Reply With Quote
Underground tests WITHIN a nations territory where the radiation is contained within said nations borders.
Where is the well again?
Not to mention this isn't just "underground".
There are no sea turtles or dolphins 1 mile beneath the ocean's surface.And it won't harm any fish, sea turtles, or dolphins.
Hey man, I'm just messin with ya. I wonder how a nuke work work? Wouldn't it blow out a lot more oil as well as other debris into the water?
Underground tests WITHIN a nations territory where the radiation is contained within said nations borders.
Where is the well again?
Not to mention this isn't just "underground".
Whats the success rate for it being tried under 5,000 feet of water? Whats the water pressure like down there? How did they seal the holes in the other locations which weren't under that amount of water pressure to begin with?
The well is 40 miles southeast of the Louisiana coast, within US territorial waters. And the nuke technique is entirely underground. It's explicit in the way it works: The nuke compresses the rock around the blast, sealing the leak. You don't apply the nuke in the hole, you apply it underground in the proximity of the location.
The prognosis is pretty good considering that the 1966 gas leak that was closed this way used a nuke placed 6km underground (around 20K feet)...
Considering our tech has gone a long way in 44 years, and has possibly been better than the Ruskies to begin with, I don't think a controlled blast is a unreasonable proposition, especially with a 80% success rate.
US territorial waters only extend for 12 miles. (I'm not totally clear on this but I am 90% sure that the well is in international waters even though the United States has the oil rights)
80% Success rate on COMPLETELY different situations. Even the scientist who proposed this in Russian gave it a 20% chance of success and I believe thats wildly optimistic.
You're acting like this is a no brainier technology when in reality its a completely untested notion that no one is seriously considering because of the many legal, environmental and of course technological hurdles.
Samuel Jackson or some other movie start isn't going to dive down in some minisub with a modified drill and save us all with a rigged on the fly nuke because this is the real world and not some action movie.
You know, the plan is so good that its simply not being considered.
The Exclusive Economic Zone is 200 nautical miles.
As much as you think this is a movie plot, that process has been used in the real world numerous times. I agree that is not the same scenario, but all I suggested is that now that other more standard procedures have failed radically, it's something to consider. That includes considering what the consequences would be. Some people hear the word 'nuclear' and start running for the hills, without realizing that there's very secure nuclear subs roaming around the globe and that the US is a leader in the technology.
I don't want Samuel Jackson going in there, but why not conduct a proper study to determine the feasibility and potential impact of using a technique like that? It's not like they have this thing under control and every day that goes by there's much more damage being done in the area.
You know, the situation is so under control that this is already the biggest spill in the history of the US, and we still don't have a workable solution to it.
lol, yeah, because obviously you are more qualified than an experienced scientist.
cool story bro
Not to mention that water is probably the most effective radiation shield available.
"we still don't have a workable solution to it."
not immediately, but relief holes will reduce the first hole pressure so it can be plugged.
What if a nuclear blast worked like fracking, closing the target hole, but opening up other holes. There is already another hole about 5 miles away spewing lots of oil now.
The last word is that the two reliefs wells are not going to be ready until August. That's oil spilling until then, and we still don't know for sure that it will allow them to plug it.
Not to mention that what they're going to try now (severing the riser pipe) will cause more oil to come out while they install the device.
I hope it works. I just don't think we should discard options just because they have scare words in them.
So like I said, outside of United States territorial waters and in International Waters where the United States has economic rights but not sovereignty. Pretty sure detonating nuclear bombs has nothing to do with securing economic resources.
There are no standard procedures. This is a well a mile deep into the ocean and there is no standard way to deal with it. That doesn't mean you go and create another ecological disaster.As much as you think this is a movie plot, that process has been used in the real world numerous times. I agree that is not the same scenario, but all I suggested is that now that other more standard procedures have failed radically, it's something to consider.
So the fact that we have nuclear reactors with controlled nuclear reactions underway somehow paves the way for the detonation of nuclear a nuclear bomb in a manner that we have never tried and at a depth never before tested at? (I'm not completely certain on this point - I think the deepest test was at 2500 feet but I'm not completely sure)That includes considering what the consequences would be. Some people hear the word 'nuclear' and start running for the hills, without realizing that there's very secure nuclear subs roaming around the globe and that the US is a leader in the technology.
