[steve0]

I don’t want to hear it unless you take my anti-nuke hissy fit pansy identification test.
Indicate whether you support or oppose
1. Food irradiation: s o
2. Consideration of Nuke technology to deal with Potentially Hazardous Asteroids (PHAs): s o There are currently 1131 known PHAs.
3. American Nuclear Power: s o
4. Neutron bomb: s o
5. Nuclear powered deep space vehicles: s o

Thank you for your answers

[HiTech RedNeck]

In Smokin’ Joe yer talkin’ to a 30 year roughneck. That trumps pencil neck nuclear geex.

[Smokin' Joe]

Indicate whether you support or oppose 1. Food irradiation: s o 2. Consideration of Nuke technology to deal with Potentially Hazardous Asteroids (PHAs): s o There are currently 1131 known PHAs. 3. American Nuclear Power: s o 4. Neutron bomb: s o 5. Nuclear powered deep space vehicles: s o

I do not have objections to any of those programs.

I do have 30+ years in the oil patch as a Geologist, many of those years spent on wellsites, and a scattering of experience in the engineering end of the patch as well.

So I really don't care what you think of what I think of nukes, the oil industry is my area of specialization, and this is not a job for a nuke. The means in use have worked, without fail in getting wild wells under control. Nukes don't carry that same record, nor have the Russians had an exactly stellar environmental record of their own. Colleagues who have worked in Russia have related cases of what in the Gulf would be horror stories well beyond the present mess.

There is a very good chance that trying to nuke the well shut would only cause more problems, ones which are far harder to fix.