video of nuclear bomb being used to plug gas well out of control

I honestly can't believe how crazy and neurotic some people seem to be! Everyone is coming down heavy on BP for not planning correctly, using un-proven techniques and being negligent and causing this whole mess in the first place......

And now after seeing a 4 1/2 minute youtube video which considts of 80% animations, and a large group of supposedly intelligent individuals wants to let of a nuke because they all think it would work!

Even if this was real, and there was no radiation etc, the circumstances are completely different! This is underwater and it is oil, compeltely different.

And it is scientific fact that all the nuclear testing has change our atmosphere beyond repair since the 40's which is bad enough, but now you want to drop them in the ocean and risk disrupting our whole food chain and life source maybe forever!

God, I am so glad that you guys don't work for BP or are in Government! Bring back Bush all is forgiven.

It's funny that at the end they say that it helps save gas and not help save the environment. Back then the environment issues were not well, an issue. But this was a surface leak, not sure they could use a bomb deep underwater.

reply to post by Kaynos


Very good point. I think its safe to say that if they do decide to drop a nuke, it will be for economic reasons or political reasons, not environmental. If that were the case, there would be a lot more action right now.

reply to post by Desolate Cancer


coolest thing i ever seen!

reply to post by carlitomoore


You speak my mind. How can you all support a method of nuking the oil leak location if this time it's underwater and has never been tested. A nuke is never any good for the environment. What if this makes it worse? Plus there could be a tsunami or earthquake as a result of the nuclear explosion. Then you'd have casualties as well.

Ever heard of post-glacial rebound? The melting ice of glaciers causes such great weight that it crushes the seafloor beneath it. This is why the oil rig broke, because the seafloor is currently sinking. The nuke will likely sink the seafloor even more and cause devastating consequences.

Even if there is no other way at the moment, choosing to nuke the oil spill is a big NO-NO!

Something else to mention:

Gate to Hell

If this technique is so PROVEN, even on LAND with a GAS leak, then why hasn't any attempt been made to close the 'Gate to Hell'?

Burning for 35 Years, I wonder how much money has been lost here?







Edit to Add followig quote:

This place in Uzbekistan is called by locals “The Door to Hell”. It is situated near the small town of Darvaz. The story of this place lasts already for 35 years. Once the geologists were drilling for gas. Then suddenly during the drilling they have found an underground cavern, it was so big that all the drilling site with all the equipment and camps got deep deep under the ground. None dared to go down there because the cavern was filled with gas. So they ignited it so that no poisonous gas could come out of the hole, and since then, it’s burning, already for 35 years without any pause. Nobody knows how many tons of excellent gas has been burned for all those years but it just seems to be infinite there.

[edit on 31-5-2010 by carlitomoore]

What I don't understand is why so many think that we would be DROPPING a nuke onto the seafloor or something. One guy posted in another thread that he was ok with it as long as it was high enough in the air to not be a danger. WHAT?
Also, the danger o the resevoir exploding is not an issue because there is no oxidizing agent to facilitate ignition of the fuel.
Lastly, folks don't seem to understand that the resevoir is not an empty void filled with hydrocarbons. It is a sand deposit in which the hydros are between the sand particles, therefore, no chance of seafloor collapse. Has anyone ever heard of a depleted oil reserve collapsing?

reply to post by carlitomoore


They are keeping that open so the politicians can get back home.

I design and hand craft furniture, I'm not a nuclear scientist/technician. So I'm in the same boat as you all, uncertainty. Those who are sure they "know" it will work are simply deluding themselves, no one knows if this will work. To all those who believe it is best to use a nuclear devise (how American), ask yourself: "Am I crazy?............" Cos *DING DING DING. Survey says: HELLYEAH \M/\M/ You need to conduct a quick reality check. Nuclear bombs are bad, period. They have brought only death, pain, pestilence, famine and untold misery. The death toll from the first bombs (before the Manhattan Project) are still rising. Causing genetic manifestations right down to the DNA. Hunt down a doco, which catalogs nearly every nuclear test and bomb called Trinity and Beyond. Big Boy, the Tsar Bomba; they're all in there. That and other sources have taught me that water significantly magnifies the yield of a nuclear WEAPON. I seriously doubt that the aforementioned OP-plan would have a high success rate, if it were to be applied with the slightest miscalculation ( and history has proven time and time again that those with the power and authority to make these decisions, fail.) failure will be the only result. Now lets weigh up the consequences of failure: compromised sea floor structural integrity possibly resulting in multiple tsunamis or worse. The north Atlantic or Madrid , or any tectonic plates to move which in turn will cause the ground to rumble a bit. And, worst of all I reckon, there's the possibility of a dramatic failure leaving "us" the whole world having to deal not only with an endless supply of nomadic crude oil and gas but radioactive crude oil and gas, but I suppose to BP that would would be a minor inconvenience. Or combine the disasters to really get an idea of a worst cast scenario. Which MUST be considered. I regret not being of the required mindset to present a scenario or solution for this extreme case of corporate negligence, but seriously, if a "nuke" works - Ill eat a bucket of ball soup, ride my flying green dragon to the Hendrix/Dimebag solo shred-off and renounce my throne, or claim it. Hopefully a bit more commonsense will be applied in this thread hereafter. Cheers, bomb ya later.

reply to post by UberL33t


Im not going to jump on the band wagon just over one video from 1963. A geologist on NPR last week spoke of the gulf being made up of very brittle shale...be like putting a bomb under a sheet of glass

bloody good example of a corporation putting profit before people and safety, with zero forethought of the consequences. I hope BP haven't unwillingly destroyed the planet, or worse yet, willingly.....

