Gulf Oil Spill...The Nuclear Option

It looks as though there are significant prospects that we will soon be at the unfortunate point of having to literally discuss the Nuclear option for dealing with the situation.
Please see the following link for the historical precedent.
www.youtube.com...

Among the conversation points:
Ecological toll.
Geopolitical considerations (Iran etc.).
Political considerations.
Economic impact.
Possibility of geophysical/geological consequences.

I have my own thoughts on the matter but would be interested to hear what others think as to the ramifications and fall out (rather morose pun intended) of such actions.

I can't view youtube. But i still cannot conceive of why a nuclear weapon is being considered?

Even using conventional explosives i an understand, place charges to collapse the ender shelf, it makes sense. Screw any oil drillers, they can re-drill.

But why are people wanting a NUKE for this???? There is no upside?

Start with Gulf wide tsunami, and accept that nothing will be left alive after the blast. Radiation poisoning for everyone?

I mean, worst case scenario the oil would be gone after a century, maybe. After a century that area would still be uninhabitable after a nuke?

reply to post by Counttrarian


We should have considered this option from the start....

It's one of the only methods that has been proven to work time and time again.

Instead they will let the spill go another couple of months.

There was a thread yesterday about how we are using the same old tactics that we did 30 years ago to try to stop this leak. They didn't work 30 years ago and they are not going to work now.

I say we either come up with new solutions(would take too much time probably) or nuke the thing...

I know it sounds bad but it has worked numerous times.

I assume you refer to the occasions that the Russians claim to have sealed off a leak such as this using a nuclear payload? Those numerous times did not include the presence of a significant amount of methane hydrate, however. Study the ramifications of disturbing such a massive bed of said material before you go detonating a nuclear weapon within it's vicinity, please.

reply to post by Counttrarian


If a nuke were used, it would kill off all sea life period! Coral reefs would be dead, animals, everything. That would be worse than letting the oil leak and damage things. We can remove oil from contaminated items, but I have yet to hear of anyone removing nuclear radiation from anyone or anything. And provided we could, how would we decontaminate the entire Gulf of Mexico and Louisiana and anyplace else that would be affected?

Originally posted by rangersdad
reply to post by Counttrarian

 

If a nuke were used, it would kill off all sea life period! Coral reefs would be dead, animals, everything. That would be worse than letting the oil leak and damage things. We can remove oil from contaminated items, but I have yet to hear of anyone removing nuclear radiation from anyone or anything. And provided we could, how would we decontaminate the entire Gulf of Mexico and Louisiana and anyplace else that would be affected?

Either way sea life is dying.

At this point it is coming down to damage control... What will have a worse impact a nuke or the massive amounts of oil gushing into the ocean?

I am not condoning this action and this mess should have never happened in the first place but something needs to be done.

I don't have all the answers but if a nuke can stop the leak and be less harmful then letting the leak go then what should we do?

# Some analysts are against the use of nuclear explosions on fear of the effects on the environment. But the world has already done underwater testing of nuclear devices and if there was a huge environmental disaster as a result of it, we'd have known by now. Indeed, Commandant Cousteau, renowned biologist led numerous dives following French underwater nuclear explosions in the Mururoa atoll and noted very little impact on sea life.

# using nukes to stop the leak is the most ecological alternative. Stopping the leak before too much oil leak is the key, speed is of the essence. Nukes would allow this to be resolved in a matter of days. This would save thousands of miles of shoreline, millions of animals by not allowing this toxic sludge to contaminate the shore.

# One of the main issues with using nukes is public opinion. Even though it's the most ecological alternative, nukes have a huge public stigma hard to overcome, mostly due to ignorance. Nuclear bombs are not intended to be used for peaceful, ecological purposes and educating the public on this possibility is an uphill battle.

# This technology was used by the Russians, the USA's sworn enemy at the peak of the cold war. Never mind the relatively high success rate of 80%, no politician in his right mind would sell a Russian solution to the public.

# Of course, BP does not have nukes. The US military does, of which the Army Corps of Engineers would probably have to design a plan to use them on the leak. The United States has about 5,113 nuclear war heads, as revealed by Pentagon according to the Strategic Arms Reduction purpose. So, why not use them for peaceful purpose for once?

www.oil-price.net...

It suck either way but something needs to be done and judging on some of the info above a nuke does not sound like a non-option.

[edit on 28-5-2010 by TV_Nation]

The thing is, the entire 'explosive' ordeal is about killing the 21" pipe, and shifting the earth around it to close it off.

But the thing is by the time you drill down far enough to ensure this result while ensuring its deep enough to not cause some crazy seafloor collapse oilpocalypse sort of event you have to go way down.

And by the time you're down that far why not just push a little further and drill the relief well that historically (Ixtoc I) was how they were able to stop it in the past?

[edit on 28-5-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

With regards to the impact to the environment itself a nuclear weapon on the sea floor doesn't cause much trouble because the weight of the water exerts massive pressure on the initial detonation keeping the extent and range of the fallout to a minimum and once the dust settles, it settles in one spot, for the most part.

The real trouble with the nuclear option in this case is disturbing all that methane hydrate down there. That stuff is massively pressurized and highly unstable, really nasty stuff.

Disturbing that stuff with a nuke might ultimately prove catastrophic.

[edit on 5/28/10 by stalphos]

Originally posted by rangersdad
reply to post by Counttrarian

 

If a nuke were used, it would kill off all sea life period! Coral reefs would be dead, animals, everything. That would be worse than letting the oil leak and damage things. We can remove oil from contaminated items, but I have yet to hear of anyone removing nuclear radiation from anyone or anything. And provided we could, how would we decontaminate the entire Gulf of Mexico and Louisiana and anyplace else that would be affected?

