Slashdot Mirror


Obama Sends Nuclear Experts To Tackle BP Oil Spill

An anonymous reader writes "The US has sent a team of nuclear physicists to help BP plug the 'catastrophic' flow of oil into the Gulf of Mexico from its leaking Deepwater Horizon well, as the Obama administration becomes frustrated with the oil giant's inability to control the situation. The five-man team — which includes a man who helped develop the first hydrogen bomb in the 1950s — is the brainchild of Steven Chu, President Obama's Energy Secretary." Let's hope this doesn't mean they actually try the nuclear option. In other offshore drilling news, reader mygoditsfullofdoom informs us that a Venezuelan gas rig has sunk in the Caribbean (with no loss of life). This one is being laid at the feet of Venezuela's state oil company PDVSA, which hasn't exactly been regarded as uber-competent "after President Hugo Chavez fired half the company's managers and senior engineers following a 2002 strike."

71 of 389 comments (clear)

  1. The Nuclear Experts will use the LHC... by jayveekay · · Score: 3, Funny

    They are planning to use the LHC to create a small black hole and drop it into the gusher to suck up all the oil.

    I think that would silence the critics of both the LHC, the oil drilling industry, and Apple's restrictive rules about apps!

    1. Re:The Nuclear Experts will use the LHC... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2, Funny

      LHC? Leaking Hydrocarbon Caulker?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:The Nuclear Experts will use the LHC... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      BP isn't American either. Sorry to burst your pendantasy?

    3. Re:The Nuclear Experts will use the LHC... by spongman · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hmmm... A vertical shaft containing oil. Isn't that already a blackhole?

    4. Re:The Nuclear Experts will use the LHC... by eclectro · · Score: 3, Funny

      create a small black hole and drop it into the gusher to suck up all the oil.

      First contact with aliens: "Hey idiots, here's your oil back!!"

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
  2. Why the bias? by pongo000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Let's hope this doesn't mean they actually try the nuclear option.

    Thanks for the environmental message. A little late for that, don't you think?

    At this point, a small controlled nuclear explosion to simply fuse the entire mass together into a big piece of molten glass and metal might be what's needed.

    1. Re:Why the bias? by ericrost · · Score: 4, Insightful

      http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/05/11/1440206/Oil-Leak-Could-Be-Stopped-With-a-Nuke?from=rss

      Actually, there is, the soviets have used this method five times. Next objection?

    2. Re:Why the bias? by Knuckles · · Score: 2, Informative

      This was a Pravda article. Pravda makes the National Enquirer look like a quality paper.

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    3. Re:Why the bias? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      20% failure rate. next question?

  3. It's different when it's someone else! by Platinum+Dragon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When Reagan broke the ATC union, he was standing up to the Big Bad Union. When Chavez did it, he was being an autocratic commie.

    --

    Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
    1. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      When Reagan broke the ATC union, he was standing up to the Big Bad Union. When Chavez did it, he was being an autocratic commie.

      Probably because Chavez IS an autocratic commie.

      One who is driving Venezuela into the ground, by the way.

      Venezuela electricity shortage

      Venezueala oil production decline

      Venezuelan inflation

    2. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by Spewns · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When Reagan broke the ATC union, he was standing up to the Big Bad Union. When Chavez did it, he was being an autocratic commie.

      Kind of like when the US bombs someone, they're being heroes, but if anyone tries to bomb the US, they're being terrorists.

    3. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by FuckingNickName · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I see your crushing, err, Google search and raise you an article by Krugman on Reagan's legacy.

    4. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by DesScorp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When Reagan broke the ATC union, he was standing up to the Big Bad Union. When Chavez did it, he was being an autocratic commie.

      When Reagan broke PATCO, A) he had overwhelming support from the public, which was tired of constant strikes and exhorbitant demands, and B) Reagan made sure experienced AC's were in place so safety was maintained.

      Chavez did it because they dared oppose him, and like a Stalinist goon, he chased off all the smart and talented people without replacing them with other smart and talented people. Comparing the two situations is either blind union fanboyism, or silly cheerleading for Chavez.

