Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Oil Leak Could Be Stopped With a Nuke

samzenpus posted more than 4 years ago | from the lesser-of-two-disasters dept.

Earth 799

An anonymous reader writes "The oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico could be stopped with an underground nuclear blast, a Russian newspaper reports. Komsomoloskaya Pravda, the best-selling Russian daily, reports that in Soviet times such leaks were plugged with controlled nuclear blasts underground. The idea is simple, KP writes: 'The underground explosion moves the rock, presses on it, and, in essence, squeezes the well's channel.' It's so simple, in fact, that the Soviet Union used this method five times to deal with petrocalamities, and it only didn't work once."

cancel ×

799 comments

From the same guys... (1, Insightful)

alfredos (1694270) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170338)

...Who solved the East front issue throwing at it 20 million human lives.

Re:From the same guys... (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32170648)

What was their alternative?

They didn't have firepower or mechanized armor that could match what the Germans had. But they did have many, many people.

Regardless, their technique worked. In fact, it worked so well that they alone were responsible for much of the damage that Germany sustained.

Re:From the same guys... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32170716)

I got a jar I can't get open. Would you happen by chance to have a 20 KT warhead on hand?

Re:From the same guys... (5, Funny)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170720)

What was their alternative?

Well, they were about to try the concrete dome aproach, but the germans refused to get under it. Aparently the cheese piece wasn't big enough or something.

Re:From the same guys... (1, Funny)

Gerafix (1028986) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170872)

Jesus, have you tried Russian cheese? Forget about it. They should just have used their vodka, god forbid I know.

Re:From the same guys... (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32170902)

Know your history.

The Stalinist purges had decimated the upper ranks of the military leaving the entire military structure in shambles. Furthermore, Stalin himself chose to ignore critical intelligence about the timing of the German invasion.

So if it were not for the insane dictatorial policies of the Communists, the Russian army would have been in a much better condition to fend off the German attack.

Re:From the same guys... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32170744)

It worked.

Dare I say it? (5, Insightful)

dtml-try MyNick (453562) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170340)

What could possibly go wrong?

Re:Dare I say it? (2)

beatle11 (1086123) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170602)

Lol...As soon as I saw the word nuke I thought the exact same thing.

Re:Dare I say it? (1)

Timothy Brownawell (627747) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170680)

Well, for one thing I thought that big underwater explosions tend to make some rather large waves.

Re:Dare I say it? (2, Interesting)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170750)

Hurricanes release energy equivalent to a large nuke every few minutes.

That comparison hand-waves away the shape and concentration of the energy, but it starts to narrow down the scope of the situation.

Also, I'm sure there is data from previous underwater blasts (so they should have some idea if it will be an additional catastrophe, or a ripple).

Re:Dare I say it? (5, Informative)

religious freak (1005821) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170846)

I just happened to come across this a month or so ago and thought it was such a telling statement to Soviet engineering halfassery...

As an illustration as to why we should NOT follow Soviet engineering techniques, I submit Hell's Gate to you... (this thing has been burning for 40 years)
Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEjoga1yrn0 [youtube.com]
A small amount of background: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63J4H120100420 [reuters.com]

Re:Dare I say it? (3, Funny)

danny_lehman (1691870) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170870)

Slashdot, a wholesome blend of nerdyness, snarkyness, pretentiousness, and real blueberies. A Great way to start your day! Also 100% Sarcasm FREE!

NUTRITION FACTS
Per 1 Posts (250 Characters)

AMOUNT Slashdot

Calories........................420
                            (Daily Vaule %)

Troll 1 Post....................1%

Nerdy 92 Posts..................22%

Snarky 118 Posts................28%

Pretentious 76 Posts............18%

Sarcasm 9000+ Posts........... :)%

CANADAS FOOD GUIDE TO HEALTHY EATING:
Recommends Choosing Whole Grain, Enriched Products, And Liberal Doses of Slashdot More Often.

I liked (1)

TheDarkMaster (1292526) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170874)

It's the same method used for extinguishing fires in oil wells (using explosives), but now in a much larger scale.

