[QUOTE=Madman_Andre;21990320]Of course, when people say "nuke it," everyone assumes nuke the oil slick. That wouldn't work, because on top of the fact the slick is now the size of the state of Louisiana, and the fact you would end up with a very large amount of radioactive crude oil(on top of a large amount of radioactive water vapor), you'd have the issue of a large amount o fallout, as well as the EMP from a surface detonation which would be sufficient to knock a good chunk of the Gulf Coast, myself included, back to the Stone Age. Of course on top of all o that still, you still have a broken well spewing oil into the Gulf, which a good chunk of which is now radioactive. So a nuke against the slick is a [B][I]VERY VERY BAD[/I][/B] idea.
However, using a nuke on the seafloor, at the point of the well, or even inside the well itself, would work much better. For instance, drop a low yield nuke down the drill shaft, and then detonate it when it's sufficiently beneath the ocean floor and the mouth of the wellhead, so as to minimize radioactivity. The shock wave from the multi-kiloton blast would compress the shaft, sealing the leak.
Other than dabbing around in shit that may not even work(Trash seriously?), this technique has been done by the Soviets in the 70's and 80's to seal oil wells that would have been impossible to seal otherwise. Really, at this point, it really wouldn't matter it the UN bitched about the use of a nuclear device, because the entire Environmentalist community is much louder. ANd really, what do you have to lose to try it?
[editline]ffuuuu[/editline]
Holy shit on a pogo stick wall of text.[/QUOTE]
And where would you find a nuke capable of resisting 153 atmospheres of pressure?
[QUOTE=Madman_Andre;21990320]Of course, when people say "nuke it," everyone assumes nuke the oil slick. That wouldn't work, because on top of the fact the slick is now the size of the state of Louisiana, and the fact you would end up with a very large amount of radioactive crude oil(on top of a large amount of radioactive water vapor), you'd have the issue of a large amount o fallout, as well as the EMP from a surface detonation which would be sufficient to knock a good chunk of the Gulf Coast, myself included, back to the Stone Age. Of course on top of all o that still, you still have a broken well spewing oil into the Gulf, which a good chunk of which is now radioactive. So a nuke against the slick is a [B][I]VERY VERY BAD[/I][/B] idea.
However, using a nuke on the seafloor, at the point of the well, or even inside the well itself, would work much better. For instance, drop a low yield nuke down the drill shaft, and then detonate it when it's sufficiently beneath the ocean floor and the mouth of the wellhead, so as to minimize radioactivity. The shock wave from the multi-kiloton blast would compress the shaft, sealing the leak.
Other than dabbing around in shit that may not even work(Trash seriously?), this technique has been done by the Soviets in the 70's and 80's to seal oil wells that would have been impossible to seal otherwise. Really, at this point, it really wouldn't matter it the UN bitched about the use of a nuclear device, because the entire Environmentalist community is much louder. ANd really, what do you have to lose to try it?
[editline]ffuuuu[/editline]
Holy shit on a pogo stick wall of text.[/QUOTE]
*cough* TSUNAMI *cough*
Detonating anything underwater or off the coast of anything is a big no-no.
[QUOTE=PrismatexV8;21989857]It won't work.
Everyone saying this has no clue what will happen if we nuke it.[/QUOTE]
That's the fun part.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
