Plans to nuke BP oil spill gathers steam

[Brotherofwill]

Isn't this what you always do with oil drilling? I mean seriously now. A lot of people are acting like they are mad scientist you can't get rid of the problem by rational thought and just want to see it go "BOOM!".

If there's a leak, the pressure of the oil coming out is gigantic. You can't just stuff shit on it, it wouldn't work. To release the pressure and stop the flow you use explosives to bomb another hole more deep into the well, so that the pressure is released. It's that simple. While I've never heard of anyone using nukes, I suspect the problem is bigger and needs a little more 'Ooomph'. I'd hate for them to use nuclear technology but aslong as they know what they're doing, it seems to be the quickest and least damaging alternative.

Well, it probably has a big chance of going WTFBOOOOM! but I doubt they'd consider it if it was that risky. Especial BP since their name has already be tarnished and they wouldn't want to risk losing any more of their face.

 

[tsb247]

They should just attach a really big pipe to wherever the oil is leaking from, that then diverts back into the system. Easy.

NOTHING is easy at one mile beneath the ocean's surface!

 

[crimson5pheonix]

They should just attach a really big pipe to wherever the oil is leaking from, that then diverts back into the system. Easy.

NOTHING is easy at one mile beneath the ocean's surface!

ALMOST nothing. A nuke would be very easy. Very stupid, but easy.

 

[-Samurai-]

Just one nuke? We've got tons of them! Mutated fish, here we come!

 

[child of lileth]

Well, Russia (I think) did the nuke thing with a similar situation. So I guess it's better than nothing stopping it.

 

[Tehlanna TPX]

NUKE IT FROM ORBIT

Sorry, had to be done.

I'm surprised this hasn't come up sooner.

It's the only way to be sure.

OP: Proof of inbreeding, jesus christ.

 

[duchaked]

HAHAHAHA oh man this made my day

awesome, awesome

DO IT!

 

[tsb247]

They should just attach a really big pipe to wherever the oil is leaking from, that then diverts back into the system. Easy.

NOTHING is easy at one mile beneath the ocean's surface!

ALMOST nothing. A nuke would be very easy. Very stupid, but easy.

Actually, a nuke at 1 mile deep would not be that bad of an idea. The major problem is the tsunami that would occur as a result (depending on the yield of the device). Otherwise, radiation and fallout would be far less of a problem under water since there would be far less to irradiate. If the device was small enough, it may actually yield a positive result. However, it would be a PR nightmare for sure.

REMEMBER THE INVERSE SQUARE LAW! Radiation falls off drastically over distance!

 

[crimson5pheonix]

They should just attach a really big pipe to wherever the oil is leaking from, that then diverts back into the system. Easy.

NOTHING is easy at one mile beneath the ocean's surface!

ALMOST nothing. A nuke would be very easy. Very stupid, but easy.

Actually, a nuke at 1 mile deep would not be that bad of an idea. The major problem is the tsunami that would occur as a result (depending on the yield of the device). Otherwise, radiation and fallout would be far less of a problem under water since there would be far less to irradiate. If the device was small enough, it may actually yield a positive result. However, it would be a PR nightmare for sure.

REMEMBER THE INVERSE SQUARE LAW! Radiation falls off drastically over distance!

But the pressure wave is still going to kill everything in a good distance.

 

[Slycne]

They should just attach a really big pipe to wherever the oil is leaking from, that then diverts back into the system. Easy.

i like this plan get a 5m,10m,15m wide pipe, what ever is needed. then pin in over the well the use a funnel to link it to a smaller pipe with a pump at the top to bring it to the surface. then you can use a oil tanker to hold the oil/water mix. sure you many not stop it but you stop it spreading

or get a steel bung (pole) a few mm less than the current broken pipe and ram it im and then weld it in place

If only it was that easy. There are two big problems to deal with. The first is that it's 5000 feet under-water. It's pitch dark and you can only work with robots. So you're trying to drop something you can't see from a mile up and it's subject to water currents as well. The second is that the leak is spewing methane gas, which when it hits anything they try to lower into place at those depths ice starts to form. The ice builds up causes it to become buoyant.

 

[Cryo84R]

Clearly not many of you know much about nukes. Water is an excellent radiological insulator. See the fact that we use water as radiation shielding in submarines. Also the sunken reactors of the USS Thresher and Scorpion are giving off negligible levels of radioactivity and they have been at the bottom for 40-50 years.

 

[Zeetchmen]

Just Cause 2 anyone? lol

 

[Uncompetative]

Wait. So now we can expect to be attacked by mutant cormorants covered in radioactive crude?

