Joe Mirabella

Is it Time to Nuke the Oil Well?

Filed By Joe Mirabella | May 31, 2010 1:00 PM | comments

Filed in: Politics
Tags: BP, Gulf of Mexico, nuclear war

Bloomberg News interviewed energy expert Matt Simmons, founder of energy investment bank Simmons & Company.

From Raw Story:

Simmons said the US government should immediately take the effort to stop the leak out of the hands of BP and put the military in charge.

"Probably the only thing we can do is create a weapons system and send it down 18,000 feet and detonate it, hopefully encasing the oil," he said.

His idea echoes that of a Russian newspaper that earlier this month suggested the US detonate a small nuclear bomb to seal the oil beneath the sea. Komsomoloskaya Pravda argued in an editorial that Russia had successfully used nuclear weapons to seal oil spills on five occasions in the past.

Recent Entries Filed under Politics:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.

Watch the language used to discuss this. It's not a natural disaster; it's a corporate crime.

By all means, let's listen to a banker. Bankers ALWAYS know what to do. Just look at the worldwide financial fuckup that they put us in.

We're going to listen to the Russians on nukes? They still got two headed babies showing up in Chernobyl.

Bill Perdue Bill Perdue | June 1, 2010 1:47 AM

"Children of the "liquidators" - those drafted in to clear up the Chernobyl disaster - suffer seven times the mutation rate of offspring whose parents were not exposed to radiation, research published today by the Royal Society shows." No two headed babies, though. Not even in the aftermath of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which weren't accidents.

If a low yield nuke or a conventional bomb works and wouldn't do more damage than the spill, which is highly likely, then it should be considered.

To hell with BP and their potential profits.
My questions are two. Would it the spread radioactive materials - there are no safe levels of the byproducts of nukes and many of them have long half-lives. And secondly how close the oil is to the seabed and is it in a form that might be released as the result of a big explosion.

A. J. Lopp | June 1, 2010 2:47 AM

Gee, I wish I were a nuclear scientist ... or maybe a planetary geologist ... but I'm not, and maybe that's why I have such a stupid question: If a nuclear explosion might blow a hole in the ocean floor, what guarantees the rubble from the explosion will result in an oil-tight seal? Couldn't it just as easily make a hole the oil can escape from even bigger and leakier than the leaky hole we have now?

Shoulda gotten that Ph.D. when Momma told me to ... then I'd know exactly what to do, just like all these other Ph.D.'s do ...

(Sorry, Jillian ... ain't talkin' 'bout you! ...)

This sounds like a bad idea. I'm sure they'll try it!

I have one question. Why don't plumbers use high explosives to fix leaking pipes?

Bill Perdue Bill Perdue | June 1, 2010 11:29 PM

Pentagon plumbers do.

How to stop the Gulf oil gusher: Nuke it!

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.

I'm at the point now, that if a small nuke 13,000 feet below the floor of the ocean will stop the flow of oil, than do it.

Bill Perdue Bill Perdue | June 3, 2010 12:19 AM

The oil, if I read right, is 18,000 feet below the seabed.

The Russians attempts were mainly on gas wells on land surfaces and their bombs were placed at depth. There were some failures but most worked. They reported no rise in surface radiation levels but then they and the US testers near Las Vegas always claim their tests are harmless.

There may be two leaks now. The situation is desperate. The problem is that an explosion has to be beneath the surface of the sea and the sea floor. The Russian experiences throw no light on that. Perhaps a very small yeild explosion would work, or a seabed non nuclear explosion.

Obama should humbly request the Russians advice and expertise before a good portion of the sea ecology is destroyed. To date he's emulated Bush's response to aid from other countries during Katrina - he's turned down all offers of aid.