Decades ago, the Soviet Union reportedly used nuclear blasts to successfully seal off runaway gas wells, inserting a bomb deep underground and letting its fiery heat melt the surrounding rock to shut off the flow. Why not try it here?If you haven't noticed, there is the chance that any given plan we try may fail and make the situation worse. Perhaps we should not use nuclear weapons on things just because we can.
The idea has gained fans with each failed attempt to stem the leak and each new setback — on Wednesday, the latest rescue effort stalled when a wire saw being used to slice through the riser pipe got stuck.
“Probably the only thing we can do is create a weapon system and send it down 18,000 feet and detonate it, hopefully encasing the oil,” Matt Simmons, a Houston energy expert and investment banker, told Bloomberg News on Friday, attributing the nuclear idea to “all the best scientists.”
Or as the CNN reporter John Roberts suggested last week, “Drill a hole, drop a nuke in and seal up the well.”
This week, with the failure of the “top kill” attempt, the buzz had grown loud enough that federal officials felt compelled to respond.
Stephanie Mueller, a spokeswoman for the Energy Department, said that neither Energy Secretary Steven Chu nor anyone else was thinking about a nuclear blast under the gulf. The nuclear option was not — and never had been — on the table, federal officials said.
“It’s crazy,” one senior official said.
Government and private nuclear experts agreed that using a nuclear bomb would be not only risky technically, with unknown and possibly disastrous consequences from radiation, but also unwise geopolitically — it would violate arms treaties that the United States has signed and championed over the decades and do so at a time when President Obama is pushing for global nuclear disarmament.
On the other hand, it's hard to imagine the devastation to the Gulf could be worse from a pocket nuke than it would be if the oil is still flowing in December.
2 comments:
I think the problem is that not only is the situation entirely different than past Soviet Union uses of nukes (oil, not gas, and 18000 feet of water, not at ground level), but that the USSR only saw it work 2/3 times... not exactly a great success rate considering what a nuke sized hole would do to the amount of oil spilling out.
It just sounds retarded to me, like it or not the intercepting well is the best idea on the table atm.
I heard Israel is selling nukes if we need one...
<_<
>_>
Post a Comment