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    5. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wow, when it comes to economics, Reagan may have been wrong, but Chavez is in another world of wrongness. Reagan tried some experiments that turned out bad, Chavez is hitting his head against the wall that says "don't do this!"

      The clearest, most obvious contrast is with inflation. Reagan knew it was a bad thing, and kept it low. Chavez embraces it (prints more money and then threatens anyone who dares to raise prices). This is such an obvious mistake that even high school students understand it. At least Reagan got that right.

      --
      Qxe4
    6. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Reagan tried some experiments that turned out bad

      That's the biggest understatement since Noah said "It looks like rain." And I'd say that those weren't experiments at all, but a concerted effort to sink the entire safety net, not to mention turn around the increasing wealth of the working and middle class that had been going on since WWII. Not to mention arming Iran.

      "End the Cold War" you say? No, he just transformed it into the Forever War on Terror.

      We're just now starting to see the some of the full effects of the virus Reagan injected into our system. May he burn in Hell.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    7. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by Golias · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When it comes to the two-term administrations of Eisenhower, Reagan, and Clinton, the first question one must ask any critic is, "what didn't you like, the peace or the prosperity?"

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    8. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by Platinum+Dragon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm sure Reagan would have tolerated PATCO and airport managers halting service to demand early elections seven months after a coup attempt.

      --

      Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
    9. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by penix1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Point of fact, no nation has ever bombed us.

      And I bet you can't identify the US on a globe either. Go back to school and pay attention to your history teacher when they cover Pearl Harbor. Here's a hint: Hawaii is one of the fifty states and was one in 1942. Japan most certainly did bomb the US when they sank our pacific Fleet. Just what do you think made the Arizona (among others) blow up?

      And I don't count the WTC terrorist attacks as a bombing. More like a human guided missile than a bombing.

      --
      This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
    10. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by tomhuxley · · Score: 3, Informative

      ::pssttt:: it's a bit quibbly but Hawaii was a territory back then .... it became a state in 1959. There were small bombarding incidents on the mainland in WW2 too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacks_on_North_America_during_World_War_II#Japanese_operations

    11. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by jbengt · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "Reagan's greatest tinkerer", I don't buy, but Volker is one of Obama's advisors because he was head of the Federal Reserve during pretty tough economic times.
      By the way, Volker was appointed by Carter, and attacked inflation pretty aggressively. As a consequence,, unemployment worsened and we had a recession. Still, he stuck to his guns and Reagan benefited when inflation was subdued and the inevitable recovery happened about two or three years into Reagan's first term.

    12. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Reagan made sure experienced AC's were in place so safety was maintained."

      Oh REALLY ?

      I was almost killed during that period, when an incompetent controller cleared two aircraft to
      land on the same runway AT THE SAME TIME. I was flying one of those two aircraft, and
      because I WAS paying attention, several people weren't killed in a midair collision.

      You obviously are not a pilot. And you don't know what the fuck you are writing about
      when you write that Reagan "made sure experienced AC's were in place so safety was maintained".

      SHUT THE FUCK UP and quit spewing bullshit when you have no real knowledge of the subject,
      you ignorant cocksucker.

    13. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by DesScorp · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Um, which overwhelming support are you talking about, the general public or the limited public that used and ran the airlines?"

      Both: Reagan's support on this issue in public polls topped 60 percent.

      Even though it's illegal for a Federal worker to strike (a condition of Congress allowing Federal unionization in the fist place), numerous federal unions did it anyway in the late 70's. It wasn't Reagan that started to bust the fed unions; it was Carter. There were 22 strikes by fed unions in the late 70's, and the public was sick of them. And then PATCO threatened the biggest strike of all... 3/4's of their members... during the busiest travel period of the season. The public was sick of it.

      Exorbitant demands, they were striking to have the already budgeted money released to upgrade the towers instead of hiding the deficit and relief for jobs that were rapidly being overloaded to the point of failure.

      They were asking for an across the board 10,000 dollar raise per member, and they already had wages well above the national average. They were also demanding a 32 hour work week and full retirement after 20 years. This is exorbitant, and it killed whatever public sympathy they ever had.