Not only that which is highly catastrophic but the new madrid fault line ends right where that oil well is at and when they blow that nuke up it could possibly set of the new madrid fault and create the biggest earthquake ever seen up the Mississippi.

If I thought it would work, I'd be all in favor of it. The environmental impact of one nuclear explosion is minuscule compared to tens of milions of gallons of oil. My biggest fear with that 'solution' is that it would just create a bigger flow of oil than what we already have. The last thing we need to do is blow a bigger hole in the ocean floor, and that's always a possibility.

Lets list a few reasons NOT to even consider nuclear weapons.

1) Fault line.
2) Earthquake and shock causing tsunamis to bring oil between the breakpoint and shore, FURTHER INLAND
3) We have never detonated a nuclear weapon 5,000 feet (over 1.5miles) under water
4) Could make a leak even worse
5) Nuclear contamination in a poorly understood environment

...also, aren't there asphalt volcanos in the Gulf of Mexico? My understanding, they are the only asphalt volcanos in the world. What if we triggered one of those to blow along with the oil bs?

I'll go along with the fault line and earthquake possibilities, but nuclear blasts underwater are not poorly understood. We have done it on several occasions as tests and in every case the blast was much smaller and better contained at the sea floor than on land. The environmental side effects are minimal compared to millions of gallons of oil per day invading their habitat. However, that does not mean I condone the use of such tactics due to the presence of methane hydrate between the sea floor and the oil. It's highly unstable!

As suspected the top kill didn't work. The only other alternative other than the one mentioned in this thread is to wait another 1-2 months for the relief wells to complete. Given the roughly 40% chance of a limited nuclear detonation working do we think it is worth the risk or are we better off with the alternative (a nearly cataclysmic release of oil into the Gulf?).
My personal belief is that the option is geo/politically untenable.

reply to post by TV_Nation


I haven't been able to find any case where the nuclear option worked underwater. There are cases where it has worked on land to seal a well. Do you have any links to underwater nuke oil sealing?

I believe that it'd be a grand mistake to use even a small kt nuclear device for this purpose. I think it's somewhat likely that the area wouldn't fuse as is hypothesized, but fracture, possibly increasing the magnitude of the problem severalfold.

This isn't a challenge, BTW, just an honest request for info. I think the radioactive particles would likely disperse fairly quickly, but I'm still very concerned about the inability of the sea floor to fuse in the absence of air to mix with the thermonuclear heat.

Thanks in advance!

Adding fuel to the fire (no pun intended):
www.youtube.com...

Why a nuclear bomb ? Cant they jus get the largest conventional bomb and use that?

reply to post by Counttrarian


Here's another video/article on the nuclear option for your thread:

crooksandliars.com...

We Don't Need RADIOACTIVE Tarballs! Michiu Kaku

To be sure, other important substantive and technical questions must be answered before determining if the nuclear option is the best one. Is that process already in motion? Perhaps. President Obama has dispatched a five-man team of nuclear physicists — including 82-year-old Richard Garwin, who designed the first hydrogen bomb — to the Gulf to draw up outside-the-box alternatives to BP’s engineering efforts. NRO

article.nationalreview.com...

Government and private nuclear experts agreed that using a nuclear bomb would be not only risky technically, with unknown and possibly disastrous consequences from radiation, but also unwise geopolitically — it would violate arms treaties that the United States has signed and championed over the decades and do so at a time when President Obama is pushing for global nuclear disarmament. NY Times

www.nytimes.com...

Government and private nuclear experts agreed that using a nuclear bomb would be not only risky technically, with unknown and possibly disastrous consequences from radiation, but also unwise geopolitically — it would violate arms treaties that the United States has signed and championed over the decades and do so at a time when President Barack Obama is pushing for global nuclear disarmament. Denver Post

www.denverpost.com...

Sounds like a bad idea to me. The Gulf floor s mostly made up of shale I believe, so an explosion would only cause more leaks, right? This in addition to the above mentioned concerns adds up to harm than good in such an attempt.
Peace


[edit on 4-6-2010 by speculativeoptimist]

The nuclear option is absolutely irresponsible. We have bunker buster bombs that can do the job just as well.

Why should we pollute our world further with nuclear residue that will eventually contaminate our oceans and all the living creatures within the oceans. Not to mention all the sea's plants that produce oxygen.

We must be drinking too much flouride that dumbs us down to cretins and trilobytes.

Yes, any large weapon can possibly cause a sea floor collapse and then in turn cause at least a mini tsunami.

Scientists and politicians seem to be eating off the same plate lately. Wonder how much the politicians are paying the scientists to disinform the general populace?

I have never heard such total bull in my life . A tidal wave, radioactivity killing all sea life, methane hydrates doing something awful, under ground volcano errupting, fault line causeing major earth quake . Holy mother of God!!!!!!!!!! Give use a brake it's a high pressure oil well under water period, Out of controll because of total incompetence and lack of proper equipment that could of easily been brought to bear on land. The gas and oil is leaking from the pipe and around the pipe eroding the sea bottom as you read this an getting bigger each day. The real danger is the oil , gas and the chemicals being sprayed in the oil. Who ok'd the airforce to spray this crap from the air anyhow Does BP run the airforce now ? All these people who breath the fumes of this leak are being killed. Time is almost up to use the bomb , sea water will reach saturation point with oil and gas soon. The earth itself will contain the blast and any wastes if a hole is drilled down at a proper depth. Who would even be stupid enough to even think the bomb would be just layed on the sea floor?