• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Two Deepwater Horizon Developments To Expect In The Coming Days

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Next, the so-called "nuclear option" is about to get a lot of attention. In this case, of course, nuclear option is not a euphemism. It's the real idea that the best way to kill this thing is to stick a small nuke in there and bury the well under rubble. Supposedly it's been done in Russia, and by the middle of the coming week, it will be all over cable news, as pundits press The White House hard on whether it's being considered and why not.
Right now, it is mostly speculation, and of course, the tin foil hat conspiracy theorists are having a field day with their claim that the Obama administration is about to nuke the Gulf oil spill. As far back as 3 weeks ago there has been speculation, and also claims that Obama sent nuclear scientists to Houston to study the feasibility of using a nuke. There was also an article in the Telegraph which repeated these claims.

This is not a new idea. The Russians have used small nuclear weapons to plug leaks before. Their most famous use was to stop a natural gas leak that had burned out of control for more than 3 years. It worked.

YouTube - Nuclear Blast To Stop Oil Leak In Gulf - It's Worked Before!

Me? I don't see a problem with it. After all, there were 27 nuclear tests at Bikini Atoll, and today it is a tourist destination. Yes, there will be a problem with radiation, but that deep down, not much will come to the surface. Let me give you an analogy. When a person has cancer, he or she is given chemotherapy. That is, the person is given poison, which hopefully kills the cancer cells before doing much damage to the person. It is the same here. Sure, radiation is not a good thing, but compared to an oil leak which otherwise might be equal to many Exxon Valdez events, it is not such a bad thing in this case.

Whether or not this "nuclear option" is truly being considered by the Obama administration, I say consider it. It might not end up being the ultimate solution to the Gulf spill, but it should at least be on the table.

Article is here.
 
Last edited:

Donc

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2007
Messages
9,783
Reaction score
2,582
Location
out yonder
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
No thanks, i,m not into three headed shrimp.
 

NolaMan

Well-known member
Joined
May 5, 2010
Messages
808
Reaction score
203
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I was actually watching Rachael Maddow (who I typically dislike) but she did have an interesting segment on the oil spill. It is posted below:


It was pretty interesting what the ultimate solution was, perhaps we ought to give that a shot again?
 

jujuman13

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 1, 2006
Messages
4,075
Reaction score
579
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
There's no chance of that happening
No chance of what happening?

A nuclear device to stop the leak?

Acceptance by the American Electorate of a nuclear device to stop the leak?

I rather imagine that if all other methods fail, then the nuclear option will have to be revisited.

Simply spouting rhetoric that BP is to blame is not going to plug this leak.

BP have abandoned the so called 'Top Kill' method, while still using the ridiculous method of shooting golf ball into the BOP (wonder if someone is picking up the ones that Obama loses in the rough, he is not that good a player)

Containment is all very well even assuming they could ever get it to work, but that idea vanishes as soon as a Hurricane roars into the Gulf.

Nuclear will be very much on the table.
 

Kernel Sanders

Norville Rogers
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2008
Messages
3,730
Reaction score
1,931
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
No chance of what happening?

A nuclear device to stop the leak?

Acceptance by the American Electorate of a nuclear device to stop the leak?

I rather imagine that if all other methods fail, then the nuclear option will have to be revisited.

Simply spouting rhetoric that BP is to blame is not going to plug this leak.

BP have abandoned the so called 'Top Kill' method, while still using the ridiculous method of shooting golf ball into the BOP (wonder if someone is picking up the ones that Obama loses in the rough, he is not that good a player)

Containment is all very well even assuming they could ever get it to work, but that idea vanishes as soon as a Hurricane roars into the Gulf.

