Nuke the damn oil leak!!

[alfaniner]

Skipped two pages, but...

I have to wonder if a lightning strike could set the oil ablaze, or some idiot tossing a cigarette overboard.

37% of the Gulf on fire would be spectacular and horrible.

 

[Meadmaker]

... I don't think he nor I am quite worried about the EMP wave...

Edit: Oh, he is. Well, eh. I'm actually not sure the water would dampen it. I'm more worried about the effect of the water being radioactive.

I think you are underestimating the effects of a mile of water.

Seriously, the side effects of a nuke at that depth would be negligible. It's not like everything that comes into contact with radiation becomes radioactive. Most of the radiation would be absorbed by the water. Most of the radioactive elements created would sink to the bottom, where the radiation they emit would be absorbed by the water.

Whether or not it would work is a separate issue, but the nuke itself wouldn't have significant environmental impact.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

hm. See, I was worried about ionizing effects, but apparently it woudl be damped by the water.

 

[Meadmaker]

I heard some folks on NPR discussing the plan this morning. It's getting some serious consideration from some quarters.

ETA: I wonder if the relief wells being drilled are close enough to be affected by the blast.

 

[BenBurch]

I heard some folks on NPR discussing the plan this morning. It's getting some serious consideration from some quarters.

ETA: I wonder if the relief wells being drilled are close enough to be affected by the blast.

By definition, they would have to be close enough.

 

[Darth Rotor]

And the proof that the water would sufficiently dampen the emp pulse?

How familiar are you with nuclear reactions, water, and emp in general?

I find this challenge to be modestly absurd.

DR

 

[leftysergeant]

So they didn't plan for the worst case scenario, and how does that mean "forget the nukes"?

Because the worst case scenario would end all organic life on earth within about ten years.

 

[Meadmaker]

By definition, they would have to be close enough.

You would think, but I'm not really sure. How close does a second well have to be to provide relief? How far is the blast radius of a buried nuclear bomb detonated 5,000 feet under the sea? I don't know very much about the geometry of undersea oil reservoirs, or the source of oil pressure.

The real thought behind my question is that BP has already started drilling relief wells. If someone decided that the nuke plan was worth a try, would they have to stop work on those wells, or possibly even undo some work that has already been done? If so, then that might be a good reason not to try the nuke plan. If it didn't work, the eventual solution would be delayed.

I have no clue to the answer to any of the questions.

 

[Meadmaker]

I also found the story of a similar oil leak from 1979 to be interesting. Here's an example found by googling:

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/ixtoc_oil_spill.php

The thing that was interesting, to me, is that that leak dumped more oil into the gulf than this one is expected to dump, but the long term environmental impact was negligible. I'm not trying to say that this leak isn't a problem, but it doesn't appear that it will be the catastrophe that many fear.

 

[GlennB]

Because the worst case scenario would end all organic life on earth within about ten years.

Eh ?

 

[leftysergeant]

Eh ?

If they open a wider breach, there is no way to seal it. Enough oil flows into the ocean to kill everything in it. Then we lose our oxygen supply.

Then we all croak, taking even the cockroaches with us.

 

[KingMerv00]

If they open a wider breach, there is no way to seal it. Enough oil flows into the ocean to kill everything in it. Then we lose our oxygen supply.

Then we all croak, taking even the cockroaches with us.

Please provide evidence that the rig well in question has enough oil to kill everything in the ocean.

 

[BenBurch]

Lefty, that's not a possible outcome. Sorry.

 

[trvlr2]

Please provide evidence that the rig well in question has enough oil to kill everything in the ocean.

Well, he DiD say "worst case scenario".

As far as we're concerned, that would be it.

 

[leftysergeant]

There may be enough oil in the formation to kill off just about all of several species of plankton and the larvae of numerous species on direct contact so as to cause mass extinctions. Then that stuff enters the food chain. Then we're screwed.

 

[Tricky]

There may be enough oil in the formation to kill off just about all of several species of plankton and the larvae of numerous species on direct contact so as to cause mass extinctions. Then that stuff enters the food chain. Then we're screwed.

You mean if an organic substance enters the food chain, we're screwed?

