Why do people think nukes/dynamite will stop the gulf oil leaks?

I know explosions will extinguish flames, but do they do anything to stop the flow?

If the oil deposit/well is as huge as it sounds, and it's obviously not on fire, then wouldn't bombing the vein be a GIGANTIC risk? We're dealing with relatively small holes right now, could you imagine how bad it would be if we blew the whole top off the thing?

What do people even expect the explosion to to, fill the holes with debris?


[edit on 15-5-2010 by alaskan]

I disagree with the solution of bombing it to stop the flow.

Admittedly I do not have a solution so I am among many.
I do hope that a viable solution is found and not only that but restitutions made for the damages- not so much monetarily, but by action, big action to clean the environment, to collectively go forward on to seek and develop new sources of energy and promoting less vehicle use.

Let us use this as a chance to change, for all of us. If we do not, then we may be doomed.

I have no idea if it would or wouldn't.

I can say it was the first thing that popped in my head when I was trying to think of a way to stop it. Dont know why.

Originally posted by alaskan
We're dealing with relatively small holes right now, could you imagine how bad it would be if we blew the whole top off the thing?

The notion of using a bomb to stop the leak is too simplistic by far. It's brute force with no certain result. It could just as easily make things even worse in regards to the flow of oil and gas.

The explosion I think would work but it is not worth the risk of contamination even more. At the very least what is leaking out of the pipe right now will eventually be broken down by nature, sending radioactivity everywhere is an awful idea.

I think they need to be consulting heart doctors and the people who design their equipment used in stopping leaks. They are experts at coming up with ways to get into the dangerously tiny and weird places and completely closing off holes. The only problem is that would cut the flow of oil off completely and I dont think that is the goal of bp, they're trying to salvage over containment imho.

Also, I think a lot of the technology that heart doctors use in closing holes in the heart partly rely on the actions of the body to fully close up the problem area. But whatever, its still a better idea then the milk jug box they sent down.

Perhaps they have been brainwashed into thinking that nukes solve problems.

Personally I think its disgracfull the solution wasnt thought up long beofre it was even alowed to be built. It must have been explored in the risk assesment, the subsequent mitigations or solutions should have been pre-planned, if not then it was poorly done.

[edit on 15-5-2010 by polarwarrior]

[edit on 15-5-2010 by polarwarrior]

A controlled explosion could seal it off. The Russians have done this in their own country to stop these kind of leaks and also to dig out underground.

A nuke a is a reasonable idea, but anyone I talk to says there is no way they will use a nuke because the radioactivity makes the oil unusable.

MM

Originally posted by MissMegs

... radioactivity makes the oil unusable.

Not if they use a small enough weapon.

THe radaition will be trapped between the oil deposit and the surface of the seabed.

The oil could be tapped from a diffrent location and it wouldn't be contaminated.

[edit on 15-5-2010 by In nothing we trust]

I myself in all seriousness was kind of ok with the 'junk shot' where they'd shoot all that crap in the tube and clog it up. Why is that not working? I would think that if they had the technology to get the oil in the first place, closing it up would be simple. Im still surprised it is still gushing myself.

Question - "Why do people think nukes/dynamite will stop the gulf oil leaks?"

Answer - "its a proven technique which actualy does work"

its simple physics, the bomb makes a whole underground, then the weight of everything above the whole makes the ground collapse in on itself filling the whole.

as someone already stated in another post, the area is already pretty much devestated, you really think a nuke woudl make it much worse than it is? the areas going to be covered in oil for many many years to come the same way alaska still finds oil from the exon valdese insident!

and the suggestion that the radiation will make the oil unusable is a joke ... money and pumping theoil from this hole should be the last thing people should be thinking about here! .. To hell with them making any money from this, they should be focused on stopping the leak and nothing else, to hell with the oil!

If it is a long tube/thin-channel down to the oil pocket then blowing it up [collapsing it & debris into it] might work.

If on the other hand the oil pocket is fragmented, wide &/or especially close to the surface then that would likely do more harm than good.

I would ask geologists & get sonar & seismic readings on it as well as talk to the people who were in charge of the drilling & have them relate their experience with it.

