Quote Originally Posted by Alusair View Post
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?