How is this idea even conceivable? It boggles the mind that we as a some-what intelligent human species would use a nuclear bomb to 'solve' a situation. It's like using a grenade to open your front door! I think using any kind of nuclear device for positive or negative purposes is totally out of the question. The long term effects on the earth's crust is unknown and it may lead to an even bigger catastrophe in the future. That video, though it's intentions may have been positive, seemed like a propaganda video for the increased, flexible use of nuclear bombs. Bottom line - it's effin crazy!

reply to post by carlitomoore


After seeing that it makes me wonder if the gas that is burned had another purpose other than for human use.... and this whole global warming thing... did this hole have anything to do with it, did it have any impact etc etc?

Either way thanks for mentioning it.

This nuke thing is a bad idea in my opinion. We've seen what happens when curiousity takes over the human mind... If these oil companies would have quit drilling for oil and started helping rebuild the U.S. with clean energy we would be on an entirely different boat wouldn't we.

They probably won't use a nuke to seal it. Iran will use this as an excuse for their own warhead, since they have deep wells too. This has been an issue since day one of the explosion.
I wish Bush was in office for this one.

reply to post by Venetian


Glad to see after two pages of trigger-happy Nuke enthusiasts people are starting to see sense. I have to admit though, I'm not sure who has mentioned using nukes in the first place!? As far as Im aware nothing official has even been mentioned on the matter. BP are still talking of syphoning it off into containment ships and building relief wells and the US government hasn't proposed any action.

Can someone clear this up for me please? I know the first time I see this proposed on the news it will have very big ramifications on humanity. We are policing the world trying to get everyone to disarm, next we will be dropping nukes to put out house fires whilst condemming nations for trying to provide enrgy to their peoples.

reply to post by Desolate Cancer


I don't think that a nuke has been fully thought out. Let's not forget what the Gulf is composed of...H2O. Hydrogen and what is a nuke? What is the status of water under such extreme pressure? Could the hydrogen bonds be more fragile? What is the effect of the blast on these hydrogen molecules and bonds? Perhaps they could be disrupted? Can we say...fission?

Have TPTB run recursive simulations in order to determine the effect of setting off a nuke?

Originally posted by Freedom or Death

Originally posted by juniperberry

What do you suppose would have happened if the heat/shockwave of the nuke had hit the gas chamber?

Bigger BOOM

Wrongo!

No air, well no oxygen - so no combustion! You could smoke a cigar down there and it would not ignite.

Originally posted by griffin1
Can we say...fission?

Have TPTB run recursive simulations in order to determine the effect of setting off a nuke?

Yes we can say fission How do you think a nuke works?

And well out of the thousands of nuke blasts that the planet has seen, quite a few of them were either in water or below water in the sea bed and the place (earth) is still here, no big hole where all the water went down, no fission among water molecules (btw did you mean fusion?? - cos that didn't happen either)

Originally posted by carlitomoore
If this technique is so PROVEN, even on LAND with a GAS leak, then why hasn't any attempt been made to close the 'Gate to Hell'?

Burning for 35 Years, I wonder how much money has been lost here?

Probably not much money was lost, loads of fuel was impossible to 'harvest' but you can't (or shouldn't!) sell what you don't have... Ergo no money lost, it may not be worth tossing a nuke in there as the fire is doing just fine burning off the gas, no one is in danger.


[edit on 31/5/2010 by Now_Then]

reply to post by Now_Then


I think you are right, there might not be any combustion, but as Griffin mentioned above the pressure on the bonds would be immense. Let us not forget that a nuke derives its energy from splitting the atom, and the heat that is produced is enormous. Only scientists would know what the potential result would be.

Also don't forget that it was an explosion that caused this in the first place, and oil and water do not mix very well. There have been reports of vapours hovering all over the water. For all we know there could be an ignition at anypoint.

reply to post by Desolate Cancer


Do it...

First off let me say I am not one of those trigger-happy Nuke enthusiasts. I do not like the idea of using a nuke. Too many things can go wrong. And even if it goes like clock work you still have the deal that now every one wants to "peaceful" nukes. I hope they can come up with another way but if all esle fails and we can not stop it we maybe forced to nuke it. Lets all hope that it never comes to that but keep in mind that it may.