      "How many major plane crashes were there in the U.S. after the controller firings during the 1980's? How many people died? '

      Accident rates didnt' change, much to the chagrin of PATCO, whose members sometimes openly hoped for "aluminum rain" after their firing. The measures that the FAA took... puting supervisors back on duty, bringing in military ATC's, limiting flights during peak hours temporarily while training new controllers... kept the accident rate the same. The following year, when all of the replacement ATC's were in place, the FAA decertified PATCO, with wide public support.

      "Reagan blew it and like everything else he did never took responsibility for it."

      Obviously, America didn't agree. In 1984, Reagan carried every state except for Minnesota. Mondale got a grand total of 13 electoral votes.

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    14. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nagasaki. Hiroshima.

      You should try to recall a little harder.

    15. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by bstender · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Reagan sure as hell wasn't perfect, but the economy grew significantly during his term"

      Under Reagan's facile gaze, the economy was sent into the worst* recession in our lifetime. It did then grow, _modestly_, from the hole that it was cast into, but it wasn't until the small business incentives under Clinton that the ice broke. I would go further and say that the economy has never recovered fully from those years.

      You may be making a common mistake of pointing to certain specious statistics describing the "economy" of the top 2% of tax-payers, in which case it was indeed awesome.

      (*excepting Bush's current clusterfuck, following similar pirate-policy)

      --
      look sig is kool
    16. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by Rocketship+Underpant · · Score: 4, Informative

      Peace? You are truly a clueless American. No one else would consider those to be peaceful presidencies.

      Eisenhower oversaw the final months of the Korean War and got the US military involved in Vietnam. Still, he was the best of the three.

      Reagon participated in El Salvador's violent civil war, got militarily involved in Lebanon, invaded Grenada, pushed Honduras towards war with Nicaragua, bombed Libya, and attacked Iranian oil platforms.

      Clinton bombed Iraq (repeatedly), Bosnia, Afghanistan, Sudan, and Serbia.

      --
      He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
    17. Re:It's different when it's someone else! by Smauler · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Japanese actually did bomb mainland USA with fire balloons, albeit with very little military effect. There were also other attempts.

  4. Re:"Let's hope" by eastlight_jim · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I've always liked the phrase "In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is". I think it's rather pertinent here!

  5. yes, yes he could by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Lets face it, this is the US way. I remember countless jokes about the Mir space station that after years of faithful service was retired while the space shuttle was blowing up all over the place. When you can't be proud of your own stuff, ridicule what others do. It works.

    The Venezuela incident seems without side effect so far, and the firing of all the engineers and directors? Well, BP didn't and that one blew up... so what is the relation? But no worry, logic has nothing to do with propaganda.

    What do you expect from a country where fox-news is not a contradiction in terms?

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:yes, yes he could by maxume · · Score: 2, Informative

      Only 1 shuttle exploded before Mir was deorbited, and that happened before space-side construction of Mir had even begun.

      Also, calling a hyphenated word a contradiction in terms is pretty bad style.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    2. Re:yes, yes he could by FuckingNickName · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Jokes would happen during and after recent retirement, being 2001 (remembering that we're talking space science timescales, not Internet meme timescales). By the third week of 2003, 40% of US space shuttles had been destroyed, even while old timers were still tediously proclaiming US victory over the evil Reds.

      SFC would have had a stronger argument if he'd mentioned technical and bureaucratic US space programme fuck-ups in general, rather than just the shuttle... no-one said it was easy, but you don't deserve any slack when you start claiming that you're better than everyone else.

    3. Re:yes, yes he could by Platinum+Dragon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't even think there's a need for hyperbole on this (my, uh, previous post aside). Shuttle and Mir both worked, both developed problems and dangerous conditions developed over time. The only difference is which side of which border they were developed on, and national origin is a piss-poor standard upon which to judge the overall success of a project or decision, or even the ethics underlying such.

      Canning the upper echelon of staff for political reasons rarely, if ever, has good results (I suspect PDVSA had some difficulty replacing that many people with that much experience). Neither does going cheap on the failsafe gear and deciding regulations don't really need to be followed that closely when dealing with complicated, ecologically-significant projects.

