I was chatting with an old college chum who Started his career working on Oil rigs...

[Froward69]

the subject turned to the Oil "spill" in the Gulf. he was incensed as the Leak continues unabated. He pointed out to me that when an Oil well catches fire on the surface we use explosives to put it out. (concussion cutting off oxygen to the fire and thus easy to cap.)Or if the flow of the Oil is too great to cap. use another explosion to collapse the well hole.

This could be done in the gulf.

He pointed out to me that all the "attempts" so far to "stop" the leak are about reclaiming the oil and keeping the well usable... not really about actually stopping the flow of OIL. (the environment be dammed)

clearly if the idea were to stop the blowout and saving the gulf coasts then a detonation next to the hole would collapse the well and stop the flow would have been attempted by now.

yet all current attempts being done are aimed at preserving the well for future use. NOT aimed at quickly stopping the flow of Oil into the gulf immediately.

granted the Idea of detonating the well comes with its own risks. (fire is not one of them at depth) like not doing it correctly and increasing the flow. As my friend pointed out, at the depth of the water the explosion would be concentrated towards collapsing the well and thus sealing off the well.
in his words "the pressures at depth should actually make detonating the well head and collapsing the hole easier than at the surface." as well as "the Russians suggested doing this like they themselves have done with small nukes in similar situations"

Now we do not need to use Nukes to produce a blast large enough. But the Idea is not that far fetched.

of course the well would be rendered useless and unable to be exploited in the future. But the damage to the gulf ecosystem would be kept to the damage already done.

Yes this seems harebrained, we had only two beers apiece by the time we discussed this issue. And It makes total sense to me even now that I am sober.

[flamingdem]

1. They may end up having to try that, arrogant and irresponsible as they are

it does sound risky.

[zipplewrath]

2. Not sure this is true

The pressure of the material (not just oil) coming out of that well is VERY high, specifically because it is so deep. Someone would have to figure out if collapsing the hole would work, and the risk if it did not would be VERY high. One would also have to figure out how to get the explosives in the correct position.

[Strelnikov_]

42. Fully agree.

Only two proven ways:

1) Top kill - new BOP, not feasible due to depth in water. Therefore attempt partial kill by 'top hat' (collecting what is coming out) or 'junk shot' (slowly close the leak with aggregation of polymeric substances).

2) Bottom kill - drill into bore and plug w/ cement.

[IDemo]

48. I have read in a few places: 15 to 20 thousand psi at the leak

and much higher than that - 165 to 170k within the field itself?

[dkf]

3. First time I've heard this idea.

Makes you wonder what else they aren't telling us.

[madinmaryland]

4. I had wondered why that was not an option either. An explosion

large enough ought to cause enough damage to clog and possibly close off the well.

[ensho]

5. I've wondered why they have exploded it

but thought maybe at that depth it was hard to do or something.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

6. Ah, it's ALL about the money...

[annabanana]

7. DAMN!!.. If this is in fact, the case...heads should roll

And they should roll right down the Street in Washington and NY where everyone can see them.

[G_j]

14. yes, I want to learn more about this

this discussion has been missing in the media.

[Turbineguy]

8. Well, they've probably spent

about $100 million on this hole. Of course, they did save that $500,000 by not using the extra redundancy. But yes, they are most likely trying to save the situation, especially as this hole will likely go about 60 times over budget.

[Warpy]

9. It's been my understanding that a slant well has to be drilled

in order to place the explosives near enough to the present well to collapse it. You just can't blast from the top down, it just gives you a bigger hole.

However, yes, I'm wondering if that cofferdam might have been adequate to contain the leak even if there was no way to reclaim the oil.

[hunter]

10. You are probably right. They paid a lot of money for this hole.

:grr:

[jdlh8894]

11. First of all , there is no fire @ the wellhead

2nd- there is NO oxygen @5,000 feet
3rd- IMO if they set off a blast(no matter what size) @ that depth,the repercussions would be devastating!

[Froward69]

13. had you read my post you would realize

1)too much water to have a fire
2)refer to #1 as well as modern explosives have Oxygen built in.
3)could be devastating if done without some forethought. yet at 5,000 feet of water the pressures above the explosion would hold the blast at the bottom. or sub surface.

My friend pointed out that another hole say 10 feet next to the gushing well drilled to 200 feet depth. then detonated would be enough to collapse the existing gusher hole.

[jdlh8894]

22. An explosion @200 ft under the surface

might close the well.However,it could possibly set plates in motion and cause worse problems than we have now.

[Froward69]

28. Atomic Blasts do not move

earths tectonic plates... so a blast crushing a oil well hole that is 12 inches wide. would not be anywhere near large enough to move contents, create earthquakes Nor produce tsunamis.

on edit/ the well head is 5,000 BELOW the surface of the gulf. the oil pocket itself is another 18,000 feet below that.

wrap your head around what is really happening.

[jdlh8894]

34. "would not be anywhere near large enough to move contents"

then what is going to close the wellhead if it is not "contents"?

[Froward69]

36. typo

contents = continents

the "contents" of the bottom could easily be pushed via explosion. to collapse the existing hole.

[jdlh8894]

39. What is the deepest you have been under water?

Do you know anything about physics? Or explosions? A torpedo is only good @ a certain depth.Too deep, the pressure of the water takes over. @ a mile the pressure is appox. 120,000 per sq/in.