More Methane Ruptures? (5, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170342)

Assuming the methane ice had a role, is there a risk that this released energy could trigger more methane ruptures in nearby drilling spots [slashdot.org] ?

It's so simple, in fact, that the Soviet Union used this method five times to deal with petrocalamities, and it only didn't work once.

Success rate does not illustrate simplicity, especially not with that small of a sample set. That could be the equivalent of saying, "Putting a man on the moon is so simple, in fact, that the United States has used their method once and it has never failed."

Re:More Methane Ruptures? (5, Insightful)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170382)

"Putting a man on the moon is so simple, in fact, that the United States has used their method once and it has never failed."

Only once?

Re:More Methane Ruptures? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170578)

Maybe he meant it only failed [nasa.gov] once...

Re:More Methane Ruptures? (2)

flabbergast (620919) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170896)

I think he's talking about the method (giant ass rocket with tiny capsule at the top) not the execution (Apollo 11-17).

Re:More Methane Ruptures? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32170388)

Umm, the US put a total of 12 people up there with multiple missions.

Re:More Methane Ruptures? (2, Interesting)

Hatta (162192) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170392)

Actually, the US did it 6 separate times. And there were deaths, they were just on earth during testing.

Re:More Methane Ruptures? (1)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170598)

And one failed to land, but it orbited the moon.

Actually...

Apollo 8 orbited the moon
Apollo 10 orbited the moon
Apollo 11 landed on the moon
Apollo 12 landed on the moon
Apollo 13 went to the moon and returned to the Earth without landing
Apollo 14 landed on the moon
Apollo 15 landed on the moon
Apollo 16 landed on the moon
Apollo 17 landed on the moon

So, nine times going to the moon, 6 of 7 attempts to land were successes and no deaths from a launch.

Re:More Methane Ruptures? (1)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170644)

Really? All the people responding don't get that this is an illustrative analogy? He's saying 'just because Apollo 11 succeeded does not mean that Apollo missions are easy nor does it mean that all Apollo missions will succeed.'

Re:More Methane Ruptures? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32170420)

You know the US landed men on the moon 6 times, right?

Re:More Methane Ruptures? (1)

Dunega (901960) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170528)

Whoops.

Orbital nukes. (4, Funny)

Hatta (162192) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170348)

I don't think we have any orbital nukes. We would have to nuke it from orbit, as it's the only way to be sure.

Re:Orbital nukes. (1)

Cigarra (652458) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170508)

Dr. Teller? Is that you??? [wikipedia.org]

Re:Orbital nukes. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32170652)

Hudson: I'm ready, man, check it out. I am the ultimate badass! State of the badass art! You do NOT wanna fuck with me. Check it out! Hey Ripley, don't worry. Me and my squad of ultimate badasses will protect you! Check it out! Independently targeting particle beam phalanx. Vwap! Fry half a city with this puppy. We got tactical smart missiles, phase-plasma pulse rifles, RPGs, we got sonic electronic ball breakers! We got nukes, we got knives, sharp sticks...
Apone: Knock it off, Hudson. All right, gear up.

Genius! (4, Funny)

SoupGuru (723634) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170350)

What problems can't a nuclear explosion solve?

Re:Genius! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32170752)

Nuclear winter.

Re:Genius! (3, Funny)

el_tedward (1612093) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170904)

Nuclear winter.

Just use more nukes to keep warm, DUUUHH!!!

If Hollywood has taught us anything... (5, Funny)

GuJiaXian (455569) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170352)

...it's that any and all natural disasters can be stopped by the liberal use of nuclear weapons.

Re:If Hollywood has taught us anything... (5, Funny)

H0p313ss (811249) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170736)

...it's that any and all natural disasters can be stopped by the liberal use of nuclear weapons.

And the most likely side effect to the use of nuclear weapons is that some geek gets laid.