      --

      Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
  6. Re:Nuclear physicists? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Funny

    The people in charge were obviously told that in order to fix a problem of such scale, experts with new clear perspective were needed.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  7. Blowing shit up by retech · · Score: 4, Funny

    Blowing something up is always the best option. Detonating a large fuel reserve to stop it from leaking makes perfect sense to me. Absolutely nothing to worry about.

    1. Re:Blowing shit up by The+Snowman · · Score: 2, Funny

      One of the most widely used methods of putting out oil well fires is to detonate dynamite in the well fire. The explosion has the effect of both consuming oxygen as well as blowing oxygen away from the fire.

      Not only is this well not on fire, it is underwater. Last time I checked, water not only doesn't burn, it actually puts out fires.

      --
      24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
  8. why not nuclear? by jipn4 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm sorry, but I don't see a big problem with the "nuclear option". Underground nuclear explosions have been used quite a bit and they are not a significant radiation hazard. The geology of the area is presumably also fairly well understood. I wonder, though, if they even need a nuclear bomb. The drill hole is tiny compared to the 3 miles of rock it goes through. I would think even a conventional explosive placed some distance to the drill hole about a mile or so down into the rock might be enough to shift the rock and seal it off with little risk of making things worse. In any case, it's good to see people besides BP employees are on the case.

    1. Re:why not nuclear? by ffreeloader · · Score: 2, Funny

      Actually, I think stuffing entire Utah town down that hole would stop the leak, and it wouldn't require any oxygen. We could remove all humans first.

      --
      "while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
    2. Re:why not nuclear? by wkcole · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm sorry, but I don't see a big problem with the "nuclear option".

      Look more closely...

      Underground nuclear explosions have been used quite a bit and they are not a significant radiation hazard. The geology of the area is presumably also fairly well understood.

      Understanding the geology (which is put in question by the accident) is necessary but not sufficient. Sites for underground nuclear tests are not simply understood, they are selected and prepared. They are not selected under a mile of water, and test chambers are not prepared by connecting them to large high-pressure oil and gas deposits.

      I wonder, though, if they even need a nuclear bomb. The drill hole is tiny compared to the 3 miles of rock it goes through. I would think even a conventional explosive placed some distance to the drill hole about a mile or so down into the rock might be enough to shift the rock and seal it off with little risk of making things worse.

      The risk of making things worse is quite real. The root cause of the accident according to some reports was the destabilization of an unrecognized clathrate layer, and setting off a large explosion in that sort of formation would be a crapshoot. Even if the clathrate is a small localized issue, the concept of trying to plug the hole by shattering the cap layer around it carries the risk of trading one pipe of known characteristics in a known location for a giant sieve leaking more gas and oil from a myriad of unknown random seep points.

      There isn't much relevant history to look at for troubleshooting accidents like this one but in general, throwing high-energy chaos at a piece of complex engineering gone wrong is a tactical class that has a vanishingly small success rate. .

    3. Re:why not nuclear? by el_munkie · · Score: 2, Informative

      Methane is quite harmless in the absence of an oxidizer. As it is underwater.

  9. Re:Obama is a genius!!! by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The Russians also thought that this would work.

    They don't exactly have a flawless track-record when it comes to this sort of thing.

    --
    "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
  10. Re:Nuclear physicists? by maxume · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No.

    There are dozens or hundreds of industry people working to solve/address the problem (at a minimum, they are working on the relief well, which has a very high probability of success, it will just take 2 months to complete).

    These 5 people had a meeting where they were briefed in on the specifics of the problem.

    Corruption and lack of imagination are not the problem, the sheer difficulty of the situation they have put themselves into is the problem.

    --
    Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  11. Re:Obama is a genius!!! by amRadioHed · · Score: 2, Informative

    It stopped the methane from leaking into our atmosphere, so it did work.

    --
    We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
  12. Re:Why would the nuclear option be bad? by RockoTDF · · Score: 5, Funny

    I think we should do it just so that some accountant at BP has to enter "Cost of nuclear warhead" into their excel spreadsheet. At least that way we can get a laugh out of this.

    --
    There is more to science than physics!

    www.iomalfunction.blogspot.com
  13. Re:BP's fucked.. but look, over there, a communist by FuckingNickName · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Pop quiz:

    Britain declared war on Germany ___ days after the German invasion of Poland.

