Oil Leak? Nuke IT! so says russia...

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,948
126
in mother russia... yeah ok. I wouldn't be opposed to this idea but I think it should of been done last week as right now its fucked


http://trueslant.com/juliaioffe/2010/05/04/nuke-that-slick/

As BP prepares to lower a four-story, 70-ton dome over the oil gusher under the Gulf of Mexico, the Russians — the world’s biggest oil producers — have some advice for their American counterparts: nuke it.

Komsomoloskaya Pravda, the best-selling Russian daily, reports that in Soviet times such leaks were plugged with controlled nuclear blasts underground. The idea is simple, KP writes: “the underground explosion moves the rock, presses on it, and, in essence, squeezes the well’s channel.”

Yes! It’s so simple, in fact, that the Soviet Union, a major oil exporter, used this method five times to deal with petrocalamities. The first happened in Uzbekistan, on September 30, 1966 with a blast 1.5 times the strength of the Hiroshima bomb and at a depth of 1.5 kilometers. KP also notes that subterranean nuclear blasts were used as much as 169 times in the Soviet Union to accomplish fairly mundane tasks like creating underground storage spaces for gas or building canals.

These kinds of surgical strikes to shut off underground leaks, however, were carried out only five times, with the last one occuring in 1979. And there was only one misfire, near Kharkov, Ukraine, where a nuclear blast was unable to stanch a gas leak.

Happily, with a track record like that, “the chances of failure in the Gulf of Mexico are 20%,” KP writes. “The Americans could certainly risk it.”

via KP.ru, and the inimitable Kevin O’Flynn of The Moscow Times
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
Don't see what the problem would be.
They did underwater nuclear testing for years.

Its a shame that the hippies stop most of the solutions to todays problems.
 

Blackjack200

Lifer
May 28, 2007
15,995
1,688
126
(US to Russia): "That's your solution to everything"

Seriously though, wouldn't that cause a huge tsunami?
 

Kappo

Platinum Member
Aug 18, 2000
2,381
0
0
(US to Russia): "That's your solution to everything"

Seriously though, wouldn't that cause a huge tsunami?


I think the idea is "controlled", not "get all the nukes we have, Jim" with the theme song of whatever that Bruce Willis movie with the asteroid playing in the background :D
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,948
126
Don't see what the problem would be.
They did underwater nuclear testing for years.

Its a shame that the hippies stop most of the solutions to todays problems.

It's amazing to me that the world through your eyes is so black and white. Like you really spend your days dropping one liner hate messages about liberal hippie commies? Is this the life you wanted for yourself?
 

Wag

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
8,288
8
81
I think the idea is "controlled", not "get all the nukes we have, Jim" with the theme song of whatever that Bruce Willis movie with the asteroid playing in the background :D
Still not sure why they brought a machine gun to outer-space?
 

MrEgo

Senior member
Jan 17, 2003
874
0
76
What would the downside be of setting off a warhead in our coastal waters? I guess how does fallout behave underwater as opposed to above ground?
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Komsomoloskaya Pravda, the best-selling Russian daily, reports that in Soviet times such leaks were plugged with controlled nuclear blasts underground. The idea is simple, KP writes: “the underground explosion moves the rock, presses on it, and, in essence, squeezes the well’s channel.”

Yes! It’s so simple, in fact, that the Soviet Union, a major oil exporter, used this method five times to deal with petrocalamities. The first happened in Uzbekistan, on September 30, 1966 with a blast 1.5 times the strength of the Hiroshima bomb and at a depth of 1.5 kilometers. KP also notes that subterranean nuclear blasts were used as much as 169 times in the Soviet Union to accomplish fairly mundane tasks like creating underground storage spaces for gas or building canals.

These kinds of surgical strikes to shut off underground leaks, however, were carried out only five times, with the last one occuring in 1979. And there was only one misfire, near Kharkov, Ukraine, where a nuclear blast was unable to stanch a gas leak.

Happily, with a track record like that, “the chances of failure in the Gulf of Mexico are 20%,” KP writes. “The Americans could certainly risk it.”

via KP.ru, and the inimitable Kevin O’Flynn of The Moscow Times

This was my idea when it first happened.

Maybe I should be a Ruskie?
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,837
2,622
136
Just think of the giant mutant shrimp and oysters we would have in the future.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
At first I pictured an explosion with ground zero a thousand feet up. Then I read further and maybe it's not such a bad idea after all. I can't believe the soviets used nuke in general construction but then if anybody could have it was them.

YES YES. I love it. After she says it's the only way to be sure and he says "Fvckin eh!" just love it.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,715
6,266
126
Pravda

Let me just say I seriously doubt the Soviets used Nukes outside of Testing.
 

nonlnear

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2008
2,497
0
76
...once again proving that nuclear is the clear solution to the oil crisis!
 

EightySix Four

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2004
5,122
52
91
What would the downside be of setting off a warhead in our coastal waters? I guess how does fallout behave underwater as opposed to above ground?

They are actually talking about putting it under the ground, not just under the water.
 

ichy

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2006
6,940
8
81
What would the downside be of setting off a warhead in our coastal waters? I guess how does fallout behave underwater as opposed to above ground?

The fallout from a nuclear detonation at a shallow depth is VERY nasty, read up on what a tough time the US Navy had decontaminating ships after Operation Crossroads in the late 1940s. A deeper blast probably wouldn't be as bad.