Oh, it only failed once (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32170386)

sounds perfectly safe, which such exhaustive data as a whole 5 attempts

I flipped a coin 5 times and it only came up heads once. The chance of you getting a heads when you flip it will be really small too.

Re:Oh, it only failed once (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32170438)

Good to know, thank you for that informative post.

In Soviet Russia... (1)

lammy (1557325) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170398)

... oil leaks were plugged with controlled underground nuclear blasts, according to this informative article.

Re:In Soviet Russia... (5, Funny)

dsavi (1540343) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170686)

So in the US, controlled underground nuclear blasts would be plugged with oil leaks?

This will get no play because it is nuclear.. (4, Interesting)

Nukenbar (215420) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170410)

But could a large conventional blast do the same thing?

Re:This will get no play because it is nuclear.. (1)

DarthBart (640519) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170490)

Only if you can pack 20 kilotons of explosives around the hole.

Re:This will get no play because it is nuclear.. (1)

jameskojiro (705701) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170666)

The weight of that many bricks of C-4 would probably seal it quite well....

Re:This will get no play because it is nuclear.. (0, Troll)

Jenming (37265) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170712)

hehe, your mom

Re:This will get no play because it is nuclear.. (3, Interesting)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170500)

You think the greenies are (rightfully) pissed now? Tell them you're going to set off high-yield explosives in the ocean. Their heads would "pop" [wikipedia.org] .

Re:This will get no play because it is nuclear.. (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170518)

But could a large conventional blast do the same thing?

Given a sufficiently large blast, sure -- assuming the theory is sound in the first place.

But, since modern warheads are now measured in megatons, where are you going to find millions of pounds of conventional explosives??

Re:This will get no play because it is nuclear.. (4, Informative)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170546)

I don't think so (assuming any large blast can work at all in this case, of course); given the location is on the bottom of the ocean, and that the blast could require, for example, some drilling to place the explosive in the bottom...a nuke, with its small size, is much more practical.

Re:This will get no play because it is nuclear.. (1)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170664)

You're going to need an extremely powerful explosion to get enough pressure to collapse the wellhead. I'm not sure if the amount of conventional explosives required would be practical, where as your typical 2-50kton nuclear warhead is fairly compact.

Re:This will get no play because it is nuclear.. (4, Informative)

NevarMore (248971) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170700)

I don't think you can dump enough conventional explosives to get the necessary yield. The difference between obscenely large conventional bombs and nukes is three orders of magnitude. The yield on conventional weapons is close to 1:1 between their mass and an equivalent mass of TNT while nukes offer at least 1:100. You just can't get enough power out of conventional weapons without using a LOT of them.

Having said that, I'd still pay to take a cruise down there and watch the boom. I'll even sponsor Greenpeace and SeaSheperd to get too close to the blast zone shortly before detonation. :D

MOAB - 11 tons of TNT
Little Boy - 15.000 tons of TNT
The cold war arms race averaged around 25.000 tons of TNT, though there were some weapons made that did 50k and some with a theoretical limit at 100k tons.

Source - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TNT_equivalent [wikipedia.org]

Re:This will get no play because it is nuclear.. (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170858)

You've made a cogent argument as to the amount of conventional explosives required to match a nuclear blast.

It is now time for someone to stumble in and suggest that they use a fuel-air bomb under 5,000 feet of water.

Re:This will get no play because it is nuclear.. (3, Informative)

compro01 (777531) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170886)

You're missing about 3 zeros off your cold war bombs. Those bombs were in the 25 Megatonne range.

Re:This will get no play because it is nuclear.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32170900)

But could a large conventional blast do the same thing?

Would a conventional explosive even explode at that depth? Chemistry is dependent on things like pressure and temperature.

It worked in the Matrix (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32170414)

Just sayin'

Call the ayatollah (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32170416)

He can show us how Iran's nuclear weapon's program can be used for peaceful purposes

is there nothing they cannot do? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32170446)

What a coincidence. I was just thinking that there are a number of problems in Russia that can also be solved with nuclear weapons.