    Venezuela has invaded ___ allies of the US.

  14. Bad reporting by Clsid · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I am in Venezuela and can tell you that the rig incident in Venezuela was handled much more gracefully than what they show in that link. They managed to break the main pipe and close it before the platform leaned over. The captain of the platform, who is American by the way, was congratulated by Chavez in public TV since he stayed until the very last moment on the platform, only jumping into the water after the platform was over a 45 degree inclination angle. The Venezuelan navy also did a pretty good by-the-book rescue operation, so I don't know why is there so much negativity in the reports I see in the links posted. As far as the problem in the US, I kind of disagree bringing a nuclear physicist to do what can probably be solved by an emergency contract with the Norwegians, by far the best of the world in that field. But I guess when there are no tried solutions, a good idea counts no matter where it comes from.

    1. Re:Bad reporting by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Let me guess, you heard about it on one of the official Venezuelan TV channels? The article doesn't say that it was worse than the BP leak, it just says that sort of thing is becoming more common in Venezuela. Relevant quote:

      After an explosion in 2005 killed five workers at PDVSA's 955,000 barrel per day Paraguana Refining Complex -- one of the biggest refinery complexes in the world -- the manager conceded that the frequency of fires, blasts and oil leaks had almost doubled compared with the previous year.

      Not good.

      --
      Qxe4
    2. Re:Bad reporting by compro01 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And the Texas City refinery explosion also happened that same year and killed 15.

      Neither BP nor PDVSA look to be doing a great job.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  15. Re:Nuclear physicists? by thegarbz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Recruiting a team from an unrelated field is quite different from them doing anything bloody useful.

    How is it that you translate the fact that no one has every tried to plug a leak like this in these depths to mean the oil industry is corrupted?

    Or do you think BP's shareholders would be contempt with standing around and doing nothing while millions are wiped off the company's value?

  16. Re:"Let's hope" by bug1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    +whatcouldpossiblygowrong

    Using nukes will make it a small problem for a long term rather than a big problem for a small time.

    Sounds like something are shortsighted business and political leaders would be interested in.

    Oh yea, and +whatcouldpossiblygowrong

  17. risk and reward by fermion · · Score: 4, Insightful
    My main problem with this is that BP and Transocean seem to be more conerned about limiting liability than solving the problem. BP doesn't seem to be interested in releasing video so the experts don't know if they are dealing with a situation that is 5 or 5 million barrels a day. For planning such a number is important. Transocean is in court trying to claim it is a cruise line so that it can cap liability to a few tens of million. Of course most of BP actions are intended to limit charges of negligence so they can limit liability to $75 million. Total exposure for both companies if all the effort succeed is $100 million.

    So the oil still flows, and the government has to step in for what should be a problem solved by the private sector that has claimed they are more than capable of regulating themselves. The private businesses that are destroyed from Louisiana to Florida due to BP negligence will be limited to fighting over the $75 million dollars, hardly enough when all your memorial weekeend guests have cancelled.

    Here is the thing. I am one of the few people not in the oil industry that will actively defend the high price of gasoline, and even say it go higher. Oil production is risky, and the rewards should be commiserate. What I find maddening is that when the risk does manifest, the executives claim they have no money to pay for liabiliy. BP has made a profit of 5.5 billion this quarter. It is only natural that all that is forfiet to pay for the accident. That is how the free market works. As long as one is efficient and keeps one nose clean, one can make a huge profit. On big mistake an put one out of business. We should not be making laws to protect incompetent firms, any more than we should have laws to protect incompetent employees.

    And for those who think there is a greater competency issue in the Venezuela explosion, remember that BP is responsible for the death of 11 good people, while no one died in the Venezuela situation. If you think that killing people is competent, something is wrong.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
  18. Re:Nuclear physicists? by Artifakt · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There's at least three "The Problem"s here.

    1. Stopping the existing leak.
    2. Cleanup and damage mitigation.
    3. Figuring out what is and isn't reasonable to attempt for oil drilling in the future.

    Maybe there's a meta-problem, which is that people will eventually do one, but then act like two is solved as well, and not even bother to address three.

