This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Should We Nuke the Oil Well?
Blog
CBS
News, the
Christian Science Monitor, CNN,
Reuters and Fox
(and see this)
have all asked whether BP should nuke its leaking oil well.
Indeed,
some high-level Russian nuclear scientists and oil industry experts
have suggested such an approach to stop the Gulf oil gusher. Here
is archival footage of the Russians killing a gas leak with a nuclear
device.
And Obama's energy secretary and Nobel prize winning physicist Steven
Chu included
the man who helped develop the first hydrogen bomb in the 1950s as
part of the 5-man brain trust tasked with stopping the oil.
And oil
industry expert Matt Simmons proposes
the use of a tactical nuclear
device every time he is interviewed on national television.
However,
even the history of Russia's successful use of nuclear devices to stop
gushers has some important caveats.
As Reuters notes (unless new links are provided, links for all cited
articles are provided at the beginning of this essay):
Vladimir Chuprov from [Former long-time
Greenpeace's Moscow office is even more insistent that BP not heed the
advice of the veteran Soviet physicists. Chuprov disputes the veterans'
accounts of the peaceful explosions and says several of the gas leaks
reappeared later. "What was praised as a success and a breakthrough by
the Soviet Union is in essence a lie," he says.
Russian Minister of nuclear energy and veteran Soviet physicist
Viktor] Mikhailov agrees that the USSR had to give up its program
because of problems it presented. "I ended the program because I knew
how worthless this all was," he says with a sigh. "Radioactive material was still seeping
through cracks in the ground and spreading into the air. It
wasn't worth it."
As the Christian Science Monitor points out:
The Russians previously used
nukes at least five times to seal off gas well fires. … Komsomoloskaya
Pravda suggested that the United States might as well take a chance
with a nuke, based on the historical 20% failure rate. Still, the
Soviet experience with nuking underground gas wells could prove easier
in retrospect than trying to seal the Gulf of Mexico’s oil well
disaster that’s taking place 5,000 feet below the surface. The
Russians were using nukes to extinguish gas well fires in natural gas
fields, not sealing oil wells gushing liquid, so there are big
differences, and this method has never been tested in such conditions.
As CBS News reports, not all of the Russians nukes worked:
But not each use of nuclear energy did the
trick. A 4 kiloton charge set off in Russia's Kharkov region failed to
stop a gas blowout. "The explosion was mysteriously left on the
surface, forming a mushroom cloud," the paper reported.
Indeed,
several experts have said that nuking the well might make the
situation worse.
For example, Reuters notes:
There is a chance any blast could fracture
the seabed and cause an underground blowout, according to Andy
Radford, petroleum engineer and American Petroleum Institute senior
policy adviser on offshore issues.
CNN
points out that nuking the leaking well could conceivably destabilize
other oil wells miles away.
The New York Times writes:
Government and private nuclear experts agreed
that using a nuclear bomb would be ... risky technically, with
unknown and possibly disastrous consequences from radiation ....
A
senior Los Alamos scientist, speaking on the condition of anonymity
because his comments were unauthorized, ridiculed the idea of using a
nuclear blast to solve the crisis in the gulf.
“It’s not going
to happen,” he said. “Technically, it would be exploring new ground in
the midst of a disaster — and you might make it worse.”
And one of the world's top physicists - string theorist Michio Kaku -
writes:
I
think this is a bad idea, from a physics point of view. Let me say
that my mentor while I was in high school and at Harvard, Edward Teller,
father of the H-bomb, was a firm advocate of using nuclear weapons to
dig out canals and other grand engineering projects.***
Underground,
we then have a hollow sphere of vaporized gas, with walls that have
been glassified from the sand. This hollow sphere is stable from a few
hours to a few days, but eventually the weight of the rock collapses
the sphere. The result is a sudden collapse of the sphere, often
releasing radioactive gas into the environment.***
If
this takes place under the sea floor (which has never been done
before), there are bound to be complications. First, there would be the
release of dangerous, water-soluble chemicals such as radioactive
iodine, strontium, and cesium, which would contaminate the food chain in
the Gulf. Second, the "seal" created by the glassified sand is
probably unstable. And third, it might actually make the problem worse,
creating many mini leaks on the ocean floor. Determining the precise
effect of such an underwater blast would depend on crucial computer
simulations of the various layers of rock under the seafloor, which has
never been done before.
