5 ms·

This is a good point, but still, I'm sure a "properly sized" explosive that wasn't nuclear could do the trick too. I'm ignorant here: if a nuclear device were t

by Ixiaus 16y ago

This is a good point, but still, I'm sure a "properly sized" explosive that wasn't nuclear could do the trick too. I'm ignorant here: if a nuclear device were to be used wouldn't it irradiate the surrounding water? Wouldn't fallout plumes in the ocean would be more destructive than oil plumes? Or do you think it would be deep enough in the collapsed well to be insulated? Do I have any of this wrong? Also, regardless of the explosive used, isn't there a chance it could ignite the reservoir?

streety 16y ago
My understanding was the explosive was going to be put down the well or buried in a second well close to the leaking well. Nuclear bombs are more compact, for equivalent yield, than chemical explosives which is why I assumed they were being proposed. As for your final point a fire needs heat, fuel and oxidiser. The oxidiser should be absent so no fire.
stratomorph 16y ago
A "properly sized" conventional explosive would be impractically enormous: nukes are measured in kiloton or megaton yields. There is no way to effectively detonate (say) twenty million pounds of conventional explosives all at once, never mind the non-trivial challenge of emplacing that amount. As I understand it, you'd place it below the sea floor, into the well, so the surrounding water would be shielded by all the rock above the blast site. For the same reason, there would be no fallout plumes, because all that solid mass would prevent the newly-created radioactive material from going anywhere. And it can't ignite the reservoir, because there's no oxygen to burn down there. All that said, it's still probably not a good idea. Hopefully it doesn't become the only idea.
- Ixiaus 16y ago
  An excellent point about oxygen, that had slipped my mind.
gnaritas 16y ago
Conventional explosives require oxygen to burn, this things a mile under water, it ain't going to happen. Nukes don't require oxygen.

by Ixiaus 16y ago

streety 16y ago

My understanding was the explosive was going to be put down the well or buried in a second well close to the leaking well. Nuclear bombs are more compact, for equivalent yield, than chemical explosives which is why I assumed they were being proposed. As for your final point a fire needs heat, fuel and oxidiser. The oxidiser should be absent so no fire.

stratomorph 16y ago

A "properly sized" conventional explosive would be impractically enormous: nukes are measured in kiloton or megaton yields. There is no way to effectively detonate (say) twenty million pounds of conventional explosives all at once, never mind the non-trivial challenge of emplacing that amount. As I understand it, you'd place it below the sea floor, into the well, so the surrounding water would be shielded by all the rock above the blast site. For the same reason, there would be no fallout plumes, because all that solid mass would prevent the newly-created radioactive material from going anywhere. And it can't ignite the reservoir, because there's no oxygen to burn down there. All that said, it's still probably not a good idea. Hopefully it doesn't become the only idea.

Ixiaus 16y ago
An excellent point about oxygen, that had slipped my mind.

gnaritas 16y ago

Conventional explosives require oxygen to burn, this things a mile under water, it ain't going to happen. Nukes don't require oxygen.