Not signed in (Sign In)
    • CommentAuthorOddcult
    • CommentTimeMay 26th 2010
     (8273.21)
    It's not like there've never been nukes let off underwater before.

    Sometimes everyone thinks that Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the only two nuclear weapons to have been detonated before, ever, and that a single new one will lead to hideous apocalpyse.

    Blowing up oil wells used to be a fairly common way to deal with fires caused by leaks above ground. I'm one of the world's biggest tree huggers and whale fans, but I'm not totally against this idea.
    • CommentAuthorVerissimus
    • CommentTimeMay 26th 2010
     (8273.22)
    Won't it poison the water? Making all the creatures which, emmm, need water, like, dead?
    • CommentAuthorOddcult
    • CommentTimeMay 26th 2010
     (8273.23)
    Depends on the nuke.

    Any you could probably use active sonar or any number of other techniques to scare off pretty much any sea fauna that would be likely to be affected.

    Although, yeah, you could possibly collapse the well using conventional charges, and thinking about it, the site must surely have been surveyed in enough detail to be able to figure out where best they'd go.

    Red Adair would have fucking done it, but BP doesn't want to lose the well.
  1.  (8273.24)
    I know there are logistics that don't really allow this to work as simply as the video suggests, but it's not the worst idea...

  2.  (8273.25)
    @Val
    Logistics such as there possibly not being enough hay in the world to take care of the spill.
  3.  (8273.26)
    @SilentObjector

    The Logistics I was more referring to carry more into the fact not all the oil is coming to the surface. I've not enough information to say there's more of either oil in the Gulf or hay in the U.S. It just seems a more ecological solution than some sort of oil-dispersing chemical BP says they can produce and all options should be looked at. If this option only helped cleaning up oil coming inland, acting as an easy clean-up barrier, I'd say go for it, personally...
  4.  (8273.27)
    It's an interesting idea (the hay).

    Also, here's a wiki on nuking the water.

    and CBS's ideas of cures for the spill, which include hair, hay and nukes.

    "Live" cams of attempt to top kill the oil gusher via gizmodo.
    • CommentAuthorErisah
    • CommentTimeMay 27th 2010
     (8273.28)
    My knee-jerk reaction to the idea of introducing radiation to an already catastrophic disaster is "BAD IDEA". But that might just be my generation showing.

    On a related note, I'm interested to note that the media has gone from calling it "The oilspill" to "BP's Oil spill". And right when the Australian government is talking about instituting a new 40% resources tax on corporations. Not a good week for BP.
    • CommentAuthorsteevo
    • CommentTimeMay 27th 2010 edited
     (8273.29)
    It seems mud might work. Probably better than detonating a nuke...

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/28/us/28spill.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

    Heh, their vests remind me of the shirts in Idiocracy.

  5.  (8273.30)
    Look more like walmart vests to me.
    •  
      CommentAuthorFinagle
    • CommentTimeMay 30th 2010
     (8273.31)
    The notion of plugging the hole with bits of finely ground oil company executives is sounding better all the time.
  6.  (8273.32)
    I was thinking about this, did a Google search and hey, waddaya know, it's been done before; Skimming with Supertankers.

    It really is rather depressing that there wasn't a better fail-safe or cleanup option ready to go for the possibility of something like this.
  7.  (8273.33)
    How did they cleanup the largest oil spill? That arabian gulf/kuwait one?
  8.  (8273.34)
    Tragic that that the "top-kill" mud infusion didn't work, and oil is still gushing into the Gulf. As more oil coats the beaches, wetlands, and fishing grounds, I feel for Louisiana. First Katrina and now this...yeesh...they might never bounce back.

    I saw an online chat in the Washington Post, where the expert (a college professor) directly addressed the nuke idea. According to him, high pressure at the wellhead means that detonating a nuke or other explosive could potentially cause a massive rupture in the seabed. If that happened, the Gulf of Mexico and the huge oil reservoir underneath would be in direct, open contact, resulting in severe, planet-changing environmental catastrophe. According to this guy, explosives are not an option.