In other words, this would bea huge
science experiment, with unintended consequences. Furthermore, with
hurricane season upon us, and predictions of eight or more hurricanes
for this season, it means that seawater several hundred feet below the
surface of the water could be churned up and then deposited over the
South. This seawater, containing oils and radioactive fission products,
would magnify the environmental problem.
In summary, it is not a
good idea to use nukes to seal up oil leaks.
Moreover, former President Bill Clinton told
CNN on Sunday (starting 3:13 into video) that he has looked into the
issue, and that a nuke is not needed. He said the Navy can use conventional explosives to seal
the well. As the former commander-in-chief, Clinton is probably
getting such information from someone high up in the Navy.
For more on the nuclear option, see this.
»
- advertisements -
And the other part of GW's accusation?
"You ALWAYS and ONLY write to support the oil industry and the government."
How did Augustus "support the government" with his rebuttal's to GW?
Everything's fine, it's a terrible accident but we've got our best people working on it, nothing to see here, move along. Don't question authority, never seek answers beyond those provided gift-wrapped on a silver platter, never doubt your leaders of government or industry. Otherwise you will be marginalized, labeled as 'fringe', dilettante, cuckoo, whacked out, fearmonger. So remember that. Carry on.
There, have I helped the gov't enough yet? There are many, many ways to skin a cat, some seem perfectly reasonable and humane when presented by experts.
Everything's fine, it's a terrible accident but we've got our best people working on it, nothing to see here, move along.
Your statement is self contradictory.
It is a terrible accident. It was a preventable accident. Everything is not fine. Geo Wash has presented it as something that will result in the end of the earth. This well and the formation it has drilled into are the monsters of the deep. He has presented himself as a semi expert because he understands the term Sigsby Salt. Balderdash all.
The best people ARE working on it. They have never considered the whacky Russian or Simmons or Geo Wash suggestion of a nuke. NEVER. Now Geo Wash seems to agree with them. How about that?
I have never owned BP stock. I do like to use energy. I want it to be cheap and widely available. There is a whole lot of it available to us, stored already in the earth, as coal and oil. I do not want to be denied the opportunity or benefits of harvesting it. Articles of fantasy scenarios of TEOTHAWKI are only useful for promoting an agenda of a return to the cave man life. This guy must be getting paid to collect all of the most extreme fantasies and present them as fact. Probably not a whole lot, but blogging does not have a high cost. I see no reason to engage in a program of euthanasia for humans.
This well will be killed as many others have been killed. The GOM will recover within two or three years. BP will pay out a monstrous amount of money because of some one's very bad judgement. I want someone to still be able to develop the resources and not have the decisions influenced by mud volcano nonsense.
See, now that is a much more reasonable and balanced viewpoint from you than I have read in a while. I still disagree on some levels, mainly in that there is nothing untoward or inappropriate in BP/Government handling of pertinent information regarding the catastrophe:
http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct2=us%2F0_0_s_2_0_t&usg=AFQjCNHkjx...
Let us all hope that you are right in the final outcome of this mess.
Wow...now the junking of posts starts. Of note to all, on one side of the question at hand.
How infantile George et al.
Now I know. You won't like me on the other side...trust me.
You didn't answer the question. That's really ALL anyone needs to know.
Care to comment on Cisterian locking up >>>GEORGE WASHINGTON'S<<< ability to edit HIS own post?
Once someone replies to a post, it is locked.Try editing this one now.It is the way this board works, no special power needed.
Rocky pointed that out to me...thank you.
You make good points.
