Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Sender
Ultimately, they may have to think of trying some sort of explosion down there if none of the well tampon schemes work.

That makes no sense to me. How the heck can you control explosives without making the problem worse?

If capping/siphoning doesn't work they will try new wells to relieve the pressure elsewhere. Unfortunately, that option will take months to implement.

62 posted on 05/30/2010 1:36:49 PM PDT by be-baw (still seeking)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies ]


To: be-baw

For one thing, an explosion at the wellhead would be “tamped” by a mile of seawater. That means all of the explosive force would be applied to the sea bed itself. They would have to ensure that a blast doesn’t just fracture the leak area and cause a bigger leak; it would have to be a decisive explosion. I know that many are saying a nuke would be a terrible idea, but it would in fact melt the silt and sand in the area of the leak into glass and compact the sea bed to the point that a continuing leak is unlikely. Any residual radioactive “fallout” would be heavy and would join the silt on the bottom, a mile underwater. I can’t imagine it would have any worse environmental effects than to let this gusher go on.


63 posted on 05/30/2010 1:43:56 PM PDT by Sender (It's never too late to be who you could have been.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies ]

To: be-baw

At least two relief wells are in process as we speak. It’s not an instant procedure, so those should be online sometime in July.


68 posted on 05/30/2010 3:39:53 PM PDT by Xenalyte (Yes, Chef!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson