Why close it? Because this is slam in the middle of survivalist, black heliocopter terrarory. That's not what ETS is about. See the "Why this is not a survivalist site" disclaimer at the home page (and see who helped write it...)

I don't see any trouble discussing the false rumors within the Natural Disasters sub-forum. We're looking into the possible threats and their probabilities simply in order to be prepared for any "side effects".

By the way, the http://forums.equipped.org/rules.html page has several links missing. It looks like some maintenance required there.

It might be sci fi, but it's not black helicopters. It's survivalism for fish, perhaps. And I don't at all see how this conversation is out of bounds.

Since there evidently is precedence for the nuke tactic (news to me) in regard to at least gas wells, then it strikes me as not even sci fi.

I have no idea if it's a credible solution to the spill. I certainly don't think it's a politically viable option now or in the future. But it's still an interesting conversation at this point.

Not like ETS is humming with strictly germane activity and lots of new things to talk about in the world of survival.

Any new developments in signal mirrors lately? I have a knife or two and a few axes we haven't discussed.... zzzzzzzzzzz

Interesting! I hadn't seen these newer case studies.

The chance of a nuke working depends a lot on the type of rock where they need to squeeze the pipe. I don't know anything about the formation in which this well is located but I can probably ask around and find out. I wonder what sort of formation surrounded the point of detonation in the Russian nuke? Too brittle and everything shatters, too soft and the same result occurs and in both cases your job just got a whole lot tougher. As much as I like big booms, the people making the decision will need to really study the rock before making such a decision.

You know what would be cool? If they raffled off the chance to press the dentonator button!

-Blast

Blast, that was a great succinct summary earlier. Thanks, quite reassuring.

NPR discussed the explosive option a couple weeks ago. Their expert said the seabed in the area was sand down for several hundred feet. So there was a chance the explosion would seal the well, but it was more likely it would just rupture the pipe further down and lead to oil seeping up EVERYWHERE through the sand.

I watched a segment about it on CNN over the weekend. You can check it out here .

First off, they are NOT going to nuke it. Potentially converting a disastrous oil leak from a pipe into a radioactive crater leaking radioactive oil would most definitely not be an improvement. On land it might be an option but at a mile down and then having to be placed in drill hole, a hole we would have to create, with considerable precision it is just not going to happen.

Second, if this might be done it would be undertaken with conventional explosives. A lot of the research we have undertaken has been centered on how to substitute conventional explosives with precision targeting to accomplish strategic goals without the problems associated with nuclear weapons.

Over time nuclear weapons systems have drifted toward smaller yields delivered with precision instead of high yields delivers in the general vicinity. Like a shotgun high yields are used to compensate for weak targeting and scattered delivery. Point being that in a war if you can guarantee delivery to within a few feet a conventional warhead work as well as a nukes. And they are cheaper and easier to clean up afterward.

But here again blowing the well, using nuclear or conventional explosives, won't necessarily guarantee that the flow stops. You could shatter or split the casing hundreds of feet below ground and make the situation worse.

Third, there isn't going to be any significant evacuation. Nobody is sure exactly how toxic the oil is. It clearly isn't immediately toxic if you don't have any serious medical conditions. People with asthma and heart conditions may want to steer clear of the oil and any fumes but most of the short term effects seen seem to be from the smell and the heat. Evacuation of the population has not even been seriously considered.

People should deeply contemplate why they go to internet sites that promote these sorts of stories. Being spoon-fed fantasy worse-case scenarios doesn't help anyone prepare for anything.

Wow, what a mess, we really need to get off oil energy as much as we can. The problem is that we need to change mindsets first somehow. It won't do any good to have clean, sustainable energy if people are going to be still using the same amount (or using more) energy.

We need each and every person to stop using so much gosh darn energy. We need to revamp how we do things. With the age of the Internet, every job that does not absolutely require a commute should not involve a commute. We all need to get rid of gas guzzlers and big boats.

It's no longer theory that we're killing ourselves with all the excesses we have. We're actually killing ourselves. We're actually thinking about setting off a nuclear blast to help stop an oil leak. Lord, help us.

Yes, I have heard the nuclear option discussed on CNN. My brain did not allow me to process the idea because of its strangeness.