

Should BP Nuke its Leaking Well? - duncanj
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=bp-nuke-oil-well

======
ErrantX
An ex BP oil engineer (who I know) used the following words when I asked him
about it:

 _dear god no, it would be horrific_

His opinion is that the geology in the region would not take a massive
explosion well and the most likely result (he admits it _could_ plug/slow the
well) would be a large number of cracks/channels deep underground that would
seep up through the sea floor and be pretty much unstoppable.

~~~
bradleyland
The problem with questions like this is that you need knowledge from a variety
of areas in order to offer a well informed answer. I mean, how much can a BP
oil engineer know about exploding a nuclear bomb underground? I'd imagine that
there are only a handful of scientists around the globe who have worked
directly with exploding nuclear devices, and even fewer who have studied the
effects such explosions on underwater geology. There are entire fields of
study dedicated to the effects of explosions on geology, but they deal with
relatively small explosions, and the results simply don't scale to things like
30 kiloton nuclear detonations.

For me, this is what makes the answer a "no". We simply do not know what the
results will be. There aren't enough trustworthy experts. As much as relations
have improved with Russia, I don't think we can trust their advice in this
situation. From a policy perspective, they have a history of putting results
before safety.

~~~
ErrantX
I am told that there has been occasions when explosions are used to either
break or cap wells - not this deep (as you say). But the point is that there
is experience in such an activity; and those people seem to be pretty much
saying the same as yourself (we don't have the experience)

------
jimfl
_"I don't know what BP is waiting for, they are wasting their time."_

I don't think it is really up to BP whether or not to set off a nuclear bomb
in the Gulf of Mexico, even if they happened to have one in their repertoire.

~~~
brown9-2
And after their mismanagement of this crisis, thank God corporations aren't
allowed to possess nuclear weapons.

~~~
amock
Do you really believe that governments are more responsible than corporations?
What do governments manage better than corporations? When something does go
wrong at least corporations can be held responsible while governments can
claim sovereign immunity, like the Mexican oil company did with
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ixtoc_I_oil_spill> .

~~~
jbooth
When talking about _nuclear fucking weapons_???

Are you serious?

------
jacquesm
The short answer: no. The slightly longer answer: no, they can't, only the US
government could do that and nobody is going to sign off on the risks
associated with possible side effects of doing this.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaceful_nuclear_explosions>

What could possibly go wrong ?

------
jbooth
No, but I'm strongly in favor of a plan to nuke the moon. That thing's been
looking at me the wrong way for years now.

~~~
code_duck
I've long had that pegged as the ultimate terrorist act. Wait, wasn't that the
plot of Superman 2 or something?

~~~
jbooth
I think a James Bond villain tried to draw his name on the moon.

~~~
warfangle
I know Chairface did in an episode of The Tick... he only managed to write
"CHA" though.

------
stuaxo
[comic store guy] Worst. Idea. Ever. [/comic store guy]

------
kmfrk
> __Prof Ershaghi says: __"A nuclear blast would not fuse the pipe under the
> cooling effect of water but rather would create a crater and would make it
> impossible to control the flow."

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/us_and_canada/10268979.stm>.

------
locopati
[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dk-matai/gulf-of-mexico-
danger...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dk-matai/gulf-of-mexico-danger-
of_b_619095.html)

That this is even a remote possibility suggests that, no, big explosions
should not be used. 1 in 10^9 is still too risky.

------
alanh
tl;dr: Some cigar-smoking fat cat with a history in the nuclear industry, as
well as assuredly well-read bloggers, consider the nuke the ultimate solution
to a very thorny problem.

------
bl4k
BP are so incompetent that they can not even control a robot without hitting
something, nor place a cap over the leak, nor even accurately estimate how
much oil is leaking.

Giving them a nuclear weapon is not a good idea.

~~~
PostOnce
Probably harder than it sounds.

Analogy: Look at that stupid NBA guy. All he has to do is throw the ball in
the hoop. How hard can that be? Jeez, how incompetent. :P

~~~
mkramlich
It's more like BP has 100's of world-class NBA basketball players at their
disposal, and billions of dollars of cash to pay for equipment and basketball
training, and yet not one of their basketball players has been able to make
this basket. wiff. wiff. this will certainly work. wiff. optimistic this will
work. wiff. it's under control. wiff. i just want my life back. wiff. :)

~~~
PostOnce
Ha. Good point.

However, I read a comment somewhere whose author mused that BP probably
invests heavily in the discovery & extraction department, and very little in
cleanup. May or may not be true, sounds plausible.

------
sliverstorm
Why am I not surprised a Russian is proposing a nuclear solution? I swear,
Russia and nuclear goes together like peanut butter and jelly.

~~~
PostOnce
That's a fairly one-dimensional view of Russia.

------
winternett
I think its amazing how with all the Ivy League Scientists that have been
thrown at this leak, none have managed to effect a brilliant solution to this
problem that can actually work. Maybe we need to rethink exactly what
qualifies someone as smart in this world. They had Bill Nye, James, Cameron,
and even Kevin Costner there. LOL. Despite the enormous pool of intelligence
that now collects BP checks for failing to "solve" this problem, only the most
basic juvenile and idiotic suggestions emerge, like Nuking the drill site.
Wow. Megafailure.