Study it all you want. Like I said, there are reasons its not being considered.I don't want Samuel Jackson going in there, but why not conduct a proper study to determine the feasibility and potential impact of using a technique like that? It's not like they have this thing under control and every day that goes by there's much more damage being done in the area.
That doesn't make your solution a good one. I could say the same thing for any solution not being considered at this moment but it wouldn't make any of them good.
What? Water isn't even as effective as dirt.
How the can you say things like this and expect me to take you seriously on the subject?
How about we discard them due to success risk ratio? Lets say Mr. Russian is right and that there is a 20% chance of success. That means an 80% chance of failure where you have a transport system in place to move radioactive debris to the surface and across the ocean.
Hmmm, yeah.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/05/31/oil...ex.html?hpt=T1
(CNN) -- BP reported problems controlling the undersea well at the heart of the largest oil spill in U.S. history and won a delay in testing a critical piece of equipment in March, according to do ents released Sunday.
"We are in the midst of a well control situation on MC 252 #001 and have stuck pipe. We are bringing out equipment to begin operations to sever the drillpipe, plugback the well and bypass," Scherie Douglas, a BP regulatory advisor, told the district engineer for the U.S. Interior Department's Minerals Management Service in a March 10 e-mail.
In a follow-up e-mail to the district engineer, Frank Patton, Douglas reported the company wanted to get a plug set in the well before testing the blowout preventer, the massive device used to shut down the well in case of an emergency.
"With the give and take of the well and hole behavior we would feel much more comfortable getting at least one of the two plugs set in order to fully secure the well prior to testing BOPs," she wrote.
When Patton told BP he could not delay a test any longer than it took to bring the well under control, the company won a postponement from David Trocquet, the MMS district manager in New Orleans, Louisiana, the do ents show. Trocquet ordered BP to make sure its cement plug was set up and to verify its placement, according to his reply. The messages do not indicate how long the test was postponed.
The exchange was among the do ents released Sunday by leaders of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which is looking into the disaster that killed 11 workers aboard the drilling platform Deepwater Horizon and uncapped a gusher that is now fouling the northern Gulf of Mexico. BP has been unable to activate the well's blowout preventer since the explosion, resulting in up to 19,000 barrels (798,000 gallons) spewing into the Gulf every day.
Appearing on ABC's "This Week," BP Managing Director Bob Dudley said those questions are being addressed by an investigation led by the Coast Guard and the MMS, which oversees offshore oil drilling. BP, rig owner Transocean Ltd. and oilfield services company Halliburton have blamed each other for the disaster
"There were issues of well control, signs out there, and there are strict procedures that are written," Dudley said. Those procedures allow the rig owner "to walk through well control," he said.
"That's what the investigation will take minute by minute," he said. But he said the failure of the well's blowout preventer is a "very troubling" issue that will have repercussions throughout the oil industry.
"It is the piece of equipment that is not expected to fail, and that's going to have implications for everyone around the world," Dudley said.
Video: Obama admin. defends role in disaster
Video: Bill Nye explains 'LMRP cap'
Video: Thou shalt not mention BP in church?
BP's design of the well has also come under scrutiny in the New Orleans hearings held by MMS and the Coast Guard. BP drilling engineer Mark Hafle testified Friday that he made "several changes to the casing designs" to address problems with the well's cement walls and leaking drilling fluid. But he said the problems had been addressed.
"No one believed there was going to be a safety issue with pumping that cement job," he said.
Halliburton performed the cementing work on the well, and Halliburton worker Christopher Haire told the New Orleans hearings Friday that BP kept changing the dimensions of the well's casing. Meanwhile, BP's investigation "raised concerns about the maintenance history, modification, inspection, and testing" of the blowout preventer, committee chairman Henry Waxman, D-California, reported earlier this month.
The New York Times reported Sunday that BP do ents indicated the company had "serious problems and safety concerns" with the rig's well casing and blowout preventer for months. Rep. Ed Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat who leads an Energy and Commerce subcommittee, said he has seen do ents that confirm the Times report.
Other witnesses at congressional hearings into the spill have raised concerns as well. Stephen Stone, a laborer on the doomed rig, told the House Judiciary Committee last week that the Transocean crew had to stop drilling four times in the space of 20 days because of the loss of drilling "mud" -- "either because the underground formation was unstable, or because drilling too quickly caused the formation to crack," he said.