 

[GodKlown]

I admit it has been a long time since we've had a serious reason to detonate a nuclear bomb, but I don't personally see how this situation calls for such a drastic measure. I know Florida is already starting to shit bricks because the oil is nearing their coastline during "tourist season", and with all the crazy people in Florida, I think they'd be disappointed in missing out on a burning ocean of gasoline for the summer. Even a burning ocean might be cooler than the rest of the temperatures down there!

So dumping a nuke onto a spilling hole in the ocean is the running joke of the community now. Russia apparently did this, but since when has Russia had a good idea in the last fifty years? (no offense, Russia)
The key here is they want to seal off the hole, but isn't there a less nuclear way to achieve this? It sounds as though they just want to dump a bunch of debris on this leak to close it, so why not just dump a bunch of boulders or rocks on it instead of creating a krakken with nuclear underwater fallout? Have there been any tests done about the chemical reaction between oil and nuclear materials? Sure, they seal it off and can continue to pump the oil back out, but what about radioactive oil? Given that we still can't access some radioactive areas in the world (thanks for the lesson, SimCity!), I don't think we'd be able to use any of the oil after that point, essentially creating a big boom that fundamentally ruins a natural oil deposit.

The best outcome of this plan is that they nuke the site, the explosion seals off the leak, and everybody skips underneath a rainbow holding hands over a brilliantly executed plan. Yeah, I just made a nuke sound like a wuss. Realistically, it would take months (if not years) of planning to make this plan a reality because of the research involved to determine what the ramifications of such a plan would be in the long run. So I say just dump a bunch of rocks on the site, simply because they couldn't feasible dam off the site to cement it closed. Right now, the situation is such a mess that almost any plan seems reasonable when thinking about the almighty dollar. But who's going to pay for this bomb, anyway? BP might have deep pockets, but I am hesitant to give any company even temporary access to a nuclear bomb. It sets a bad example to every other company with a large problem that they can fix it by nuking the hell out of it. While I don't mind a decent reason to drop a bomb, I don't think this one calls for such action.

 

[F-I-D-O]

They should just attach a really big pipe to wherever the oil is leaking from, that then diverts back into the system. Easy.

I think they already tried that twice. Although i can't remember them saying what went wrong with it other than "it didn't work".

It's a really small target, and you're really far away, and you can't directly see it. Most likely what went wrong was they missed.

 

[Marter]

If they had done this at the very beginning, I might of seen the point.

Doing it now isn't viable in my opinion, and I think that it should be used only as a last resort now.

 

[tsb247]

They should just attach a really big pipe to wherever the oil is leaking from, that then diverts back into the system. Easy.

NOTHING is easy at one mile beneath the ocean's surface!

ALMOST nothing. A nuke would be very easy. Very stupid, but easy.

Actually, a nuke at 1 mile deep would not be that bad of an idea. The major problem is the tsunami that would occur as a result (depending on the yield of the device). Otherwise, radiation and fallout would be far less of a problem under water since there would be far less to irradiate. If the device was small enough, it may actually yield a positive result. However, it would be a PR nightmare for sure.

REMEMBER THE INVERSE SQUARE LAW! Radiation falls off drastically over distance!

But the pressure wave is still going to kill everything in a good distance.

Yes, that is one of several reasons for not doing it. Although, that could also be said for any explosive that is set off under water. It could also be argued that a giant brick of C4 or dynamite could do the same thing.

A nuke would just be convenient since it would come in a smaller package.

 

[tsb247]

Clearly not many of you know much about nukes. Water is an excellent radiological insulator. See the fact that we use water as radiation shielding in submarines. Also the sunken reactors of the USS Thresher and Scorpion are giving off negligible levels of radioactivity and they have been at the bottom for 40-50 years.

Very true indeed. I was hoping someone else would point this out.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

They should just attach a really big pipe to wherever the oil is leaking from, that then diverts back into the system. Easy.

NOTHING is easy at one mile beneath the ocean's surface!

ALMOST nothing. A nuke would be very easy. Very stupid, but easy.

Actually, a nuke at 1 mile deep would not be that bad of an idea. The major problem is the tsunami that would occur as a result (depending on the yield of the device). Otherwise, radiation and fallout would be far less of a problem under water since there would be far less to irradiate. If the device was small enough, it may actually yield a positive result. However, it would be a PR nightmare for sure.

REMEMBER THE INVERSE SQUARE LAW! Radiation falls off drastically over distance!

But the pressure wave is still going to kill everything in a good distance.

Yes, that is one of several reasons for not doing it. Although, that could also be said for any explosive that is set off under water. It could also be argued that a giant brick of C4 or dynamite could do the same thing.

A nuke would just be convenient since it would come in a smaller package.

Which is why we shouldn't be using explosives. At all.