate underwater at enormous pressure. Do we even have that? I ask because I don’t know and I’m not even sure what to search for to find that information.
Say we do though. Say we have that. Now we just have to drill a hole that slants in toward the wild well. We should probably have enough geological information to ensure that we aren’t just going to fracture the rock and create a massive escape route that will be impossible to plug unless we want to risk the entire reservoir leaking out into the Gulf. Can we do that? I ask because I don’t know and I’m not even sure what to search for to find that information.
If we do this, and we have our nuke ready, and our shaft drilled (hur hur), how close are we to being able to just create a normal relief well that won’t expose us to a possible unstoppable catastrophe? How much time do we save?
the Russians have done it on land 5 times. I’m not advocating it but I did hear a retired oil executive mention collapsing the well as a last resort. crap happens. How else would you collapse the well? How many millions of gallons of oil should we tolerate?
You’d bet the bank on decades old Pravda propaganda to solve our current ecological disaster?
Both the US and Russia tested nuclear weapons as a tool to move large amounts of earth. Operation Plowshare included 27 tests of different size explosives. The Russians made 117 tests.
If you don’t mind, I’d like to hear your take on the first-person ‘Arch-Conservative’ position in general.
You don’t strike me as a wild-eyed but otherwise straight-faced Libertarian who seriously believes the public can be persuaded to elect representatives who will govern the economy on purely theoretical grounds, with any reference to real-world results remaining strictly off limits. I could be wrong, but you just don’t seem that way.
You don’t come across as a Bible-thumping fundamentalist who believes anybody who is not a Bible-thumping fundamentalist ought to be considered evil; shunned, isolated and ignored. Again I could be wrong, but that just doesn’t seem you.
I could be wrong, but you don’t strike me as the type to drown the government in a bathtub. Or impeach a president for a blow job. Or invade a mostly harmless country. Or torture somebody. Or revoke habeus corpus. Or cut taxes for the rich. Or sell out the American people to big business interests. You don’t seem like an awful lot of things, Una.
But then again, conservative energy experts are few and far between. I am curious how a person with a respectable mind (I’m talking about you, Una) views the arch-conservative position today. What is most important to you today that you would identify as ‘Arch-Conservative’?
No snark. No trick. I probably won’t respond to your reply. I’d just like to know. Honest, see? → 
You say this as though we have any idea if it would work.
Serious question: has any nuclear weapon ever been detonated underwater?