But I'm unsure if those were "his" pronounciations or of his sources, which are two different things. If they were his, he should have corrected as events unfolded to cast himself in a better light. If they were the opinion of others it should have been noted in the body or header of the text.
At the least he can rightly be accused of being an oil spill gadfly, though I do enjoy reading different points of view on the topic.
What struck me was his plea to have others censor HIMSELF after saying he was all about truth and honesty and hurling an accusation unsubstantiated by any evidence on his part.
In my experience this is not the act of one who seeks truth. I don't know if it was ego driven or an easy way out of confrontation with you provided by Cistercian.
But truth is what we all seek and it often comes via confrontation so what's the big deal?
That is why I copied his text...I hate censorship in any form...to delete his they would have to delete mine as well...I gambled they would not ;-)
Regards.
Augustus, you continually misrepresent what I have said, mixing in things I did say with things I never said. For example, I never said this well has drilled into a cave bigger than Mt Everest.
Cistercian is right ...
Goodbye ...
For example, when did you correct the nonsense about the well triggering mud volcanoes? Link Please. Thanks.
For example, when did you correct the nonsense about the methane fires destroying the entire gulf coast? Did you ever note the required ratio of air to methane for it to burn? Link Please. Thanks.
For example, when did you correct the nonsense about 15,000 ft of pipe flying out of the hole and going through the mast without anyone seeing it? Link please. Thanks.
If "Goodbye ..." means that you recognize that you should quit writing fantasy with the intention of profiting from it, I'm happy for you. Berry Soretoes promoted Hope. I have Hope that you can reform.
No, goodbye means I am not wasting any more time attempting to have a rational conversation with you.
I don't recall EVER saying anything about "mud volcanoes"
I don't recall EVER saying anything about "the methane fires destroying the entire gulf coast".
And from your previous post, I don't recall EVER saying anything about 100,000 psi.
Are you an autobot, or do you actually read what I write?
This last post explains it all.
You have crab in your pedigree.
Is it on the top line or from the bottom?
When I replied, it locked out the ability to edit it.Sorry.
And again, thank you for staying on this critical story.I really appreciate the work you put in!
When I replied I was locked out?
Is this one account with two people posting?...very curious.
Someone like to chime in here?
When any comment is replied to by another comment, the original one is locked and cannot be deleted nor edited.
Thanks for clearing that up for me Rocky...appreciate it.
I disagree my friend. Augustus has useful commentary to consider here AND GW needed to answer him and call him out on exactly the issue he called him out on. I have asked Augustus who he is and I have not read an answer, yet.
I don't think he is honest based on his various strawman arguments.I also can easily discern an agenda...this re-enforces my distrust.People with agendas try to win arguments, but I am interested in the truth.I have learned it is a waste of time to spend hours arguing with someone interested only in winning.
NOAA has just released new projected spill affected areas. See link below. I just had to shake my head when I read that these projections are based upon 33k barrels a day for 90 days. We all know it's over 90K. LA, MS and FL are toast. We need a new word for the eco fu*%ckers.
http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/dwh.php?entry_id=815
Good link...but they are static projections...meaning, revisions are possible.
thank you for this very enlightening batch of anti-propaganda medicine....i am sure some asshole in the pentagon is dying to ignite a nuclear bomb...
Nukes aren't ignited, they are detonated.
Just another part of the new-normal...
do you do spell check too? OTOH thanks for correcting, we will die well since we understand the entire process and our collective inability to do anything about it.
Please pardon my sarcasm, there is an undercurrent of anger in me i cannot deny .
Yep.
And my flesh crawls when the MSM talk about "digging" these wells.
They are drilled.
AS I mentioned earlier posting on the other site dealing with this 'bomb' issue; we already have a major league problem that is probably going to continue to deteriorate, so more pressure will be placed onto a "solution". The really difficult question is at what point does the problem get to such a magnitude, ie: where not to act may lead to possibly hundreds of millions of lives be cofronted with possible starvation because of the ongoing contamination of the ocean; even a terminal event for most of the planet life. The ocean is the very base of the entire life chain.