And Doug Brown, the rig's chief mechanic, told the Judiciary Committee that cuts to Deepwater Horizon's engineering staff left the crew with a backlog of preventive maintenance to perform. When they complained, he said, "We were always told, 'We will see what we can do.' "
You're pretty sure about a lot of things, but actually know none of them.
What part of exploration and use of all marine resources you don't understand? If the US wants to blow up all the fish within 200 nautical miles off it's coast, it's entirely within their rights.
Let me guess, you're 'pretty sure' I'm wrong.
What? Do you think this is the first oil spill in history?
You have a lot of reading to do. A good start would be the IXTOC I spill in 1979. Probably the most similar case, even though the actual well was even deeper than this one.
You forgot to mention some of them carry ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads (SSBN class). Point being that the destruction of one of these fellas underwater would be much, much worse than whatever ecological impact a mini-nuke would cause in this case.
I don't have a solution. However, unlike you, I don't think it's unwise to consider all possibilities. I've yet to read a study about feasibility or impact of the proposed nuclear option. Have you? You sure opine like you did.
Is it sovereign territory? No. What does the LTBT require? Sovereign territory AND the ability to contain any radiation - neither of those situations are hereYou're pretty sure about a lot of things, but actually know none of them.
What part of exploration and use of all marine resources you don't understand? If the US wants to blow up all the fish within 200 nautical miles off it's coast, it's entirely within their rights.
Let me guess, you're 'pretty sure' I'm wrong.
Yeah, I'm not a maritime legal expert so I'm not 100% sure on this. I guess thats my flaw. I'm sure you've got an extensive background in this and I should just take your word for it. Whats your experience in the field?
Deeper? Only if you consider 160 feet more than 500.What? Do you think this is the first oil spill in history?
You have a lot of reading to do. A good start would be the IXTOC I spill in 1979. Probably the most similar case, even though the actual well was even deeper than this one.
How does this support using a mininuke? Because we have plutonium floating around in the ocean we should just say it all? This is such a stupid argument that.You forgot to mention some of them carry ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads (SSBN class). Point being that the destruction of one of these fellas underwater would be much, much worse than whatever ecological impact a mini-nuke would cause in this case.
I see you've already done the environmental impact study though. So tell me, what kind of ecological impact could we expect out of a mini nuke in this case?
Well I also haven't read a study on whether or not its feasible to call ET and see if he can come use his oddly shaped head to cap the well. I do know that the use of nuclear weapons here is a) illegal, b) will have radioactive side effects which a transport system through the ocean, and c) according to the one guy who proposed it has a maybe a 20% success rate.
You let me know when they consider it an actual viable option.
You mean packed-dirt. If it's not packed, it's useless. It's a matter of atoms with heavy nuclei.
What? Water isn't even as effective as dirt.
How the can you say things like this and expect me to take you seriously on the subject?
When I say effective, I mean overall. A product of cost/shielding.
That's why water is more effective overall. It's much easier to produce 7 inches of water than 3 inches of packed-dirt to halve radiation.
If cost and availability wouldn't be a problem, then you can obviously use depleted uranium, lead or concrete, which are much better at stopping gamma radiation, but much more expensive to obtain. Sometimes you don't have an option. For example nuclear reactors normally shield their fuel using a mixture of concrete and water-cooled lead.
That said, used nuclear reactor fuel is actually kept in water pools, not packed-dirt sheds.
Going back to our scenario, if we only account for half the depth of the well (2500 feet), the gamma reduction provided by the water shielding would make the resulting radiation 0.00046% of the original radiation.
(This doesn't take into consideration underwater currents which actually would make the radiation diffuse, and thus making the shielding more effective).
I thought you were pretty sure.
On June 3, 1979, the 2 mile deep exploratory well, IXTOC I, blew out in the Bahia de Campeche.
Last I checked, 2 miles = 10,560 feet.
It doesn't support using a mini-nuke. It merely dispells the fear-mongering that placing a nuke underwater would create a new risk. The risks exists and existed for a long time now.
Are you pretty sure?
You know, or you're pretty sure? Because you haven't proven either.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
