The military should have, and could have taken care of this within 48 hours after it occurred.
A tactical nuclear weapon, or some other explosive could have been used to cave in the ocean floor around the well, sealing it. However, this would have been devastating to BP's oil interests. But... guess what Obama cares more about: ordinary people and ecosystems, or big oil? That's right - big oil.
In all seriousness. That is completely not controlled and would blow a crater the size of the Grand Canyon in the sea bed floor. Now that's 5,000 feet to 18,000 feet but assuredly a nuclear bomb could blow down 13,000 feet of ocean seabed right? At which point....couldn't that simply release the oil reserves underneath in masse?
Seriously, this does not make sense to me. If it was an implosion, similar to bringing down a building in one controlled explosion like they do in cities to rebuild in an area, I could see that concept working, but it takes a lot of computerized modeling and I'm not sure that's been attempted under water ever.
But a nuclear bomb? Somebody is going to have to explain how that's the answer cause I'm not buying it. Plus, if one looks at the Bikini Islands, they are still completely radioactive, not inhabitable. You've got millions and millions of people living near the spill site in miles.
Not all nuclear bombs are powerful enough to blow up whole cities... We have what are called tactical nukes that can produce much smaller explosions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_nuke
In my opinion it seems like this is at least an option that should have been discussed and considered. I think the reason it hasn't is because of the administration's cozy relationship with all corporate entities.
I am not an expert of course but there has to be some kind of military solution to this.
It is inexcusable that more serious measures such as this haven't been employed to deal with this catastrophe. The only explanation is that it would harm BP's oil interests. And God forbid that Obama stop wagging his tail to his corporate masters long enough to do that.
That's not a lot of technical details, such as the situation, specifics, location and the radioactive fall out. Realize that leak is not that far from millions of life/people.
The Russians used nukes on gas wells inland not a mile underwater.
I'm not saying it wouldn't work but as Robert said the radioactive fallout could be bad also and what happens if the hole just opens up right through to the oil deposit.
I've heard that Canada forces a relief well to be dug at the same time the regular well is dug for just this circumstance. More costly but they could have sealed this soon after the accident if this was Canada.
I was wondering that very question, why if they were shutting down this well, was there not a relief well drilled first?
Which leads to another question, how many other wells are near by enough to reduce the pressure of this one, if any and how come those are not being operated at maximum?
which leads to another question. Why can't they attach a bunch of "free floating" type of hoses and pipes directly in the path of the plume, attached to super tankers and pump up some of the spill directly that way? Why let it disperse?
I understand these things are massive and the site is now a marine traffic jam, but it doesn't make sense to me to not try to capture the oil as much as possible, at the source and this "dome thing" just sounds like another not plausible PR stunt and will be blown off due to pressures.
Is it just me or does it read to you like they need some fresh blood in the engineering department here? Or is it more the case that we've got yet another "BP company man" dictating what they even attempt and how they go about it?
Seize them, everything in any range of US jurisdiction and nationalize it.
Why bother to waste all of that money in the courts when it will probably end up like Exxon with those mega corporate attorneys and 20 years later, no one gets anything.
The Surround-and-Suck-it-up is coming next. It is a conservative approach used in in Abu Dabi. Not all oil is captured and the volatile organics escape.
No one knows how to make a sleeve going down a mile from a
ship, or how to attach a sleeve. Artificial currents created by circling ships could come close.
If you nuke the well, you have 250,000 years of radiation
in the nation's best fishery. Even if you try daisy cutters, tell me what the plate tectonics are down 13000 feet. Is there a fault, fissure or rift? If so you could
create a mega-plume of oil.
$4,300 in fines per barrel released into the Gulf from the Clean Water Act which is NOT capped. At 25,000 barrels a day for 120 days thats about $13 billion - plus actual clean up costs that will probably run $2-$3 billion before this is over.
I love how after this last failed attempt we no longer see what's coming out of the BOP cracks, they showed the end of the riser again for awhile and now its robot arms.
Comments
It should have been taken care of already
The military should have, and could have taken care of this within 48 hours after it occurred.
A tactical nuclear weapon, or some other explosive could have been used to cave in the ocean floor around the well, sealing it. However, this would have been devastating to BP's oil interests. But... guess what Obama cares more about: ordinary people and ecosystems, or big oil? That's right - big oil.
