Plans to nuke BP oil spill gathers steam
- Thread starter Ickorus
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I get that it worked with Russian Natural Gas leaks, but that was to stop them burning.
If a nuke went off, wouldn't it break the top off of the massive underground lake of oil, causing it to all float up at the same time?
It would make the problem 1000 times worse.
If a nuke went off, wouldn't it break the top off of the massive underground lake of oil, causing it to all float up at the same time?
It would make the problem 1000 times worse.
You must not have heard then that they successfully managed to cap off one of the leaking pipes and have significantly stemmed the flow of oil. Thanks for the crazy idea, but science finally got its shit together and made progress on fixing this.
I'm really having a hard time believing that this was a serious idea. They wanted to plug up a hole in the ocean by dropping a nuke on it?
That just doesn't sound right. In fact, that sounds horribly wrong. Even if it did solve the oil problem, you have to deal with the fact that you just nuked the ocean. I can't imagine that not causing any problems. I imagine there has to be something about this that I don't understand. An oil spill certainly isn't good for the environment, but the oil is still a natural substance. The environment doe shave methods of cleaning itself up naturally over time. From what I know, radiation is not something that can be disposed of through natural processes. It's the gift that keeps on giving for years. Why would you want to swap out the oil disaster for a potentially worse nuclear disaster?
Also, the Soviet Union wasn't exactly what I would call environmentally friendly, at least when you look at things like Vozrozhdeniya Island [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vozrozhdeniya_Island]. So I'm hesitant to believe that a method they used to seal off the oil wells is safe. Fortunately the BP managed to get that cap on the well, making crazy ideas like this all the less likely to become reality.
That just doesn't sound right. In fact, that sounds horribly wrong. Even if it did solve the oil problem, you have to deal with the fact that you just nuked the ocean. I can't imagine that not causing any problems. I imagine there has to be something about this that I don't understand. An oil spill certainly isn't good for the environment, but the oil is still a natural substance. The environment doe shave methods of cleaning itself up naturally over time. From what I know, radiation is not something that can be disposed of through natural processes. It's the gift that keeps on giving for years. Why would you want to swap out the oil disaster for a potentially worse nuclear disaster?
Also, the Soviet Union wasn't exactly what I would call environmentally friendly, at least when you look at things like Vozrozhdeniya Island [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vozrozhdeniya_Island]. So I'm hesitant to believe that a method they used to seal off the oil wells is safe. Fortunately the BP managed to get that cap on the well, making crazy ideas like this all the less likely to become reality.
You don't 'solve' a problem with nukes. You cause a lot of damage and hope that it outways what would happens if you didn't use a nuke.deadman91 said:
OP: This seems like a bad idea for a worse problem. It doesn't help how the gulf current will spread the radiation all over the place. Then again, it's not like there is much left in the gulf to kill anyway. It's a touchy issue.
Side question: if the nuke went off, would the oil catch on fire? Cause that would be an amazing light show.
It's a bit more sophisticated than "dropping a nuke on it"Internet Kraken said:
You drill a borehole NEXT TO the pipeline which has the top snapped off (and is leaking endlessly into the ocean) so about half way down, parallel with a couple hundred meters of rock separating. Then deliver a nuke down the hole, then fill up the hole with cement and other sealant.
Then detonate the nuke, thousands of feet under the ocean floor, the expansion of the explosion super-compresses all the rock around it and then squeezes shut the pipeline. The fireball created by the nuclear detonation should not directly interact with the oil, pipeline nor ocean environment at all.
they don't just "throw a nuke at it" they utilise the ability of an underground nuclear explosion to compress - horizontally - the ground around it. Like hammering a pipe to seal it.
In theory there should be absolutely no nuclear fallout at all, even on the bottom of the ocean. Unless some beasties feel like digging through a few thousand feet of rock.
It should be noted that the US Military alone has in fact accidentally lost some nuclear weapons in this region (ships sinking, aircraft crashing) and they were never recovered, buried under silt with their plutonium cores.
Oh. My. God. Why was this not thgought of before? It's brillaint!theSovietConnection said:I have a better idea.
Throw the moon at it!
That's what I thought. It had to be more than just a dropping a bomb on it, since that wouldn't solve anything.Treblaine said:
So while it's not nearly as stupid or destructive as I assumed, I'm still not entirely sure about the whole thing. It sounds like in the ideal scenario the effects of the nuke would not reach beyond to drilled out hole and the oil leak would be closed. However that is the ideal scenario, and those aren't always the reality. I'm just no comfortable with the idea of trying to plug up the oil leak with a nuclear bomb. Sounds like there is to big of a chance for something disastrous to happen. Of course the potential consequences I'm imagining could be exaggerated. Still, I would place this low on the list of possible solutions.
yeah, oil burns REALLY WELL deep under ground, thousands of feet under water with no air at all[/sarc].TheGreatCoolEnergy said:
What? Do people REALLY think they just turn up with a nuke and say:
"well here's the nuke, now lets just kick it off the side of the ship and detonate it, because that's the SMART thing to do!"
yes, nuclear explosions can create radioactive particles, but the logic of:
"nuclear weapons goes off = everything and everyone around it gets lethal dose of radiation"
Is completely wrong.
It is ridiculously spurious logic considering aspects of containment and even the mechanism of radioactive particles forming.
I mean when North Korea set off their nuclear weapon, who was running around like a headless chicken? Yelling something like:
"oh nos! Oh dear god no, a nuclear wepon has been detonated on our planet, WE@RE ALL GOING TO DIES OF TEH RADIATION!!!!11!!1!"
No one was.
Detonate it underground and everyone will be fine... they just need to make sure to seal the hole (half a mile of reinforced concrete usually does the trick)
It is possible for nuclear weapons to be engineered to have very low fallout, with a significant fusion stage surrounded by highly neutron absorbent material, to reduce surrounding rock being irradiated by neutron flux.
we finally get a three eyed fish .. but seriously who is stupid enough to use a nuke?! dude .. hiroshima and tjenobyl ????!!! HEEELLLLLOOOO ........
My dad works for Total oil company, he knows what he's talking about when he says that that oil well will continue spewing oil at that rate for YEARS.Internet Kraken said:
How comfortable are you with that? The entire Gulf coast will turn into a passive tar pit.
Look, the nuclear option should not be Plan B, hell they should try plans B through Plan Z before they actually attempt the nuke but you have to realise almost all the other plans have very little chance of success. I mean they tried the most likely solutions already and they've all failed.
If the nuclear option is a last resort, those in charge STILL have to start preparing for it now. Politicians need to get talking about how this IS a possibility and make sure it doesn't jeopardise any arms agreements and the need to start NOW.