
Could an atomic bomb stop the Gulf Oil Leak? - jaybol
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpPNQoTlacU
======
joe_the_user
I'd suggest everyone itching to push their pet theory first READ the
_informed_ discussion over at the theoildrum.com. Industry knowledge, not eco-
hand-wringing, gives this a BIG thumbs down.

 _"Suggesting an idea that has been consistently rejected for its several weak
points literally dozens of times on this site alone, is an indicator that you
havent been really paying attention. In short, explosions will not work
because the bottom of the GOM is mud, for thousands of feet below the surface.
any explosion at the surface will only make the problem worse. any explosion
in the well shaft will only make the problem worse. Its been suggested to
think of the bottom as a bowl of pudding, there is no way to use explosives to
seal it up. it just doesnt work that way.

While its a common lust for most people to wanna blow up any problem they cant
solve and seems to work pretty well for America in the past, it will not work
here."_ <http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6531#comment-634447>

~~~
jimfl
I should think that industry knowledge has lost a little bit its cachet in
recent months.

~~~
joe_the_user
I'm sure it has.

But it's kind of like a lot of engineering fields. As reported in the NYTimes,
engineers reported the risks and management made the decision to ignore those
risks.

So I'd still suggest that if those deeply involved with drilling oil say
nuking the well is fucking stupid idea, then it's a fucking stupid idea -
especially since already _sounds_ like a fucking stupid idea. Perhaps it would
work in a MacGyver movie.

------
techiferous
This reminds me of Centralia, Pennsylvania, where an underground coal fire has
been burning since 1962. It will probably burn for another 150 years or so.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia,_Pennsylvania>

------
jb55
What could possibly go wrong?

~~~
jrockway
Oil could start leaking into the ocean.

------
jared314
You would still have to drill another hole, which would take the same amount
of time as a relief well.

~~~
asdflkj
A shallower hole, which would take less time.

~~~
jared314
Does anyone know the breakdown of how much time each part of drilling a relief
well takes? Prep vs Equip Deployment vs Drilling vs etc?

------
carbocation
Perhaps someone here is familiar with the natural structure of oil reservoirs,
such as the one that is currently spewing forth in the Gulf. I would be
interested to know if they would fear, as I do, that nuking the reservoir
would effectively just blow the top open.

~~~
JshWright
Yeah... we're talking about miles of rock... There's no way you're going to
blow an opening between the reservoir and the sea-floor.

------
rglullis
Why does it have to be an atomic bomb? I'm no explosives expert, but I think
it is very likely that one could find a non-atomic bomb with the necessary
power.

~~~
asdflkj
A narrower hole, which would take less time.

------
ajju
I am surprised no one has mentioned Godzilla. Seriously though what about the
effects on marine life if they miscalculate?

~~~
rbanffy
Modern nukes have very precise control over their yield. The idea is to
explode it deep in the rocks under the bottom of the ocean.

If they miscalculate by a couple percent, nothing weird happens. I doubt they
could miscalculate by the orders of magnitude required to do real damage to
the ocean.

It would be very unlucky to hit a natural nuclear reactor...

------
arethuza
Might be an idea to read "Engineering with Nuclear Explosives":

<http://www.archive.org/details/engineeringwithn00plowrich>

[Edited to point to archive page, rather than the PDF].

~~~
epochwolf
Warning: 66mb pdf.

------
miguelpais
Wouldn't that cause a tsunami?

~~~
arethuza
Some nuclear weapons had relatively small yields - as low as 10 tons of TNT:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Atomic_Demolition_Munit...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Atomic_Demolition_Munition)

~~~
miguelpais
Do not call the Russians then: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba>

~~~
Groxx
Is it just me, or is there a fair bit of inconsistency on that page? Notably,
the fireball is listed as being: 8km diameter, 3.5km radius, and 2.3km radius.

 _could have caused third degree burns 100 km (62 miles) away_

That's big, all right. Wow.

------
Groxx
I _hope_ this is viewed as a last resort. Not because I have any fear of the
nuke itself, but because if it _fails_ it could easily make the leak quite
literally unstoppable / uncontainable by spreading it.

~~~
joe_the_user
We are at last resorts.

But this is no sort whatsoever.

It would cause less harm to set off a nuke at a randomly chosen location to
symbolize our frustration.

~~~
Groxx
_We are at last resorts._

After trying a couple things (or is it just Top Kill that's been attempted)?
Hardly. According to [1], they've spent ~1 billion so far, and part of that is
paying people off, not fixing the problem. Surely the damage will be many
_many_ times higher than that, especially when factoring in ecological damage
and future repercussions - _they could get more groups involved_ , it's pretty
much just BP doing all this, with their money. They have no interest in fixing
it as-fast-as-possible-and-damn-the-costs, just in saving face (ie, "fast
enough") and surviving the costs (ie, don't over-do a solution).

Not saying they're deliberately delaying, just that they don't wish to commit
economic suicide if it can be avoided. Meanwhile, everything dies, and
hurricane season is coming.

[1] : [http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international-
busin...](http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international-business/Oil-
leak-costs-rise-to-930-m-BP/articleshow/5984527.cms)

~~~
ars
BTW a hurricane in the area is probably the best thing that could happen. It
will totally clean all the shores for us.

It will also oxygenate the water.

Remember the oil is not eternal, it's very biodegradable. If you can spread it
out with enough oxygen it will all be gone.

------
Keyframe
Why can't a huge concrete block stop the leak?

~~~
TeHCrAzY
The oil pressure is so high that a 5 mile tall mud (twice the density of
water) needed to be pumped into the well, as its own pressure was not enough.
The involved forces are incredible.

~~~
Keyframe
I suspected pressure was too high, but how exactly high? Wouldn't a nuke blast
essentially shut the vent with rocks? So there must be a threshold for how
heavy that concrete slab should be. Also, what is '5 mile tall mud'? A column
of mud 5 mile high (how wide, how dense) equivalent of pressure?

~~~
ars
5,000 to 7,000 psi. At about twenty feet wide.

If my calculations are right, you need about 30,000 metric tons of weight to
stop it. And don't forget whatever you put down there will also float because
of the water. So you need even more weight.

~~~
Keyframe
Thanks! That put it into a perspective for me. According to
<http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=titanic+weight> Titanic weight was
53,149 tons.

------
moolave
It can wipe out the entire ecosystem of that area as well.

~~~
gojomo
The ecosystem of the deep-underground geology? (As hypothesized, blast
products might not even reach the sea floor.)