[Froward69]

43. With SCUBA tanks or in a submarine?

I can't say How deep In a Sub.
However I can say that plastic explosives like C-4 can be detonated deeper (Under greater pressure) than needed here. Also the US NAVY is Good at this sort of thing.

"Under Water Demolition" is a science that goes back to before WWII.

[jdlh8894]

44. Maybe that's why those dolfins washed ashore?

Explosives on noses? LMFAO !!!!!

[Froward69]

45. Seriously

you haven't a clue do ya?

go pound oil soaked sand into Sarah Palins syphilitic cavernous baby maker...

[DemReadingDU]

12. How much oil remains down in that well!

as compared to the amount that can be skimmed? At what point is it cheaper to let the oil continue to leak and be skimmed (and ruin the wildlife/coasts/jobs), than it is worth pumping out whatever remains from that well?

edit: There has to be a point when it gets too expensive to continue the oil leaking from this well, than to be able to re-use the well in the future.

[nenagh]

15. Amazingly I've nearly given up reading DU these days

Because I'm so interested in reading "The Oil Drum" blog..

As a blog it's a bit difficult to follow.. but it's full of technical info and insights and info from people used to drilling, and geologists ets...

Most consider that an explosion, if it were possible, would be so very risky..

Anyone interested might have a look..

[Froward69]

17. where?

Link?

[nenagh]

32. Sorry, I'm too stunned to be able to link...

but I Google it.. "The Oil Drum".. hope you find some of it interesting...

*blush*

[IDemo]

49. here->

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6407

[ensho]

19. thanks for clearing up my wondering

exposion bad idea

[Kablooie]

16. The oil is 3 miles below the ocean bottom. Seems very feasible to close the pipe that way.

[Froward69]

20. exactly!

a hole next to the blowout would only need to be 1000 feet deep. then detonated, capping the gusher.

[Kablooie]

25. Their other idea of drilling another hole for several months is another way to recover the well.

[Froward69]

29. exactly!

the idea to cap the gusher as fast as possible seems of no importance. Only recouping the Oil and saving the well.

[adamuu]

18. That's what I suspected. Thanks for the post. n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

21. Doesn't make a lot of sense.

The best idea currently floating around (and the only realistic one from the beginning) has been to drill new holes to relieve the pressure. That's what they're working on now (it takes months). If they blew the hole with conventional explosives, they could still drill new holes to reclaim the oil. So the idea that they're not blowing it up because they want to reclaim it doesn't really stand up.

[Froward69]

24. yes the

the relief hole has been started from quite a distance away. This could be continued. yet stopping the flow NOW is paramount.
Drilling adjacent and blasting would be faster. although it would render the existing hole useless. that's my point. We/they know where the Oil is. Actually stopping the flow Now is not considered. only not having to re-drill that hole seems paramount.

[havocmom]

23. Thank you for sharing his info. It helps me understand the explosion as fix method.

And yeah, it does seem all efforts (and expense) is just to protect BP's investment in that bungled hole. The expense is much more than dollars spend.

If anyone doubts the big corporate giants rule the world, they need to really think about this illustration of what is valued and what is not.

[woodsprite]

26. I told hubby today that Obama needs to tell BP they get 3 days

to stop or control the flow or the government will take the well over and consult the Russians on how to go about this. They've had way too long to 'try' to figure this out on their own. Losing the use of that well is the cost of stupid people doing greedy business, when it could have been prevented. The ocean and ecosystem touches everyone, so it's a crime to all.

[Froward69]

27. Agreed!

[Kablooie]

31. But Obama must agree that saving the well is more important than the environment.

or else he would have demanded something like your proposal.

The fact he hasn't indicates he agrees that the well's future is most important thing.

[Froward69]

33. I hate to admit it

but I must agree with you.

I do not have the dollar amount associated with any ideas. but the environmental health of the gulf clearly has taken a back seat to the expense of drilling a new hole.

As damages are capped it must be less expensive to let the environmental damage happen, than it would be to drill a new hole.
as we know now $500,000 for one more additional backup to prevent this was too expensive to begin with.

[woodsprite]

37. He needs to be made to understand that the environment is priceless,

as well as all those fishermen, oystermen, charter boat operators, etc. out of work. Tourism is taking a hit too, and it's no where near as bad as it's going to get. I talked to my MIL in Rotonda West, FL. She said people are canceling reservations but they have no oil on their shores yet. In 4 weeks, I'll be down there with her, so I'll know first hand.

[fascisthunter]

30. greed is a mental illness when it get's to this point of absurdity and damage

[havocmom]

40. Yep. And there is way too much mental illness in corporate board rooms

[havocmom]

41. Yep. And there is way too much mental illness in corporate board rooms

[TheKentuckian]

35. Trying to keep the oil is probably a major consideration

I figure there has to be some chemical compound that would turn the whole mess into jelly they could inject into the hole if they are really determined to end the oil eruption. Of course, I'm no chemist and am purely speculating but you have to figure with what we know about reactions and making plastics that something along those lines could be created.

[lumberjack_jeff]

38. I'm reaching the same conclusion.

And the fact that the government hasn't moved in with engineers to get this shut down is troublesome.

[B Calm]

46. From what I understand, the water pressure at that depth would require

an atomic bomb to collapse the well and stop the flow.

[progressoid]

47. Huh? Would this involve Bruce Willis and Ben Affleck?

:crazy:

Maybe I need a couple more beers to get the logic behind this.