Though it will be slow, oil, which is mostly plant parts that were buried too quickly to decompose, will eventually decompose. As waste products go, it is far less persistent than heavy metals or radioactive waste. I don't mean to minimize the tragedy of this, but lets not go all Chicken Little on it, eh?

Truthfully, it is hard to say what would have caused more long-term environmental damage, letting it decompose naturally or burning it.

 

[leftysergeant]

Though it will be slow, oil, which is mostly plant parts that were buried too quickly to decompose, will eventually decompose. As waste products go, it is far less persistent than heavy metals or radioactive waste. I don't mean to minimize the tragedy of this, but lets not go all Chicken Little on it, eh?

Will it degrade in sea water fast enough to spare the algae? This stuff is like a hundred million years old already. I don't think we have that long to wait.

Truthfully, it is hard to say what would have caused more long-term environmental damage, letting it decompose naturally or burning it.

Spraying dispersant on it so that it will sink and catch the Loop Current was about the most idiotic responce.

The question is whether it will decompose faster than the toxic elements can be passed from one life form to another. You only have to wipe out two seasons' offspring of some species to wipe them out for good. Then it can all cascade.

 

[Tricky]

Will it degrade in sea water fast enough to spare the algae? This stuff is like a hundred million years old already. I don't think we have that long to wait.

Some of the algae will be the ones eating it. And yes, they will survive. They may be displaced for a while, but they are so ubiquitous that you needn't worry about them.

The greatest danger of extinction is from endangered species, of which there are a fair number in the Gulf Coast. But the Mississippi River has been pumping organic material into the Gulf for millions of years. That is one reason why A) South Louisiana is a swamp and B) There is lots of life there. Because of the rich biomass and warm waters of the Gulf, the oil will biodegrade much faster than at the Exxon Valdez spill site. And as was mentioned earlier, what long term damage have you noticed from the 1979 Ixtoc oil spill? Yes, there are some, but it has hardly "destroyed all life" in the Gulf of Mexico.

Really, things are bad enough without this kind of hyperbole.

Spraying dispersant on it so that it will sink and catch the Loop Current was about the most idiotic response.

That's ridiculous. Most life is on or near the surface of the water. Though the oil may be spread by deep currents, it will cause less damage at the bottom.

The question is whether it will decompose faster than the toxic elements can be passed from one life form to another. You only have to wipe out two seasons' offspring of some species to wipe them out for good. Then it can all cascade.

And as I've mentioned, there are fewer "toxic elements" in oil than in other pollutants. But you would have to wipe out ALL of the offspring everywhere in the world in order to wipe out a species, and while it is large, the oil spill does not cover the whole world. As I say, the greatest danger is to geographically isolated species that are endangered and cannot leave. I don't deny it will depress populations of widespread species, maybe for many years, but not wipe them out.

 

[Thunder]

what is 100 million gallons of oil going to do to the world's oceans and wildlife?

are we not going to be able to go to the beach for 15 years?

 

[leftysergeant]

Some of the algae will be the ones eating it. And yes, they will survive. They may be displaced for a while, but they are so ubiquitous that you needn't worry about them.

A lot of algae are killed by contact with oil. And those submerged oil plumes kill any fish that get into them. There is the possibility that they will hit the spawning grounds of the Atlantic cod. Bye-bye to that already highly endangered species. There is also the possibility of a massive climate change just from the methane released by the spill. If the oceans get too warm, that's that.

But the Mississippi River has been pumping organic material into the Gulf for millions of years. That is one reason why A) South Louisiana is a swamp and B) There is lots of life there. Because of the rich biomass and warm waters of the Gulf, the oil will biodegrade much faster than at the Exxon Valdez spill site.

There are already dead zones in the Delta due to increased bio-loads, mostly pig manure.

And as was mentioned earlier, what long term damage have you noticed from the 1979 Ixtoc oil spill? Yes, there are some, but it has hardly "destroyed all life" in the Gulf of Mexico.

What species have rebounded in the Ixtoc area?

Most life is on or near the surface of the water.

And the oil is right on the surface where the larval forms of most crustacea spend their naupal stage.

Though the oil may be spread by deep currents, it will cause less damage at the bottom.

Putting dispersant in the oil puts oil over the corals. This kills them. Oysters and clams are dead where it hits.