Are you sure a nuclear bomb would even work?
In all seriousness. That is completely not controlled and would blow a crater the size of the Grand Canyon in the sea bed floor. Now that's 5,000 feet to 18,000 feet but assuredly a nuclear bomb could blow down 13,000 feet of ocean seabed right? At which point....couldn't that simply release the oil reserves underneath in masse?
Seriously, this does not make sense to me. If it was an implosion, similar to bringing down a building in one controlled explosion like they do in cities to rebuild in an area, I could see that concept working, but it takes a lot of computerized modeling and I'm not sure that's been attempted under water ever.
But a nuclear bomb? Somebody is going to have to explain how that's the answer cause I'm not buying it. Plus, if one looks at the Bikini Islands, they are still completely radioactive, not inhabitable. You've got millions and millions of people living near the spill site in miles.
*tactical* nuke
Not all nuclear bombs are powerful enough to blow up whole cities... We have what are called tactical nukes that can produce much smaller explosions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_nuke
In my opinion it seems like this is at least an option that should have been discussed and considered. I think the reason it hasn't is because of the administration's cozy relationship with all corporate entities.
I am not an expert of course but there has to be some kind of military solution to this.
That's what we said about Vietnam
What do we do for an encore if this creates an even bigger problem?
Frank T.
The Russians did it
I just read that the russians used nukes to seal oil leaks many times to good effect: http://trueslant.com/juliaioffe/2010/05/04/nuke-that-slick/
If they can do it, why can't we?
It is inexcusable that more serious measures such as this haven't been employed to deal with this catastrophe. The only explanation is that it would harm BP's oil interests. And God forbid that Obama stop wagging his tail to his corporate masters long enough to do that.
what is the radiotactive fall out now?
That's not a lot of technical details, such as the situation, specifics, location and the radioactive fall out. Realize that leak is not that far from millions of life/people.
Different Circumstances
The Russians used nukes on gas wells inland not a mile underwater.
I'm not saying it wouldn't work but as Robert said the radioactive fallout could be bad also and what happens if the hole just opens up right through to the oil deposit.
I've heard that Canada forces a relief well to be dug at the same time the regular well is dug for just this circumstance. More costly but they could have sealed this soon after the accident if this was Canada.
more relief wells
I was wondering that very question, why if they were shutting down this well, was there not a relief well drilled first?
Which leads to another question, how many other wells are near by enough to reduce the pressure of this one, if any and how come those are not being operated at maximum?
which leads to another question. Why can't they attach a bunch of "free floating" type of hoses and pipes directly in the path of the plume, attached to super tankers and pump up some of the spill directly that way? Why let it disperse?
I understand these things are massive and the site is now a marine traffic jam, but it doesn't make sense to me to not try to capture the oil as much as possible, at the source and this "dome thing" just sounds like another not plausible PR stunt and will be blown off due to pressures.
Is it just me or does it read to you like they need some fresh blood in the engineering department here? Or is it more the case that we've got yet another "BP company man" dictating what they even attempt and how they go about it?
BP Spill
We should do what it takes and sue BP. Some regulatory reform is in order also.
Neal Pritchard
nealwp@verizon.net
sue them? How about seize them?
Seize them, everything in any range of US jurisdiction and nationalize it.
Why bother to waste all of that money in the courts when it will probably end up like Exxon with those mega corporate attorneys and 20 years later, no one gets anything.
Next Move is Suck it Up from Ships
The Surround-and-Suck-it-up is coming next. It is a conservative approach used in in Abu Dabi. Not all oil is captured and the volatile organics escape.
No one knows how to make a sleeve going down a mile from a
ship, or how to attach a sleeve. Artificial currents created by circling ships could come close.
If you nuke the well, you have 250,000 years of radiation
in the nation's best fishery. Even if you try daisy cutters, tell me what the plate tectonics are down 13000 feet. Is there a fault, fissure or rift? If so you could
create a mega-plume of oil.
Burton Leed
BP's Exposure
$4,300 in fines per barrel released into the Gulf from the Clean Water Act which is NOT capped. At 25,000 barrels a day for 120 days thats about $13 billion - plus actual clean up costs that will probably run $2-$3 billion before this is over.
I love how after this last failed attempt we no longer see what's coming out of the BOP cracks, they showed the end of the riser again for awhile and now its robot arms.