Nuclear will be very much on the table.
The relief well is the last resort option. Nuclear isn't just off the table - it's not even in the room. Even if we were going to bomb the well to close it, we would use conventional explosives. If we nuked the well we'd be tossing out every nuclear treaty we've signed since the fall of the USSR.
 

tryreading

Steve
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
4,809
Reaction score
764
Location
Central Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Right now, it is mostly speculation, and of course, the tin foil hat conspiracy theorists are having a field day with their claim that the Obama administration is about to nuke the Gulf oil spill. As far back as 3 weeks ago there has been speculation, and also claims that Obama sent nuclear scientists to Houston to study the feasibility of using a nuke. There was also an article in the Telegraph which repeated these claims.

This is not a new idea. The Russians have used small nuclear weapons to plug leaks before. Their most famous use was to stop a natural gas leak that had burned out of control for more than 3 years. It worked.

YouTube - Nuclear Blast To Stop Oil Leak In Gulf - It's Worked Before!

Me? I don't see a problem with it. After all, there were 27 nuclear tests at Bikini Atoll, and today it is a tourist destination. Yes, there will be a problem with radiation, but that deep down, not much will come to the surface. Let me give you an analogy. When a person has cancer, he or she is given chemotherapy. That is, the person is given poison, which hopefully kills the cancer cells before doing much damage to the person. It is the same here. Sure, radiation is not a good thing, but compared to an oil leak which otherwise might be equal to many Exxon Valdez events, it is not such a bad thing in this case.

Whether or not this "nuclear option" is truly being considered by the Obama administration, I say consider it. It might not end up being the ultimate solution to the Gulf spill, but it should at least be on the table.

Article is here.
Well, as long as the half-life of any radiation is very short, seconds or minutes, maybe...

But what guarantee of its success?

This is just trial and error with this mess, and I don't think this method would be approved without, say, a 99% or better chance it would work.

If this were to happen, which I doubt, I'd like to drive to the coast to see it. Probably wouldn't be much to see, though, since the event would be a mile deep in water.
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Well, as long as the half-life of any radiation is very short, seconds or minutes, maybe...

But what guarantee of its success?

This is just trial and error with this mess, and I don't think this method would be approved without, say, a 99% or better chance it would work.

If this were to happen, which I doubt, I'd like to drive to the coast to see it. Probably wouldn't be much to see, though, since the event would be a mile deep in water.
I believe it would work quite well. Once you get to the bottom of the Gulf, it is another 5 miles down to the reservoir of oil from which the leak is coming. A small nuclear device would effectively seal that hole for good. The Russians have done it, and with success. The only problem will be the radiation, but the majority of it will stay at the bottom, and the rest will be dispersed in the Gulf waters, essentially diluted. There will be some radiation at the surface, but nothing lethal. Still, that could present problems, but compared to what? The ongoing spill, which is enormous?

And what about a neutron bomb?
 

Jerry

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
51,124
Reaction score
15,258
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Right now, it is mostly speculation, and of course, the tin foil hat conspiracy theorists are having a field day with their claim that the Obama administration is about to nuke the Gulf oil spill. As far back as 3 weeks ago there has been speculation, and also claims that Obama sent nuclear scientists to Houston to study the feasibility of using a nuke. There was also an article in the Telegraph which repeated these claims.

This is not a new idea. The Russians have used small nuclear weapons to plug leaks before. Their most famous use was to stop a natural gas leak that had burned out of control for more than 3 years. It worked.

YouTube - Nuclear Blast To Stop Oil Leak In Gulf - It's Worked Before!

Me? I don't see a problem with it. After all, there were 27 nuclear tests at Bikini Atoll, and today it is a tourist destination. Yes, there will be a problem with radiation, but that deep down, not much will come to the surface. Let me give you an analogy. When a person has cancer, he or she is given chemotherapy. That is, the person is given poison, which hopefully kills the cancer cells before doing much damage to the person. It is the same here. Sure, radiation is not a good thing, but compared to an oil leak which otherwise might be equal to many Exxon Valdez events, it is not such a bad thing in this case.

Whether or not this "nuclear option" is truly being considered by the Obama administration, I say consider it. It might not end up being the ultimate solution to the Gulf spill, but it should at least be on the table.