    --
    Who is John Cabal?
  19. Re:BP's fucked.. but look, over there, a communist by FuckingNickName · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Contrast this with South America, which is populated by 3 types of people: un-educated peasants, druglords, and warlords.

    Oh, at least 4! You're forgetting the resident agents of the appropriate US government department who've spent the past 50+ years trying to keep them that way.

  20. I'm not an expert but by BudAaron · · Score: 2, Informative

    I spent a number of years as part of a team testing nuclear devices. They could be used as Russia has done to cut this off but at a mile deep I'd be worried to death about the potential for unexpected side effects. It may be the only option we have given the current failures but the chance of a catastrophic failure is far more likely than the LHC producing a large black hole.

    1. Re:I'm not an expert but by gay358 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think that there are at least two things that might make using nuclear bomb difficult in this case:

      1) Water pressure is high because the sea is so deep. Ordinary nuclear device probably won't work at that kind of pressure and needs thick protective case, which makes the diameter of the bomb even larger.

      2) In order to prevent radioactive leak, the bomb should be detonated deep underground. But it is not easy to dig several hundreds of meters deep well, when the sea depth is 1.5 kilometers. They could use oil drilling equipment to do this, but even that would take some time and the diameter of the well might not be enough for the nuclear device.

  21. Re:BP's fucked.. but look, over there, a communist by Spewns · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If we allow Venezuela

    Fuck off

    I'd like to apologize on behalf of the people in my country, the United States. We're extremely paranoid, uneducated, and religious, and our entire every day consists of being endlessly pummeled by sophisticated government and corporate public relations/propaganda, making us impressively easy to manipulate. We do indeed have the mindset that we (as a country) have an inherent, God-given right to allow or disallow Venezuela (or anyone else in the world, for that matter) to do anything, and there's no real sign that we'll cease acting on that mindset anytime soon.

  22. Re:Obama is a genius!!! by Z00L00K · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It may have a chance to work on land based situations, but it can also cause a major disaster.

    In the mexican gulf there is a lot of hydrocarbons dissolved into the water, and there is a risk that you can get this "mint in a soda" effect if you are unlucky. And on a gigantic scale. In worst case it can be a termination event. It may not be that, but there is still a risk of a tsunami and other nasty things to happen if things goes wrong. Imagine New Orleans and a large area along the south coast of the US drowned again...

    The fishing industry may be in deep trouble for decades due to this accident regardless.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  23. Are they really trying to plug it up? by zogger · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Are they trying to plug the leak, or are they really trying to salvage the bore there and get back to pumping oil?

    The reason I ask is..why not a chernobyl style containment effort. Drop a 200 (whatever, hugemongous, the biggest they can move) ton solid concrete and steel cube on that thing, then add to it, until the leak totally stops. The first big chunk would smash the pipe flat, effectively sealing it.

    It has looked to me right along as more an effort to salvage what they did so far, not actually just plug it up.

    1. Re:Are they really trying to plug it up? by Animats · · Score: 5, Informative

      Are they trying to plug the leak, or are they really trying to salvage the bore there and get back to pumping oil?

      They're trying to plug the leak. At the same time, there's another drilling platform nearby drilling another well, which will be used to take the pressure off and get back to pumping oil. But that will take months.

      Bear in mind that this is all going on a mile down. That's 160 atmospheres, and at that pressure, the water temperature is forced to 4C because that's the lowest density of water. Under those conditions, methane is a solid, and methane ice from escaping natural gas is clogging up the repair operation.

      Once the hole is plugged, or at least slowed down, it takes about four months to four years for natural processes to dispose of the oil. The heavy components like asphalt sink; the light ones like gasoline evaporate off. Fishing and tourism might suffer for a while, but that's not a big deal.

    2. Re:Are they really trying to plug it up? by auLucifer · · Score: 2, Informative

      Concrete of that size would take a hell of a long time to cure so isn't feasible. I remember watching the documentary about the Hoover damn and if they poured it all at once it'd take centuries and as it was the blocks they were pouring was taking days to cure with coolent running through the slabs. Plus concrete is brittle and pourous and there's no gaurantee it'll survive the 5000 feet descent.
      I think I'll leave the guessing to those that are smarter then I am and are employed to do it to fix the problem then throw out my own crazy ideas.

