Quantcast
Politics

How a Nuclear Blast Could Stop Gulf Oil Spill

Beleaguered multinational oil giant, British Petroleum, has tried one fix after another to choke off the oil gusher one mile beneath the Gulf of Mexico. Top hat, top kill, and five other solutions have all failed.

Now some experts are citing a successful fix that the Soviet Union used to kill runaway wells. According to Russian reports, during the Soviet era engineering experts relied on thermonuclear devices to cap wells that had become oil catastrophes. Presumably, five different incidents were dealt with by detonating low-yield nuclear bombs.

Geologists explain, reports Komsomoloskaya Pravda, that the explosion fuses rock strata and instantaneously seals the bore hole.

Julia Ioffe noted in the publication 'True/Slant' that "It’s so simple, in fact, that the Soviet Union, a major oil exporter, used this method five times to deal with petrocalamities.

"The first happened in Uzbekistan, on September 30, 1966 with a blast 1.5 times the strength of the Hiroshima bomb and at a depth of 1.5 kilometers." Ioffer added that "subterranean nuclear blasts were used as much as 169 times in the Soviet Union to accomplish fairly mundane tasks like creating underground storage spaces for gas or building canals."

Ioffe contends that Russia's success in capping runaway oil wells was virtually perfect. Only one failure occurred.

Pravda asserts that although there is a one in five chance a nuke might not seal the well, it's "a gamble the Americans could certainly risk."

But LiveScience's Jeremy Hsu begs to differ. "The Russians were using nukes to extinguish gas well fires in natural gas fields, not sealing oil wells gushing liquid, so there are big differences, and this method has never been tested in such conditions."

Meanwhile, Christopher Brownfield, a nuclear expert, concurs with the Russian solution. The former nuclear submarine officer wrote in 'The Daily Beast' that the Russians successfully sealed runaway oil and gas wells underwater on four separate occasions using small nuclear bombs.  Brownfield argues that the US should use a nuclear explosion to “destroy the well and put the matter to rest.”   

Surprisingly, other experts agree with Brownfield and loffe.

Well known energy expert, Matt Simmons, the founder of the energy investment bank Simmons & Company, told Bloomberg News that using a small nuclear bomb to seal the oil gusher is "probably the only thing we can do."

Although such a daring plan might work, none of the experts promoting such a scheme were asked their opinion on how the detonation of a low-yield nuclear bomb in the Gulf of Mexico could pass muster with the US Environmental Protection  Agency.

http://www.helium.com/items/1850155-how-a-nuclear-blast-could-stop-the-g...

Get More:

Comments

jaysea32's picture

No Nuke

The article call Christopher a nuclear expert when really he isn't even close. He majored in English Literature for god 's sake. He couldn't hold a candle for a nuclear expert. So any opinion about using a nuclear device has no credibility. Learning how to operate a nuclear sub is a far cry from being an expert. As I recall President Carter operated a nuclear sub too, and nobody's calling him a nuclear expert.

jaysea

jed233's picture

Radioactive oil leak.

The porus shale above the reservoir itself is saturated with oil . The reason not to use a nuke is it is very likley to expose and rupture that shale cap causing seeps (not unlike an overfilled sponge with a little pressure under it) connected to and fed by the entire oil field. Even if the bore hole was successfully blown shut, we very likely would have a much larger problem,(if that can be imagined), magnified by the oil being radioactive.

politicalair's picture

So if this opens other fissures

So if this opens other fissures then we have way more to cap. Not only that, will hurricane season upon us, radioactive tar will be spewed everywhere.

No one has ever nuked oil before. Where are these science gurus that think this is the best way .... they are just refered to as 'they'.....I would like to know if 'they' have a name and credentials.

SolarSanitizer's picture

Bottom line: Nobody knows if it'll work.

Thermal Nuclear Warheads have never been tested in a hole at the bottom of the sea. Nobody knows what it would do.

The Russians have used low-yield thermonuclear devices many times with great success closing oil /gas wells on the surface, but nobody has tried it under a mile of water .

There is only one way to know for sure if it'll work : Try it.

The Democratic National Committee approves of this website.

Rice klowN's picture

The method is the same

Because the nuke wouldn't be detonated next to the BOP, nut underground... That happens to be 5000 below the surface. If there is anything that can be done, it's drill another hole.

I found this blog that has a video from apparently a Soviet news source (or something) showing the process and footage of them actually doing it:

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-a-nuke-could-plug-the-oil-well-2010-5

Out of this disaster and the current context: that was just freaking cool!

Rice klowN's picture

Oops

nut underground

shouldve been:

but underground

stockball's picture

For sure?

"There is only one way to know for sure if it'll work : Try it." And if we find out it doesn't work, it'll make a few million gallons of oil leaking look like a GOOD day...

Rice klowN's picture

It seems this is all moot anyways

I dropped my support for a nuclear capping when someone finally revealed the reason to not even consider the method: it would take longer to set up the nuke ( drilling , etc,) than it will take them to finish the relief wells yet are already drilling.

They say it would take about a month longer to do it, than what is already happening. Done and done.

Furthermore, I've recently heard the words of credible scientists that I've always trusted about the soundness of the nuclear option, I fold, it's not the right course for this spill.

acaciam19's picture

???

this sounds stupid but wouldnt the gulf of mexico catch on fire??

Rice klowN's picture

Ill take this one boys

No.

User Removed's picture

Crazy people!

The thing these goofs don't mention is the GOM is riddled with fissures throughout the entire region that seep small amounts of oil continously. Great idea. Set off an earthquake a mile below the surface and crack the whole area wide open.

Ready1's picture

Continuous natural lead

It is not correct to speak of such but the "crazy people" post nailed a fact. The earth is "leaking" oil continuously, both above and below water . Nature handles it. Problem? Yes. Earth changing disaster? Hardley.

politicalair's picture

Can you imagine

Can you just imagine if that went wrong !

MrBook's picture

radiation

There is nothing like adding radiation to the mix to make things more interesting.

If a bomb is what is needed then why not a conventional weapon?

courier's picture

conventional

Thermonuclear generates enough heat to FUSE rock; not so with conventional weaponry... at least not deep...

Close x
Don't Miss Out! |
Like us on Facebook?