From my layman perspective, it looks like a nuke SHOULD work.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

The oil is in a reservoir veeeeeeeeeeeeeery deep down below miles of rock under the ocean bed, right? And the hole that's bringing it up is veeeeeeeeeeeeeery long and narrow.

I can't see how a nuke detonated besides the hole at a just right distance (300 meters? 500?) would NOT end up sealing it.

File me in the pro-nuke camp, for now.

[maxsolomon]

1. conventional explosives preferred

wouldn't the nuke need to be drilled into a hole adjacent?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

4. It would seem so, but wouldn't the same thing apply to the conventional explosives?

I don't know how destructive MOABs and the like are. Bunker-busters? That might work too.

[Warpy]

2. Then why not use conventional explosives in a deep mine?

Trust me, they've thought of this one. If the wells they're slant drilling into the well that's blown out don't manage to stop the spill, the plan is to shove some explosives down the slant drill and blast them both closed.

It's a calculated risk, though, that the explosion won't just create a bigger hole.

There is no reason to use a nuclear bomb except the Pentagon wants to see something make a really big bang and those nukes are burning holes in their collective pockets.

What's the fun in having the biggest firecrackers in the world if Mom won't let you set them off?

[no_hypocrisy]

3. Here's my question. What if instead of sealing the hole, the nuke enlarges it to the point where

it's an incredible gaping crater out of control gushing oil?

[rocktivity]

5. For the oil leak, the volcano, Iraq, or Afghanistan?

:evilgrin:
rocktivity

[tridim]

6. I don't think any nuke we have would work at that depth.

It's not a matter of just lighting a fuse.

How about some C-4 in several small 100 foot bores around the shaft? That'd probably do it.

[Statistical]

7. More likely one would drill a relatively shallow shaft and place the nuke there.

That is how the Soviets did it in at least 5 blow outs. The US also conducted experiments in 1960s on using nuclear devices for demolitions.


The idea isn't to simply drop a bomb in the ocean and detonate it. Drill a shaft parallel to the leaking well about 500m deep into rock and a couple hundred meters from the well. Lower nuke into shaft and detonate. The device is now positioned parallel to the well. When it detonates rather than a point of force it is more like a mile deep shockwave hitting the side of the well at the same time. Simply crushes the well shut not in one spot (which could rupture and leak) but across a mile wide front.

Of course the term NUKE spans a large amount of explosive power. From a kiloton (1/20th of hiroshima) to 50 megatons (50,000 kilotons or 2500x Hiroshima).

The Soviets used very "small" (10 kiloton) nukes, roughly equivelent in force to 10,000 tons of conventional tnt.

Still I am not sure it is worth it at this point. BP should try to shutoff oil flow at BOP. If that fails and/or flow increases maybe something as drastic as a nuclear demolition will be required.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

9. Yes. Yes, that's exactly what I'm thinking. -nt

[lame54]

8. Nuking it - it's worth a try?...

HELLLLL NOOOO!

you HAVE TO KNOW THE RESULTS before doing something drastic like that

that is not something you can experiment with

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

10. See #7. There would be very little radioactive fallout too. -nt

[lame54]

14. See #3 - A legitimate question

[Bragi]

11. lame 54 wrote:

you HAVE TO KNOW THE RESULTS before doing something drastic like that

that is not something you can experiment with

Actually, the whole process of ultra-deep sea oil drilling and extraction is one big experiment.

So far, it looks like the experiment is working fine, except for the blowout, of course, and who could have seen that coming?

<slap forehead, tug hair, look surprised>

[lame54]

12. so you agree?...

:shrug:

[Bragi]

19. Yes, I think nuking it would be iresponsible and reckless

This means it has a 50/50 chance of happening.

[ET Awful]

13. What I want to know is why even discuss nukes when just a few years back we tested the largest

conventional bomb every created that had similar explosive power to a nuke without the radiation?

[Statistical]

17. Which bomb was this?

MOAB has a blast yield of 11 tons of TNT.
Russian have experimented with a bomb 4x larger say 50 tons of TNT.

Hiroshima was 20,000 tons of TNT.

[ET Awful]

25. As a shaped charge, the explosive capacity of the MOAB would easily provide the desired result.

The smallest known nuclear device has a 10 ton yield. http://science.howstuffworks.com/moab.htm/printable

The MOAB as tested was an air-burst weapon. In a confined space, the explosive power would be more concentrated.

Conventional explosives could provide the desired results.

[Kablooie]

15. But golf balls and bald tires are so much more aesthetically pleasing.

Than a nuclear bomb.

[Scuba]

16. Sure, what could go wrong?

[grantcart]

18. and what could go right? We might get genetically altered fish that grow to 5 feet long

with three eyes.

This is an idea worthy of the Simpsons!!

[Cleobulus]

26. What could go wrong? Are you kidding!

[librechik]

20. I like blackened shrimp--but not the glow in the dark kind

gotta draw the line somewhere--

how about a daisy cutter instead?

[spanone]

21. and what if it opened a larger hole...? then we'd have radiated oil on the beaches

[derby378]

22. I can't help but think of this as the Ellen Ripley Gambit

"I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."

[damntexdem]

23. It would certainly do something.

And among the somethings, likely mess up the environment even worse than the gusher is.

[bridgit]

24. Well, I guess that fact we're talking about it is proof enough of the cataclysmic nature...

of this event http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x465134