BP is not trying to seal the well (2, Interesting)

netsavior (627338) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170448)

If they were trying to seal the well I don't have much doubt that they could do it... and quickly. They tried (and failed) to secure an "oil collection device" that they sold to the news agencies as a "cap" but it is a "cap" designed to let them recover 85% of the oil that is spewing out. THEY DO NOT WANT TO CAP THE WELL. To permanently seal it off would mean they have to drill another one before they could start to profit off of this deposit again. Horrible ecological disaster, and we are still letting them try to profit off of it instead of capping it.

Re:BP is not trying to seal the well (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32170540)

Parent is totally incorrect. If capping the well was so simiplistic, it would have been done. The ultimate goal right now is to stop the leak. If there is still interest in the field, another well can be drilled later -- they will not be going through the same wellhead.

Re:BP is not trying to seal the well (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32170660)

It's going to be pretty hard to profit from that oil when nobody wants to buy it from you anymore.

Re:BP is not trying to seal the well (5, Insightful)

ShadowRangerRIT (1301549) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170696)

Collecting the oil appears to be necessary. If you set up a collection rig, you only need to stifle the pressure from the oil you don't collect. If you try to block it entirely, you need to block *all* the pressure. The latest attempt to cap the well failed due to pressure and buoyancy created by the well and its byproducts, even though it allowed some of the oil through for collection. Do you think an identical cap that tried to block it completely would be more successful? I'm not a fan of BP, but I don't think they're trying less plausible solutions solely to save themselves the cost of drilling a new well. Given the payouts the U.S. will likely extract to cover damages (legislation to raise the cap is already in progress, and their public promise to make good is hard to renege on), they're better off capping as fast as possible and drilling anew.

Re:BP is not trying to seal the well (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32170706)

They are already drilling the second well, retard (the relief well). So to say that they would not cap it because they'd have to drill a second well is absurd on its face.

Re:BP is not trying to seal the well (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32170734)

If they were trying to seal the well I don't have much doubt that they could do it... and quickly. They tried (and failed) to secure an "oil collection device" that they sold to the news agencies as a "cap" but it is a "cap" designed to let them recover 85% of the oil that is spewing out. THEY DO NOT WANT TO CAP THE WELL. To permanently seal it off would mean they have to drill another one before they could start to profit off of this deposit again. Horrible ecological disaster, and we are still letting them try to profit off of it instead of capping it.

this was an exploratory well, not a production well.

Re:BP is not trying to seal the well (1)

Jenming (37265) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170788)

I do like your cynicism, but (a) they are drilling another well, (b) you need a well in order to cap it as you can't just dump concrete through a mile of sea water and (c) the current plan is to cap it after the well is drilled.

I am sure they would like to make as much or lose as little money as possible in this case, but motive is just a warning sign, not actual proof of guilt.

Re:BP is not trying to seal the well (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32170862)

Drilling a new well is not as expensive, or as bad for your reputation and image as cleaning up the Gulf Coast. If they could cap it they would have done so. Things are not as simple under a mile of water as you suppose.

hilarious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32170472)

"...and it only didn't work once [out of five]..." - So what if the nuke creates an even bigger leak? Should we nuke it again? Btw monitoring abilities and thus reconnaissancein preparation for such a blast at those depths are extremely limited.

What's the scariest part of this? (5, Funny)

El_Frood (1808330) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170480)

I'm trying to figure out which part of this story is the scariest.

... that someone has suggested setting off an underground nuke to close an oil well?

... finding out that the Soviets did this all the time?

... finding out that the USSR was so careless they had six "petrocalamities" worth trying this trick on?

... finding out that there's an actual word for an oil accident of this size?

Re:What's the scariest part of this? (1)

arndawg (1468629) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170672)

From most to least scary.


finding out that the Soviets did this all the time? (they're nuking stuff. scary)
that someone has suggested setting off an underground nuke to close an oil well? (scary stuff, but less scary since the russians already did it )
finding out that the USSR was so careless they had six "petrocalamities" worth trying this trick on? (Sure, but not NUKE scary)
finding out that there's an actual word for an oil accident of this size?(I'm not in the habit of getting scared by words

Re:What's the scariest part of this? (4, Funny)

H0p313ss (811249) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170768)

I'm not in the habit of getting scared by words

I'm dyslexic you heartless bastard!

