Watch the video in post #7. Also, there aren’t many local people a mile under the gulf.
You know things are going well when a proposed solution to a massive environmental disaster involves an atomic weapon.
You have to figure that every engineer in the country - including those who work for BP and those who work in the U.S. gummint - have been trying to figure out the balances between the many proposed solutions and NO satisfactory solution. I’d say that it’s likely that we’re in for a long stretch of deliberations, leading to attempts at solutions, none of which will be universally palatable.
And while all these functionaries with their calculators and dreams and balance sheets dither and deliberate, this thing will continue to spew, probably for many many months, maybe for years. We’ve met the enemy - greed. We’re fucked.
Koxinga likes this post. [thumbs up]
Heck.
The more I think about this, the more I hope a nuke does get used. It will be nuclear sciences version of Apollo 13. Take a disaster (that “we” didnt create) and save the day.
The enviro weenies will wet their pants about teh radiation, while the average Joe will won’t see a damn thing happening except the oil leak being stopped. Its a win win win IMO.
Using explosives on a runaway well is a standard technique. It’s not a weapon when used as a tool and it’s used as a tool in this case because of the space requirements of fitting a large explosive device in a drill hole.
Hey, I did say to get Putin on the line as a backup.
BTW, what kind of yield are we thinking about needing, here? Would a W80 do the trick, or do we need something bigger?
Looks like a W80’d do it:
W80’d fit in most well holes too:
Why not place a giant tarp over the leaking well? The oil would pool under it, and could be pumped out.
Giant tarp, meet Methane Clathrates.
Pick whatever release amount to believe and multiple that by the number of days of containment before the other wells are drilled. It would be like a giant underwater hot air balloon trying to rise to the surface with all the gas coming out. On top of that it would make capping the well impossible.
billfish678’s point-of-view certainly seems valid. To argue against solving this disaster with a nuclear bomb would be like refusing a life-preserver when drowning for fear that the life-preserver’s styrofoam is carcinogenic.
What might be preventing such a deployment is a legal/political angle: What’s happening now is “BP’s fault”. After a major federal intervention, whatever happens will be “Obama’s fault.”
Now, if that were offered as an excuse for inaction by the administration either explicitly or implicitly (on the nuke question or any other possible solution), then I think serious Democrats and Republicans would be calling for Obama’s impeachment. And it wouldn’t work even from a legalistic angle, anyway: I believe that regulation/oversight of offshore drilling and protection of the offshore environment are explicit federal mandates.
I am also for the nuke idea. It certainly looks effective in the video of the Russian gas fire. And that was with a crappy Russian nuke 40 years ago. The current US arsenal probably gives a lot more bang for buck and as a bonus, less radiation.
As regards radiation, who cares? Anyone planning on going swimming 5000 feet down in the Gulf of Mexico? The oil is heading for the beach right now. The radiation won’t. As an added bonus, a nuclear explosion might vaporize a bunch of the undersea oil, cleaning up a large patch in one shot.
Do we know if there has been any official consideration of a nuclear solution?
However, I am also bearing in mind that every effort to shut the oil off so far has been a comedy of errors resulting in epic fail. So if a nuke was dropped in there I can picture it blowing the seafloor open, resulting in all the remaining oil gushing out at once.
I’ve cited my sources. If you can’t back up yours, that’s fine. I’m not saying you’re wrong; I’m just saying that you aren’t going to convince me of your side by simply taking a contrary position.
It certainly will, and it’s a tragedy. I’m sure it will have a worse effect than the bomb at this point (and as most people have pointed out, the relief wells will probably be drilled faster than the bomb could be employed). I was simply taking issue with your assertions that nuclear blasts don’t harm wildlife beyond the initial blast.
I’m repeating myself, but I said that the possible threat would be to the local wildlife there.
As long as people aren’t harmed, why should we care about the local wildlife?
It’s not detonated above the well, it would require another drilled well and the explosion takes place beneath the surface.
I was watching an interview with an ex Shell executive and he talked about collapsing the well as a last resort. I took that to mean a nuclear explosion. I imagine it would require extensive knowledge of the subterranean layers. The last thing we need is to cause a crack where billions of gallons spring forth.
I think you’re helping me make my point. There’s a tremendous gap between public rhetoric and unspoken realities.
Well, I don’t know what type of wildlife is specifically near the oil leak, but I imagine if there was really a problem caused by radiation it would first affect the plant-life on the ocean’s floor. The radiation could then be transmitted up the food chain in a similar manner as to my previously cited report linking thyroid conditions in native people to radiation in the soil (that went from the grass, to the cows, to the humans).
It’s possible that there are no plants or deep-sea dwellers by the leak -in which case, it would be a moot point regardless of radiation leaking. However, life seems to inhabit our entire world.