NS guest Milo Nordyke talks on PNE to remedy BP oil Well mishap

NUKE ROCKY44 · Senior Member

NS guest Milo Nordyke talks on PNE to remedy BP oil Well mishap

GoogleNaut · Guru

Thanks Bruce for posting that...

It certainly sounds doable.

If there was ever a positive application for a nuclear explosive, this may be it.

2-4 years for the formation to depressurize enough to allow it to be capped? Jeez...by then all the beaches in the Gulf Coast will be nicely paved with black asphault: boat ramps all around? Unfortunately so will the fishing grounds.

Anyone heard anything from the beaches in Mexico or Cuba yet? BP is liable for them too.

NUKE ROCKY44 · Senior Member

"...Havana calls in Venezuelan experts to combat potential environmental disaster as tarballs spotted off island's coast." [link]

LA-MISS-ALA-FLA affected by oil spill.

TEX & MEXICO not yet affected by oill spill. [link]

More comments coming in from veteran physicists for nuke remedy to BP well spill. [link]

"...former long-time Russian Minister of nuclear energy and veteran Soviet physicist Viktor Mikhailov knows just how to fix BP's oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico. "A nuclear explosion over the leak,"

"...Alexander Koldobsky, a fellow nuclear physicist from the Moscow Engineering and Physics Institute, insists the peaceful nuclear explosions were safe."

G R L Cowan · Veteran Member

Safe they may be, but effective?

Bleeding from live bodies stops due to clotting, but
the floor of the Gulf of Mexico is not, AFAIK, alive.
So an accurate analogy would be trying to stop fluid loss from a corpse
by detonating a hand-grenade at the site of the leak. It might work,
but it's just not very likely.

A lot of the oil is now being recovered. Competent discussions of this
can be found at The Oil Drum. Plus lots of wallyjabber of course,
but they do have experienced industry posters.

androbot2084 · Veteran Member

The Russians have already tried nuclear detonations and were sucessfull 4 out of 5 times in sealing their wells. The underground explosions pinches the well shut and the heat of the blast turns the rock into glass further sealing the well.

Environmentalists will immediatelly recall the Hiroshima bombing and claim 100,000 people will die from radiation poisoning. But this is pure ignorance. The Russians never bombed any city but rather set off an explosion thousands of feet under the ground to seal off the well. After the explosion they sent men with geiger counters and could not detect any unsafe radiation at the surface of the well.

androbot2084 · Veteran Member

Also the environmentalists will claim that a nuclear explosion will blow a huge bottomless hole in the sea floor causing all the oil to gush out. While this is theoretically possible if a big enough atomic bomb is used the reality is that atomic bombs come in smaller sizes such as 30 thousand tons of TNT which is a thousand times less powerfull than the super hydrogen bombs that are equivalent to 30 million tons of TNT. When the Russians set off their atomic bombs to seal up their wells although an earthquake was felt the explosion did not leave a bottomless hole in the ground.

NUKE ROCKY44 · Senior Member

G R L Cowan wrote:

Safe they may be, but effective?

Bleeding from live bodies stops due to clotting, but
the floor of the Gulf of Mexico is not, AFAIK, alive.
So an accurate analogy would be trying to stop fluid loss from a corpse
by detonating a hand-grenade at the site of the leak. It might work,
but it's just not very likely.

A lot of the oil is now being recovered. Competent discussions of this
can be found at The Oil Drum. Plus lots of wallyjabber of course,
but they do have experienced industry posters.

'Oil Drum' had already suggested PNE use on BP well awhile ago.
Most if not all nuke PNE experts and both Russian & U.S. scientific literature state it's nearly 93% effective even in the BP oil well scenario.

The fact remains the U.S./BP are dragging ass on effective remedy, playing the political field and delaying mitigation of this polluting event.
STOP PLAYING AROUND WITH POLLUTION AND SHUTDOWN BP OIL WELL.

-- Edited by NUKE ROCKY44 on Sunday 4th of July 2010 12:40:11 AM

NUKE ROCKY44 · Senior Member

androbot2084 wrote:

Also the environmentalists will claim that a nuclear explosion will blow a huge bottomless hole in the sea floor causing all the oil to gush out. While this is theoretically possible if a big enough atomic bomb is used the reality is that atomic bombs come in smaller sizes such as 30 thousand tons of TNT which is a thousand times less powerfull than the super hydrogen bombs that are equivalent to 30 million tons of TNT. When the Russians set off their atomic bombs to seal up their wells although an earthquake was felt the explosion did not leave a bottomless hole in the ground.

androbot2084; Has no doubt read the literature. All I ask people make the effort to at least read what Russian underground PNE's and U.S. Program Plowshare where really about before going off on emotional conclusions.

androbot2084 · Veteran Member

Unfortunately all of these emotional conclusions about the dangers of peacefull nuclear explosives are not so much comming from the Environmentalists at Greenpeace but are actually comming from the scientists who work at the Lawrence Livermore Radiation Laboratory. The sad fact of the matter is that a scientist who holds a government position even at a radiation laboratory is a politician first and science is his secondary occupation. If Al Gore or Obama happens to be president then in effect he is the commander in chief of the armed forces and all the weapons research facilities. Therefore the environmentalist agenda would hold supreme and if a scientist wants to hold on to his job he would kowtow to the environmentalist agenda. On the otherhand if a scientist wants to make waves he finds himself slammed with a bad performance evaluation and later unemployed. As a further inhibition to rocking the boat the nuclear option has been denounced as insane. Can you imagine how hard it would be for a scientist to buck the system if his mental sanity and judgement is called into question? Of course none of this applies to the retired scientists who are free to speak out once they have a vested pension.

NUKE ROCKY44 · Senior Member

Yes true, current science, space & economic policy is driven by political considerations and in this day and age the results are obvious. Crony corporatism, high debt to GDP ratio, weak currency, non-productive work force and a risk averse age is upon us. It only breeds economic stagnation, perpetual military conflict, pollution, limited choice and decisions made under this toxic environment only foster the wrong policies.

NUKE ROCKY44 · Senior Member

Check this article on Reason.com

"Scientific Consensus Redux"
Looking back, it turns out that a lot of scientific consensuses were wrong.
Ronald Bailey | June 29, 2010
[LINK]

androbot2084 · Veteran Member

I don't think there has ever been a scientific consensus that we are going to experience runaway global warming and that this planet is going to turn into a Venus inferno. However the environmentalists have expressed this doomsday scenario as a remote possibility. So if environmentalists really believe this as even a remote possibility then why are they objecting to nuclear power?

The mainstream scientific consensus seems to be built around the idea that while global warming may be inconvenient and will result in localized flooding it will not be so catastrophic as to be a reason to accept nuclear power.

On the otherhand Project Orion is more of a science fiction doomsday
scenario where all of the worlds leaders have accepted the reality of runaway global warming and the Venus inferno that would result. So 2 Orions are built. Each craft weighs 8 million tons and the first goes on a mission to Sun in order to gather enough energy to supply the world with carbon free power. If that mission fails the second Orion goes to Mars to start a colony so that human life can continue. So what are the odds of this science fiction becomming science fact? I couldn't tell you. I don't think that anyone can since runaway global warming has never been scientifically modeled. But just as there are three positions in the Earth centered universe debate which is Ptolemy, Galileo and Tycho Brahe so are there three positions in the global warming debate.