Re:What's the scariest part of this? (1)

coaxial (28297) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170758)

I'm trying to figure out which part of this story is the scariest.

That obvious bullshit was posted both on slashdot and True Slant.

Re:What's the scariest part of this? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32170834)

Sounds like a quote from "Broken Arrow".

Re:What's the scariest part of this? (1)

masterwit (1800118) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170866)

... finding out that there's an actual word for an oil accident of this size?

How about this word:

Enviropetronuclearcalamity

It shifted from scary to awesome!

Re:What's the scariest part of this? (0, Troll)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170888)

... finding out that the USSR was so careless they had six "petrocalamities" worth trying this trick on?

I'm actually thinking that number seems low. Russians do not give a fuck about the environment, human rights, or anything besides their own aggrandizement.

Re:What's the scariest part of this? (3, Informative)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170890)

... that someone has suggested setting off an underground nuke to close an oil well?

      So you are going to trigger a device that will reproduce the heat found inside the sun, and are worried about oil "catching fire"? That's like worrying about dropping a 2000lb bomb on the gas tank of a lawnmower. Please.

      Secondly oil does not "explode", it burns. Gasoline vapor explodes, but only in the presence of air because the reaction needs oxygen. Explosives explode because they contain the oxygen they need in their molecules. Nuclear weapons explode differently, they get incredibly hot and this heat causes a tremendous overpressure wave, as well as setting nearby things on fire. However nothing is oxidized in the bomb itself. Therefore it can happen in the absence of oxygen. The oil immediately around the blast would vaporize and burn - but then again so would some of the water and some of the nitrogen in the atmosphere. However the oil/water mix further out would not burn. I invite you to watch the Baker shot [youtube.com] and try to see anything on the ship(s) burning. The water absorbs all the heat.

      Hell if you're worried about "fire" - remember that the damned oil rig was on fire in the FIRST PLACE. Where's the fire now?

      The water would be an excellent transmitter of the pressure wave, enough to shift the rocks and seal the well.

      I have a special request, however. All global warming and card-carrying Greenpeace members should be placed on a boat immediately above the device if this is going to happen.

Couldn't get any worse? (1)

adeft (1805910) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170494)

Might as well nuke the area and start from scratch. But seriously, why does the explosion need to be nuclear.

Re:Couldn't get any worse? (3, Informative)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170694)

Nukes are small, cheap and very efficient.

Here is a conventional underwater explosion - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripple_Rock [wikipedia.org]

"Between November 1955, and April 1958, a three-shift operation involving an average of 75 men worked to build a 174 meter vertical shaft from Maud Island, a 762 meter horizontal shaft to the base of Ripple Rock, and two main 91 meter vertical shafts into the twin peaks, from which "coyote" shafts were drilled for the explosives. 1,270 metric tons of Nitramex 2H explosives were placed in these shafts, estimated at ten times the amount needed for a similar explosion above water."

A nuclear underwater explosion - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wigwam [wikipedia.org]

The difference, with a nuke you just put it down where you want it with a cable, or more likely, a ROV, stand back and detonate it.

Re:Couldn't get any worse? (1)

compro01 (777531) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170722)

But seriously, why does the explosion need to be nuclear.

You could probably do it with conventional high explosives, you would just need A LOT (tens of thousands of tonnes) of them, which would be tricky to set.

Nuke + Current times + Eco-Huggers = (1)

irreverant (1544263) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170520)

great television! not to mention possible fall out 3 scenario, good thing i've played the game, it prepared me for this.

Check his sources (1)

cbev (1769390) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170522)

I'm pretty sure the same suggestion was made in a /. comment a week ago. I'm not sure which I trust less.

This reminds me ... (1)

GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170532)

Of Homer and Bart trying to fix everything around the house with fireworks.

