28 May 2010, 7:15 pm
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDGAoU1H2gM&feature=popular[/youtube]
dude! at the end they even suggested 
using a bomb to blow it up. That's a nuclear bomb they are talking about....
I have been hearing people on the local news saying the government has been talking about that.
28 May 2010, 7:44 pm
using a bomb to blow it up. That's a nuclear bomb they are talking about.... They're not talking about a nuclear bomb, so just calm down. As they said in the video, they're talking about a standard explosive, like Red Adair used to use for putting out well fires. I'm just not sure what good such a solution would do, since the point of Adair's explosive devices, as it was explained to me, was to rob the fire of oxygen for a crucial period and starve it out. Then the well could be capped once the fire was extinguished. All I can think is that they think that a well-placed device would simply collapse the pipeline and stop the flow that way, but that sounds like something that could backfire horrifically.
28 May 2010, 7:54 pm
using a bomb to blow it up. That's a nuclear bomb they are talking about.... They're not talking about a nuclear bomb, so just calm down. As they said in the video, they're talking about a standard explosive, like Red Adair used to use for putting out well fires. I'm just not sure what good such a solution would do, since the point of Adair's explosive devices, as it was explained to me, was to rob the fire of oxygen for a crucial period and starve it out. Then the well could be capped once the fire was extinguished. All I can think is that they think that a well-placed device would simply collapse the pipeline and stop the flow that way, but that sounds like something that could backfire horrifically.
No, on my local news they said that a government official suggested using a nuclear bomb on it. I dont think they would use that option unless it was safe but they are starting to talk about it.
CockneyRebel
Veteran
Joined: 17 Jul 2004
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 116,810
Location: In my little Olympic World of peace and love
28 May 2010, 7:56 pm
People never cease to amuse me. 
John_Browning
Veteran
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range
28 May 2010, 8:06 pm
28 May 2010, 10:08 pm
John_Browning
Veteran
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range
28 May 2010, 10:20 pm
Ambivalence
Veteran
Joined: 8 Nov 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,613
Location: Peterlee (for Industry)
29 May 2010, 3:41 am
I've wondered about that, why would they consider using a nuclear explosion? The only reason I can come up with is that maybe a nuclear blast will turn the sand down there into a large enough surface area of glass (like the giant glass-lined craters in Nevada from the '50s nuke tests), to seal off the pipeline. But I don't know if it would work, or be worth it, and it seems very risky, and I haven't looked into it yet.
Because nuclear explosions are very big. The idea, so far as I know, is to send a massive shock which collapses the tunnel walls rather than fuse the rock.
It has, apparently, been done before. Just not on the ocean floor.
Radiation etc. would be absolutely minimal, but that wouldn't be enough to stop a public outcry. There'd be screams of public outrage from all over, and never mind the fact that nuclear weapons were routinely tested on the continental US...
29 May 2010, 6:28 am
Jesus walked on water, now you can too! 
29 May 2010, 9:50 am
Jesus came ashore with clean feet.
ruveyn
31 May 2010, 10:09 pm
31 May 2010, 10:25 pm
Wouldn't setting off a bomb only make things down there much more worse?
Anyway, I hope they come up with an effective solution to this soon, because a lot of people are really starting to get pissed off over this.
01 Jun 2010, 7:29 am
12 Jun 2010, 3:25 am