We know our monetary system as we know it is gone; I would think that even this country survival as constituted now is probably going to radically change over the next couple of generations.
Those things are workable and solvable with much blood shed.
Are we now getting the first real event that is ongoing that is giving us a peak hole view of what is coming if not this situation then surely another that is waiting around the corner---that is species survival.
Have we reached the outer limits of our civil structures that will allow us to deal with this type event, or what ever you might want to call what is unfolding in front of us. From my look right now, i would say no. Not now, but we had better start addessing the issue mox schnell.
I am simply wandering around in my mind; I hope my thoughts are coherent enough to bring others into what I'm raising. Where in the hell are we?? Milestones
Excellent post because it made me think. Faced with our common extinction or some overwhelming enemy the popular response is that the human race will reach into its collective unconscious and put down the sword and pick up the plow. But will we?
I have often thought that faced with certain extinction (not that the oil spill will rise to that level) that mankind would evolve to a new level of being and consciousness in one big convulsive surge. Now I wonder if mankind might not devolve when the cerebral cortex has been dulled by so much practiced egoism.
Maybe we react with pure survival instinct until there is no one left.
I happen to believe there is a God and he is watching how we react to the things happening in our world right now. Which way will we go?
Miles, from your post:
"a peak hole view"
A priceless, very very apropos and possibly Freudian slip?
Peak Hole indeed. I suppose a peak hole is the opposite of all the other peaks we've supposedly been scaling as a species.
Now we're peaking over the edge of the abyss.
Fascinating times.
ORI
http://aadivaahan.wordpress.com
I hear you. It is trite, but until everyone gets through the various Kubler Ross stages of greiving and arrives on the same page, nothing will happen as you describe. Never mind bureaucracy. Never mind that we seem to have a tendency to look to other people to take care of us and make decisions for us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kübler-Ross_model
Right now it is this
http://kindertrauma.com/images/confessions/smog1.jpg
But could become this
http://kindertrauma.com/images/confessions/smog.jpg
Only this will save us
http://wall.alphacoders.com/images/Movie/Movie-Godzilla-3875.jpg
Maybe this could too, but we did burn his kin
http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i125/Yout/gamera.jpg
Another great example of how nature can not be controlled by Man. Although people may be in awe of nuclear weapons, nature will react with the exact amount of force in a way that will clearly demonstrate Man's intellectual depravity.
In other words, keep the nukes in the closet.
Are we not men?
When a blowout comes along, you must nuke it.
The oil leaks too long, unless you nuke it.
The Russians got it wrong, until they nuked it.
Now nuke it, nuke it good.
I am donning my Lycra jumpsuit and flower pot hat.
For Justice!
Duty Now, For the Future!
What we need now is a Triumph of the Will.
when something's going wrong
you must nuke it
now nuke it
into shape
shape it up
get straight
go forward
move ahead
try to detect it
it's not too late
to nuke it
nuke it good
Devo -- one of many great products from Ohio.
Ok. I think someone needs a safe word while practicing S&M. LOL
BPoodle!
Quiche Lorraine!
The dog who brought me so much joy...has left me wallowing in pain!
Absolutely love this thread-its very silly. Monte Python look out, ZH is the bomb! (The nuclear bomb)
We live for green paper.We die happy, woopywoop and the sheep inherit the earth. It sure was fun being human. Can we take the masks off now
I like the Devo approach to nuclear well control!
Hilarious!
If dolphins were really intelligent, they'd nuke it. Dolphins must be pretty stupid.
You think dolphins are stupid, you should try riding a sea horse.
There's a reason why they've never won the Kentucky derby.
Good point there. But maybe we should ask captain Nemo to try to train them.
"A senior Los Alamos scientist speaking on the condition of anonymity; “Technically, it would be exploring new ground in the midst of a disaster — and you might make it worse.”
Like the disaster's not new ground....
New meaning to Oxymoron.
BTW, "President Bill Clinton"? Slip of the tongue, or honest mistake?
once "president", always "president"