Duct tape (4, Funny)

Aeros (668253) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170542)

Duct tape can solve almost anything. I think they need to look into this a bit ... plus its very inexpensive

More proof we are in a bizarro universe (5, Funny)

StefanJ (88986) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170566)

Back in the late eighties, when the world was turned upside down by the fall of the iron curtain. my friends and I speculated that the fact that Reagan had survived assassination* had torn a hole in reality, thrusting us into a Bizarro Universe.

Now we have Russians suggesting something that only would make sense in a really bad TV movie or potboiler eco-disaster novel.

Like the man uptopic says, what could possibly go wrong?

We're there, man.

Stefan

* Schoolyard mythology: presidents elected in years ending in 0 always died in office.

Re:More proof we are in a bizarro universe (1)

mister_playboy (1474163) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170730)

* Schoolyard mythology: presidents elected in years ending in 0 always died in office.

George W. Bush didn't die in office. Does that mean we are or are not currently in Bizarro Universe?

Re:More proof we are in a bizarro universe (1)

barzok (26681) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170906)

Schoolyard mythology: presidents elected in years ending in 0 always died in office.

I'll be damned. That's true for EVERY election from 1840-1960. I never realized that before.

Nuke blast in Gulf (2, Interesting)

BlackSnake112 (912158) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170570)

For some reason I see many people in boats waiting to pick up all the dead fish that float up from the nuke blast. Sort of a super sized red neck fishing lure.

On a serious note, as others have said, there is a lot of methane down there. I remember seeing a deep sea sub video of the methane bubbling up in the Gulf of Mexico. They captured it in a tube and the methane formed methane crystals due to the cold and pressure down there. Unless the plan is to cap the entire Gulf of Mexico to capture this methane, I would like to see a bit more informed planning.

Dude, seriously, basic proofreading (4, Funny)

CyprusBlue113 (1294000) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170584)

The Gulf of Mexican? Honestly? I mean come on...

Lesser of two evils? (1)

Stenchwarrior (1335051) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170586)

Is the radiation from the blast better or worse than the oil leak? Or is it even a problem?

Brilliant (5, Funny)

masterwit (1800118) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170590)

As a pyromaniac extraordinaire I fully endorse this under one condition:

That a TON of high speed camera footage is available at no charge to me later. Outside of that I'm sold.

What could possibly go wrong? (0, Offtopic)

mysidia (191772) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170596)

Nuke opens up a giant hole into the oil field.

Leak becomes 100000 times worse.

Fallout from the nuke (extreme heat) raises the oil temperature to the boiling point.

Oil rapidly reaches the surface and immediately ignites, setting the surface of the world's oceans on fire.

Since the hole is so big now, and the rate of leakage so massive, the world's oceans are quickly covered with the flaming oil, like a propane torch.

And you thought global warming was an issue with CO2.......

This would be like lighting a propane tank

Re:What could possibly go wrong? (1)

mister_playboy (1474163) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170776)

Since the hole is so big now, and the rate of leakage so massive, the world's oceans are quickly covered with the flaming oil, like a propane torch.

I think you watched 2012 one too many times... :)

In other words, a 20% failure rate. (1)

fotbr (855184) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170634)

I'm not particularly impressed by such a solution.

The Reason they used Nukes.... (2, Funny)

jameskojiro (705701) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170636)

Was if they had used Chuck Norris to punch the well dry it would have caused massive earthquakes all over the world making what was shown in the movie 2012 looks like a grabage truck passing by.

FOAB/MOAB it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32170650)

the fish are dying anyway..

here's a thought..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32170656)

this leaking well is (relatively) close to shore. couldn't an underwater blast cause a tidal wave that propagates as it travels toward land and shallower water? hmmmmmm good thinking russia.... just excellent!

Original source? (1)

klapaucjusz (1167407) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170676)

Could somebody who reads Russian please check the original text [www.kp.ru] from the Komsomolskaya Pravda?

just an FYI (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170708)

Nukes aren't magic.
You could use conventional explosive. You just need more mass of explosive material.