Article is here.

Get back to me in 3 years and we'll talk.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
This could be the best idea on earth, but there's no way in hell they're going to allow "Obama nukes oil spill" to become a headline.
 

Jerry

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
51,124
Reaction score
15,258
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
This could be the best idea on earth, but there's no way in hell they're going to allow "Obama nukes oil spill" to become a headline.
I guess you could say he...
**puts on glasses**
..blew that idea out of the water.
YYYYYYEEEAAAAAAAAHHHH!!!!
 

tryreading

Steve
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
4,809
Reaction score
764
Location
Central Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I believe it would work quite well. Once you get to the bottom of the Gulf, it is another 5 miles down to the reservoir of oil from which the leak is coming. A small nuclear device would effectively seal that hole for good. The Russians have done it, and with success. The only problem will be the radiation, but the majority of it will stay at the bottom, and the rest will be dispersed in the Gulf waters, essentially diluted. There will be some radiation at the surface, but nothing lethal. Still, that could present problems, but compared to what? The ongoing spill, which is enormous?

And what about a neutron bomb?
Yeah, that would be relatively safe. That's why I mentioned using a device where the half-life of the 'fallout' would be very short. Similar to the neutron bomb, you would still get a massive explosion, but very little long term danger to sea life.
 

hazlnut

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
11,963
Reaction score
3,543
Location
Naperville, IL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Me? I don't see a problem with it. After all, there were 27 nuclear tests at Bikini Atoll, and today it is a tourist destination. Yes, there will be a problem with radiation, but that deep down, not much will come to the surface.
The opening lines to many SciFi channel original movies...



In all seriousness, I agree. Besides, we should test those things from time to time...
 

Jerry

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
51,124
Reaction score
15,258
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Right now, it is mostly speculation, and of course, the tin foil hat conspiracy theorists are having a field day with their claim that the Obama administration is about to nuke the Gulf oil spill. As far back as 3 weeks ago there has been speculation, and also claims that Obama sent nuclear scientists to Houston to study the feasibility of using a nuke. There was also an article in the Telegraph which repeated these claims.

This is not a new idea. The Russians have used small nuclear weapons to plug leaks before. Their most famous use was to stop a natural gas leak that had burned out of control for more than 3 years. It worked.

YouTube - Nuclear Blast To Stop Oil Leak In Gulf - It's Worked Before!

Me? I don't see a problem with it. After all, there were 27 nuclear tests at Bikini Atoll, and today it is a tourist destination. Yes, there will be a problem with radiation, but that deep down, not much will come to the surface. Let me give you an analogy. When a person has cancer, he or she is given chemotherapy. That is, the person is given poison, which hopefully kills the cancer cells before doing much damage to the person. It is the same here. Sure, radiation is not a good thing, but compared to an oil leak which otherwise might be equal to many Exxon Valdez events, it is not such a bad thing in this case.

Whether or not this "nuclear option" is truly being considered by the Obama administration, I say consider it. It might not end up being the ultimate solution to the Gulf spill, but it should at least be on the table.

Article is here.
How long do you estimate it would take to divelop a pressure resistant casing to place the warhead in?
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
How long do you estimate it would take to divelop a pressure resistant casing to place the warhead in?
Not long at all, since there are now deep sea vessels easily capable of taking human beings to that depth. Nothing to develop. The technology already exists.
 

Chappy

User
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 24, 2009
Messages
2,443
Reaction score
733
Location
San Francisco
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
I disagree with both prophesied developments cited in the article: BP will continue to stay on the job and there will be no credible talk of a nuclear option. First, this is BP's mess and it's theirs to clean up. Second, look at this.

YouTube - The Infamous Exploding Whale
 

Jerry

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
51,124
Reaction score
15,258
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Not long at all, since there are now deep sea vessels easily capable of taking human beings to that depth. Nothing to develop. The technology already exists.
According to the video, the Russians drilled an angled shaft down a couple thousand feet, placing the nuke some distance above the gas deposit itself. It was not a surface detonation.

