That there oil spill....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dawnseeker

Fallout is not a concern because the explosion would be done far enough beneath the surface that nuclear material would not rise into the atmosphere.

---

Perhaps "fallout" was the wrong term to describe the concern here, though personally I couldn't help coining the phrase "aquatic fallout". I think the main concern in this situation is radiation moving through water currents, rather than actually coming up into the atmosphere itself.

Quote:

---

This event killed 12 people and there are not likely to be any more human deaths as a result.

---

I thought there was 11. :(

Quote:

---

Yes, the damage to marine life is sad, but it is not catastrophic.

---

It might be for a couple of endangered species, but I haven't done my homework on which species of animals are being affected and how badly.

Quote:

---

In the longterm, the only effects of this spill will be economic...

---

The damage to the economy and day-to-day living for people along the affected coastline is probably what has people the most concerned about this spill. Nature can heal the damages done in time, but a lot of people won't be able to wait around for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rodri

Neko, considering this specific set of circumstances, I would consider a nuclear option insane, yes. Ideas with technical merit created this problem in the first place.

---

I reckon I'm grumpy, due to not sleeping well, but...

blah, blah, blah...

This is the same FUD that gets spread in regards to nuclear power stations.

Quote:

---

Also, we are not discussing the merits of drilling for oil here but what needs to be done and I was giving a reason why such a method could be catastrophic if it failed.

---

OK, so we want to gloss over the fact that by-products of oil drilling are already carcinogenic and/or radioactive?

The "drilling mud" that they used? Guess what? It's not "mud" in the sense of dirt and water. It's got stuff in it that's also carcinogenic and/or radioactive.

Guess what they're going to be pumping into the relief well to try to block it...

Guess what came up through the current BOP when they tried "Top Kill".

Guess what the cummulative effects of all this carcinogenic and/or radioactive material has...

Quote:

---

The problems that have been caused already are a major global disaster as it is. This is America's Chernobyl. The last thing needed is to risk increasing that disaster to a magnitude that is unimaginable.

---

FUD...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montros

AKA: Radioactive Tar Balls

---

FUD...

You forgot to bold the part where I said that based on previous tests it would be unlikely...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dawnseeker

The idea behind an explosive demolition is that the force of the explosion above the well would cause the casing and base of the well to essentially implode, forming a plug in the well. The belief by the experts I've interviewed is that any form of undersea detonation would demolish the casing entirely, and probably widen the hole in the seabed, exacerbating the problem, instead of solving it.

---

That's a description of a conventional explosion...

Quote:

---

As far as they have said, a nuclear blast would have roughly the same deleterious effect. Fallout is not a concern because the explosion would be done far enough beneath the surface that nuclear material would not rise into the atmosphere. It is also not likely that there would be a significant danger to coastal environments from the explosion because the nuclear material would have plenty of time to dissipate in the ocean. There have been dozens of nuclear blasts underwater and above ground, beginning in New Mexico in 1945 without any detectable human effects, other than the two detonated in Japan.

---

...but with a nuclear explosion, you'd generate magma for a brief period of time. If the cavity is made small enough and deep enough, there would be a seal when the molten rock cools.

Quote:

---

While it is true, as some have mentioned, that the Russians have successfully plugged 4 natural gas wells using nuclear explosions, these were all in land-based wells, not a mile beneath the ocean.

---

...and given that the oil is being expelled at the volume / velocity that it is, given that amount of water pressure, it indicates that the well is extremely pressurized, thus the relief wells may also have problems in getting the drilling mud to stay in place due to high pressure.

The relief well(s) is the appropriate current step, but if it doesn't work, then what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alusair

Perhaps "fallout" was the wrong term to describe the concern here, though personally I couldn't help coining the phrase "aquatic fallout". I think the main concern in this situation is radiation moving through water currents, rather than actually coming up into the atmosphere itself.

---

I think the problem many people have is the lack of understanding of how the application would be scaled in size. The largest explosive yield that's listed for the Soviet applications is 47 kilotons. That's just a bit more than triple the yield of Hiroshima. The smallest explosive yield is but 3.8 kilotons, or approximately 1/4th - 1/6th of Hiroshima. Since BP knows with high accuracy the location of the casing and junctions, the yield doesn't have to be as large, as was the case with the 3.8 kT yield detonation (it was placed very close to the runaway well).

Given the depth, it's unlikely that sediment would be ejected upward far enough, particularly if it's a low yield detonation.

Is it an appropriate first line attempt to deal with the situation? No.

However, like I just said, given the flow rate, there is some significant pressure in the well, and the relief well or relief wells may not be successful. BP and others think they'll be successful, but it's just never been done before, and especially not with a well that appears to have such high pressures.

So, what to do if the relief well / wells do not work?

keep in mind, gas and oil spills have been nuked before... for example the 3 year natural gas leak in the soviet union, nothing could stop it, except a nuke ;)

keep in mind this was in a desert too...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeSalvionjr

keep in mind, gas and oil spills have been nuked before... for example the 3 year natural gas leak in the soviet union, nothing could stop it, except a nuke ;)

keep in mind this was in a desert too...

---

Did you even read the last several replies? >.>

The point of contention was that this "nuking" might not be a very good idea if we're going to base on the previous 4/5 nukes done by the Soviet Union to cap theirs, because (like Dawn said) most of them were probably done on inland wells. In which case, the said operation may have different (and even drastic) results were it to be done miles underwater.

The general idea of this whole situation is that when something that can cause this much damage is built, there should be plans set up beforehand to prevent things like this from happening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alusair

And you can wash it down with your very own glow-in-the-dark soda pop!

http://technabob.com/blog/wp-content...n-the-dark.jpg

It's perfectly safe. We promise.

---

Haha! That's totally a bottle of Nuka-Cola Quantum from Fallout.

I find this to be both ironic and humorous.

I admit that nuking the spill shouldn't be the first thing tried, but several attempts have been made already to stop it by other means. If the relief wells don't work, what else will we do? The chances are slim that something will go drastically wrong, whereas we KNOW things will go to :modedit: if we let the spill go. The longer we wait, the worse it gets. The more we talk about the solution, the harder it will be to make it work. The nuke is something we can do pretty much right NOW if the relief well dosen't work.