Of course, if exploding the hole is determined to be the course of action, we must consider the ACTUAL after effects. It could very well be that convention explosives do more long term harm then a clean nuclear explosive.

Snopes Anyone? (0, Offtopic)

coaxial (28297) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170738)

"US Orders Blackout Over North Korean Torpedoing Of Gulf Of Mexico Oil Rig" By Sorcha Faal [whatdoesitmean.com]

To the reason for North Korea attacking the Deepwater Horizon, these reports say, was to present US President Obama with an “impossible dilemma” prior to the opening of the United Nations Review Conference of the Parties to the Treat on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) set to begin May 3rd in New York.

This “impossible dilemma” facing Obama is indeed real as the decision he is faced with is either to allow the continuation of this massive oil leak catastrophe to continue for months, or immediately stop it by the only known and proven means possible, the detonation of a thermonuclear device.

Russian Navy atomic experts in these reports state that should Obama choose the “nuclear option” the most viable weapon at his disposal is the United States B83 (Mk-83) strategic thermonuclear bomb having a variable yield (Low Kiloton Range to 1,200 Kilotons) which with its 12 foot length and 18 inch diameter, and weighing just over 2,400 pounds, is readily able to be deployed and detonated by a remote controlled mini-sub.

Should Obama choose the “nuclear option” it appears that he would be supported by the International Court of Justice who on July 8, 1996 issued an advisory opinion on the use of nuclear weapons stating that they could not conclude definitively on these weapons use in “extreme circumstances” or “self defense”.

On the other hand, if Obama chooses the “nuclear option” it would leave the UN’s nuclear conference in shambles with every Nation in the World having oil rigs off their coasts demanding an equal right to atomic weapons to protect their environment from catastrophes too, including Iran.

To whatever decision Obama makes it remains a fact that with each passing hour this environmental catastrophe grows worse. And even though Obama has ordered military SWAT teams to protect other oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico from any further attack, and further ordered that all drilling in the Gulf of Mexico be immediately stopped, this massive oil spill has already reached the shores of America and with high waves and more bad weather forecast the likelihood of it being stopped from destroying thousands of miles of US coastland and wildlife appears unstoppable.

Someone should get her on Fox News with Michael Brown [talkingpointsmemo.com] , Dana Perino [mediamatters.org] , and Rush Limbaugh [mediamatters.org] .

Odd, how great minds think alike... (1)

BenEnglishAtHome (449670) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170786)

...as do small ones.

"Nuke it" was the first thing I thought of when I heard about this leak.

Now I'm just trying to figure out if "great" or "small" applies in this case.

It's always been obvious... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32170800)

Nuke it from orbit!

An Excuse (4, Funny)

RealErmine (621439) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170808)

This is just an excuse to Nuke the Whales.

Russia Today Video on Same Topic (2, Interesting)

ojintoad (1310811) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170818)

Can be viewed here. [rt.com]

Synopsis: If the oil leak is in a desert where nothing of value is living anyway and it has been going on for several years and it shows no sign of stopping and you've tried just about everything else, then a nuclear blast could work. However, in the gulf of mexico it makes no sense because we haven't tried all that many things and the leak hasn't been gong on for several years and there's lots of things around of value, including people and marine wildlife.

Special Slashdot Memo: Nuclear Detonation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32170820)

of a natural gas fire can be viewed here [youtube.com] .

Yours In Astrakhan,
Kilgore T.

P.S.: N.P.R. IS commercial radio !!

Ohm..... (1)

SuperFes (831946) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170840)

I think we should all just go into deep meditation and focus on causing an earthquake to close the well. Also, naked women cause earthquakes too, so maybe we could double up with this one.

Slashdot Idle (1)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170850)

Detonating nukes Idle. Why do I sound worried?

mod uSp (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32170860)

quarreled on wing out; either the

My only response (3, Insightful)

logjon (1411219) | more than 4 years ago | (#32170884)

Drill, baby, drill.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...