next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
>& --Apple-Mail-1487-187386312 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Steve, The Soviets did use tactical nuclear weapons five times to plug "petrocalamities". There's a recent story on this in Komsomolskaya Pravda by Vladimir Lagovsky: http://www.kp.ru/daily/24482/640124/ The first time was on Sept 30, 1966 at the Urta-Bulak wellhead 80 km from Bukhara where a blown-out gas well had been burning for a year. This approach was used five times between then and 1979, four times successfully. In 1972 at a burning gas fountain in the Kharkov region, it not only failed to stop the blowout, but the nuclear mushroom cloud reached the surface (I don't know what the scale of the contamination was; the tactical nuke was rather small with a payload of only 4 kilotons). In any event, it was never (as far as I am aware) attempted under water (all the Soviet sites were on land), although Lagovsky in Komsomolskaya Pravda suggests the the USA could try this in the Gulf of Mexico as a last resort. In my view such an 'experiment' has the possibility of ratcheting the present disaster to become an outright cataclysm. As for BP, although they have announced that, if they are able to cap this wellhead they will never again try and open it again or drill at this site, I expect this applies to only a very small area and they will continue to exploit this same oilfield at other well sites. Were a underwater nuclear explosion were to be set off, who knows what repercussions this would have to other parts of the oil field. I hope we never find out. Best wishes, Chris On 26-May-10, at 12:26 AM, Steve Shaw wrote: > Related to this, a youngish supposedly expert commentator came on a > few days ago on a TV current affairs that I wasn't really watching > (so don't have the details -- was doing to something else). He > briefly got my attention though by claiming that a fix was eminently > possible, by following up on what 'the Russians' had done after they > too had had a total of 4 underwater oil blowouts of this type. He > said that the Russians had fixed each leak by exploding small > tactical nuclear devices to seal each well-head, and that this had > worked. > > He was asked the obvious question as to why BP hadn't considered > this or even mentioned it. He answered that if BP did do this, it > would completely remove the possibility that the company could > continue to drill in this area in the foreseeable future. If nuking > worked, their clearance to drill at the site would be revoked, and > their huge investment in drilling there would be lost completely (he > said their investment amounted to 'billions'). If on the other hand > BP managed to cap the leak some other way / to siphon/ and-or > continued to successfully extract some of the oil, they could > eventually finish drilling a relief hole. That way, they could get > to continue on at the site and preserve some of their investment. > The business and financial consequences for BP would be smaller than > with nuke option, so that's what they were pushing for. > > This sounded superficially plausible, but fantastic in the extreme. > It's hard to believe that word of several underwater nuclear > detonations (even if low-yield) would not have reached the western > press (or maybe I missed this?), and should certainly have been > detected by the test-ban seismic monitoring stations. After all, > word got out about nuclear reactors in junked Soviet-era submarines > leaking radioactivity into the sea up in Murmansk. So presumably > this nuke story is blogosphere fantasy/ urban legend, but it would > be interesting if anyone else has come across the same story line. > Does it have any legs at all? > Steve > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Quoting Brian Dalzell <aythya@nb.sympatico.ca>: >> Once in the Gulf Stream, the oil will be off the coast of NS in >> less than a month. If ever there was a time to use a small-yield >> nuclear device (as a tool, to cauterize the wound) this would seem >> to be it. Of course there would be lingering radiation, but that >> has to weighed against the total death of the Gulf of Mexico, and >> perhaps the world's oceans (which are of course, all totally >> connected). There is plenty of blame to go around here, not just >> BP, but all of humanity, to some degree. >> Christopher Majka Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada B3H 2G5 c.majka@ns.sympatico.ca It's true we're on the wrong track, but we're compensating for this short-coming by accelerating. - Stanislav Lec --Apple-Mail-1487-187386312 Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <html><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; = -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Hi = Steve,<div><br></div><div>The Soviets did use tactical nuclear weapons = five times to plug "petrocalamities". There's a recent story = on this in Komsomolskaya Pravda by Vladimir Lagovsky:<br><br><a = href=3D"http://www.kp.ru/daily/24482/640124/">http://www.kp.ru/daily/24482= /640124/</a><br><div><br></div><div>The first time was on Sept 30, 1966 = at the Urta-Bulak wellhead 80 km from Bukhara where a blown-out gas well = had been burning for a year. This approach was used five times between = then and 1979, four times successfully. In 1972 at a burning gas = fountain in the Kharkov region, it not only failed to stop the blowout, = but the nuclear mushroom cloud reached the surface (I don't know what = the scale of the contamination was; the tactical nuke was rather small = with a payload of only 4 kilotons).</div><div><br></div><div>In any = event, it was never (as far as I am aware) attempted under water (all = the Soviet sites were on land), although Lagovsky = in Komsomolskaya Pravda suggests the the USA could try this in the = Gulf of Mexico as a last resort. In my view such an 'experiment' = has the possibility of ratcheting the present disaster to become an = outright cataclysm. </div><div><br></div><div>As for BP, although = they have announced that, if they are able to cap this wellhead they = will never again try and open it again or drill at this site, I expect = this applies to only a very small area and they will continue to exploit = this same oilfield at other well sites. Were a underwater nuclear = explosion were to be set off, who knows what repercussions this would = have to other parts