Why a nuke? If you're going to use something explosive to collapse the well, I'm sure there are many other options available that would provide enough "oomph" to collapse that well. A "nuke" sounds like overkill and exaggeration.
The suggestion I have heard is that a nuclear bomb will generate the heat/evergy required to fuse the rock around the edge of the explosion. Otherwise it will just leave open cracks.
I have no idea if that is true; but it seemed reasonable when I read it.
Not a problem for two reasons: 1. Oil won't burn without oxygen. It might break up into simpler hydrocarbons (carbon dioxide, methane, etc.), but it won't cause a firestorm. 2. Burning the oil is much less bad than letting it leak all over the coastline, poisoning animals and preventing oxygen from getting mixed into the water. There are already several operations intentionally burning the oil on the surface.
That's because the anti-nuclear activists managed to turn "nuclear" into the boogeyman in the 60s and 70s. A properly sized device used five weeks ago would certainly have done less environmental damage than the amount of oil spilled so far.
This is a good point, but still, I'm sure a "properly sized" explosive that wasn't nuclear could do the trick too. I'm ignorant here: if a nuclear device were to be used wouldn't it irradiate the surrounding water? Wouldn't fallout plumes in the ocean would be more destructive than oil plumes? Or do you think it would be deep enough in the collapsed well to be insulated? Do I have any of this wrong?
Also, regardless of the explosive used, isn't there a chance it could ignite the reservoir?
My understanding was the explosive was going to be put down the well or buried in a second well close to the leaking well. Nuclear bombs are more compact, for equivalent yield, than chemical explosives which is why I assumed they were being proposed.
As for your final point a fire needs heat, fuel and oxidiser. The oxidiser should be absent so no fire.
A "properly sized" conventional explosive would be impractically enormous: nukes are measured in kiloton or megaton yields. There is no way to effectively detonate (say) twenty million pounds of conventional explosives all at once, never mind the non-trivial challenge of emplacing that amount. As I understand it, you'd place it below the sea floor, into the well, so the surrounding water would be shielded by all the rock above the blast site. For the same reason, there would be no fallout plumes, because all that solid mass would prevent the newly-created radioactive material from going anywhere. And it can't ignite the reservoir, because there's no oxygen to burn down there.
All that said, it's still probably not a good idea. Hopefully it doesn't become the only idea.
One prominent energy expert known for predicting the oil price spike of 2008 says sending a small nuclear bomb down the leaking well is "probably the only thing we can do" to stop the leak.
Hold on a second; if you use the word "expert" in association with this I expect it come from, you know, an engineer, munitions specialist, geologist or well driller.
I admit I've been curious about exactly it would look like and what would happen if the entire underground oil field were to somehow spill into the ocean at once.
> Simmons said the US government should immediately take the effort to plug the leak out of the hands of BP and put the military in charge.
In almost every movie, when the US government says "you can't do it, we're taking over" and assigns military guys to it, everything starts failing and only an imprisoned hero can save the situation. Will it work better in reality? Especially when I expect BP to know more about oil than military... Oh wait - that could've changed after the last war.
The military (in the form of the Coast Guard) has already stated that they do not have the capability to deal with this. Thad Allen, the Coast Guard incident commander for this oil spill, has correctly noted that all the technology and capability to address the problem is in the hands of the private sector, specifically BP and their subcontractors in this case.
The federal government has some oversight and regulatory role here but they do NOT have any expertise in this. The military does not know how to cap oil wells.
Dr. Strangelove specifically didn't want to send nuclear weapons down into the shafts, the shafts were meant for people. But I suspect he never anticipated the shafts would be filled with oil.
28 comments
[ 4.2 ms ] story [ 65.8 ms ] threadI have no idea if that is true; but it seemed reasonable when I read it.
That's because the anti-nuclear activists managed to turn "nuclear" into the boogeyman in the 60s and 70s. A properly sized device used five weeks ago would certainly have done less environmental damage than the amount of oil spilled so far.
Also, regardless of the explosive used, isn't there a chance it could ignite the reservoir?
As for your final point a fire needs heat, fuel and oxidiser. The oxidiser should be absent so no fire.
All that said, it's still probably not a good idea. Hopefully it doesn't become the only idea.
Hold on a second; if you use the word "expert" in association with this I expect it come from, you know, an engineer, munitions specialist, geologist or well driller.
Not an investor...
As a solution it has all the air of "give it a bang" and see it if fixes it.
It's like watching YouTube footage of Halley's Comet or the moon landing, if you don't actually see it live it doesn't count.
In almost every movie, when the US government says "you can't do it, we're taking over" and assigns military guys to it, everything starts failing and only an imprisoned hero can save the situation. Will it work better in reality? Especially when I expect BP to know more about oil than military... Oh wait - that could've changed after the last war.
The federal government has some oversight and regulatory role here but they do NOT have any expertise in this. The military does not know how to cap oil wells.