[edit on 15-5-2010 by slank]

lol, ill just go outside and grab a geoligist ye?

you do realise this is a discussion forum and not like, the place where plans of this sort are invented i hope.

Dynamite would never have enough power to do much to the sea floor. But a nuke may help collapse the chasm the oil is in. This could be potentially catastrophic, as the oil could all come up at once.

It would probably turn all of the Carribean and some of the Atlantic Ocean black. It would kill countless numbers of sea creatures and lay waste to that environment for centuries.

Originally posted by masqua

Originally posted by alaskan
We're dealing with relatively small holes right now, could you imagine how bad it would be if we blew the whole top off the thing?

The notion of using a bomb to stop the leak is too simplistic by far. It's brute force with no certain result. It could just as easily make things even worse in regards to the flow of oil and gas.

Time to "man up". In less than 60 days our fearless leader will announce to the American public that a nuke is required to seal the spill. And so?

If the oil is coming out a metal tube, why not just slip a coupling sleeve over the tube and weld it on some way down the length of the pipe away from the oil? Then bolt a valve on the flange with one bolt, then swing the valve arond to meet the pipe and use the rest of the bolts to bolt it on.

Yes it is possible to weld underwater.

IMO explosives in this case is like saying if it ain't broke, you didn't fix it yet. In the case of above ground oil pipes that are on fire, yeah, explosives work but JUST to put out the flames and NOT stop the oil.

Put it this way americans should not be listening to web gossip, on how to stop this. They have paid people to work out how to fix things, they do not need to come here.

We can speculate all we want, and how do you know people are serious or being sarcastic in these posts on nukes.

Its the americans problem, they need to work it out.

reply to post by XL5


the problem their is the same problem that caused the leak in the first place, that being the pressure of the oil / well.

if it was enough to blow the rig off and up, im doubtfull anyone would be able to place a sleeve over it and weld it in place!

the way i see it, the hole is already their for the explosives, but their could still be the problem of forcing them down the hole!

@andy1033 - im not being sarcastic about nukes, im deadly serious... also, america dont own the worlds water, an accident of this scale can have massive worldwide consequences! also, you do realise what BP stands for ? if anything its our fault not americas (it pains me to say).

[edit on 16-5-2010 by boaby_phet]

Originally posted by chorizo4

Time to "man up". In less than 60 days our fearless leader will announce to the American public that a nuke is required to seal the spill.

Man up? That's actually quite ironic if one considers 'manliness' to be comparable to 'problem, meet club'.

And so?

A possible fracturing of the seabed containing the oil pocket and, instead of the flow being restricted to the bore hole, we'd then have oil coming out at multple locations and absolutely no chance of controlling it at all.

Not everything can be solved by 'manly' brute force.

reply to post by masqua


i total agree that "Not everything can be solved by 'manly' brute force. "

but in this case, it really does seem to be the only way, if the hole is not blocked then the oil will continue to spew out and will spread and spread through the seas and oceans causing even more damage.

they have tried to cap it twice now and failed badly, the bandaid treatment will not work here... This is a situation where the people trying to fix this are damned if they do and damned if they dont as its starting to look like they cant plug this hole, so the only way to stop this is to blow it up and let it collapse on itself, this cannot be done with TNT. If they dont try and do something drastic to stop it the oil will just keep coming out.

really, their cannot be any good outcomes from this, if a nuke is / was used then the chance of radiating an area outwith the area which has already been devestated seems to be a chance worth taking, if they dont a even larger area will be destroyed by the oil and dispersants!]

its a massive dilema imo! im glad im just a spectator commenting from my chair and not the expert who has to make the decisions!

A nuke would just make things a lot worse. The nuke would create cracks and other channels in the formation around the casing for the gas to pas through.

We have to remember that there is a casing going from the sea bed and all the way down into the reservoir. The outer walls of the casing is sealed of to the formation all the way down to the reservoir by cement. A nuclear explosion would shake that casing like hell, and crack the cement sealing of the casing on the outside, and create new channels for the gas and oil to pass through.