If the US were to attempt a similar move, we would need a capsule small enough to fit down the 12in-18in shaft yet large enough to fit a nuke of sufficient size to do the job.

Both manned subs, ROVs and even torpedoes are wider that the typical 12in-18in shaft.

Do you know of a container the nuke could be placed in which would withstand the pressure of a 5,000ft depth + whatever the depth of the shaft would be, AND fit down that shaft?

Suppose they put a nuke into an ROV's basket and aimed to place the nuke down the opening of the BOP. Also suppose that they have a nuke which would not be crushed by the water pressure as the ROV descended to sea floor. How would you force the nuke down the well with all that oil shooting out? How would you maintain positive control over the nuke as it descended down the well and could no longer respond to remote control due to all the sea floor between the controller and the nuke?
 
Last edited:

Jerry

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
51,124
Reaction score
15,258
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I disagree with both prophesied developments cited in the article: BP will continue to stay on the job and there will be no credible talk of a nuclear option.
I'm kinda board today and this is fun to think about how it would be don.
 

reefedjib

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
6,763
Reaction score
1,619
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
I hope they do do it. The problem comes not from the radiation, which the water column will readily absorb and convert to heat. The problem is the radioactive isotopes formed when setting off a nuke. These isotopes will add to the normal background radioactive material and in a body of water the size of the gulf, it will be quickly dispersed and no harm will come to oceanic life.
 

505

Mildly Hostile
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2006
Messages
2,384
Reaction score
1,212
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
A few things.

First, the Russians did not have the technology to cement the leaking well at the reservoir. We do.

Second, the Russians supposedly drilled a relief well to insert the bomb. If it comes down to choice between a nuclear relief well and a non nuclear relief well, I'll take the non nuclear variety please.

Lastly, any of you that think we can just simply shove a bomb down the hole... do you realize that the pressure beneath the BOP is a staggering 13,500 psi? It is a 21" pipe, which has an area of just a hair over 346". Every single one of these 346 inches is seeing 13,500 psi. So to put this in perspective, if you were to try and plug the pipe by putting a cap on it, the cap would need to weigh 4,671,000 lbs! Good luck trying to send the bomb down that pipe. Nothing is going to work except for the relief wells. Pray that the delays and setbacks on them are minimal folks.
 

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
23,745
Reaction score
7,654
Location
Worldwide
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
If such a detonation would work, what about a MOAB or MOABs?

.
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
If such a detonation would work, what about a MOAB or MOABs?

.
I am not sure, but I do not believe it would work. A moab needs oxygen from the air in order to work, which is why it sucks all the oxygen out of where it is dropped, and one of the ways a MOAB can kill is through asphyxiation. And of course, there is no free oxygen at the bottom of the Gulf.
 

Jerry

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
51,124
Reaction score
15,258
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
A few things.

First, the Russians did not have the technology to cement the leaking well at the reservoir. We do.

Second, the Russians supposedly drilled a relief well to insert the bomb. If it comes down to choice between a nuclear relief well and a non nuclear relief well, I'll take the non nuclear variety please.

Lastly, any of you that think we can just simply shove a bomb down the hole... do you realize that the pressure beneath the BOP is a staggering 13,500 psi? It is a 21" pipe, which has an area of just a hair over 346". Every single one of these 346 inches is seeing 13,500 psi. So to put this in perspective, if you were to try and plug the pipe by putting a cap on it, the cap would need to weigh 4,671,000 lbs! Good luck trying to send the bomb down that pipe. Nothing is going to work except for the relief wells. Pray that the delays and setbacks on them are minimal folks.
I'm also wondering about the geology of the aria. What kind of tsunami could a nuclear detonation create, either directly or as being the catalyst for an underwater landslide?
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
How do you get a bomb that big down the shaft?
Who says it has to go down the shaft? It would have to be set off on the bottom of the Gulf, at the entrance of the hole.
 
Top Bottom