      --
      If I was witty I'd put something funny here but, as it stands, I am not and have just wasted seconds of your life
    3. Re:Are they really trying to plug it up? by pongo000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Fishing and tourism might suffer for a while, but that's not a big deal.

      Unless your family's livelihood depends upon fishing and tourism. Then it's a very big deal.

  24. Re:Obama is a genius!!! by Z00L00K · · Score: 3, Informative

    You have also a burning coal mine in the US that has forced at least one town, Centralia, PA to be more or less abandoned.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  25. Re:BP's fucked.. but look, over there, a communist by Antiocheian · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There is no shortage of examples of times when outside intervention is not only warranted, but should actually be mandatory.

    Yes, that's why I told you to fuck off. The Iraq civil war might have been prevented if bullies like you were convinced to fuck off instead of invading it for Windmills of Mass Destruction.

  26. Re:Obama is a genius!!! by thoughtfulbloke · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well, if we use oil drillers to use nukes to stop an asteroid catastrophe, it only makes sense to bring in the nuclear scientists to deal with an out of control oil well.

  27. Re:Hay for Cleanup? by DotSlashReader · · Score: 4, Interesting

    well, doing some quick back of the napkin math
    he put no more than 1/20th of a gallon of oil into that container and said it took 1 pound of hay to clean that up.
    The explosion and resulting leak happened 25 days ago.
    It's been leaking about 50k barrels per day according to recent (non-computer scientists) estimates.

    At that rate, it's going to require ~525,000 tons of hay.

    According to a quick search for some kind of US hay production values, in 2008 we produced about 145,000,000 tons in 2008
    http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Missouri/Publications/Brochures/Hay_Facts.pdf

    Although noting is said about how much of that was used to feed livestock. However I suspect that it was most of it.

    So this would be less than half a percent of the US annual hay production. That doesn't seem completely unrealistic to me. Difficult and our infrastructure is likely not set up for this kind of thing, sure, but not flat out unrealistic from some 10 minutes worth of estimating. Add in other realistic aspects of the situation however, and things could get out of control pretty easily, but I would at least say this warrants further exploration of this idea.

  28. Re:Hay for Cleanup? by SharpFang · · Score: 2, Funny

    Mow Your Lawn For Saving The Sea action?
    Every white picket fence house donating some hay? ...in no time.

    --
    45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  29. Terribly inaccurate - team is multidisciplinary. by Shag · · Score: 5, Informative

    As a far better article over at PopSci notes, the team includes a variety of physicists and engineers, only two of whom have done anything in the nuclear field.

    While Richard Garwin did design the first proof-of-concept H-bomb way back in 1951, he spent most of his career at IBM, and held a symposium after the first Gulf War on how to close all those burning oil wells in Kuwait.

    And although Tom Hunter has a couple degrees in nuclear engineering and is (until he retires in July) director of Sandia National Lab, his strengths appear to be more in the area of managing "big science" these days.

    George Cooper, Alexander Slocum and Jonathan I Katz, though? Not nuke guys.

    --
    Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
  30. Re:Nuclear physicists? by SharpFang · · Score: 2, Insightful

    from that everything ever is physics.

    --
    45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  31. Re:BP's fucked.. but look, over there, a communist by Mr.+Freeman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This should not be modded flamebait, kdawson is pushing his opinion into the main post rather than in a comment like everyone else. Clearly, he's a biased editor, this isn't a discussion, it's a fact. You can not, BY DEFINITION, put your opinion into an article and NOT be biased.

    Anyway, why shouldn't we use the nuclear option to control the oil leak? This is an ENGINEERING problem, not a fucking moral one. Let the engineers decide of a nuclear bomb would best control the oil leak.

    Nonsense statements like "nuclear weapons are always bad" don't help anyone. According to the previous article on slashdot the Russians have used nuclear blasts five times to control things like this with an 80% success rate. Obviously, there are risks and problems, just like there are with every option. If the ENGINEERS (not idiots that think "nuclear ANYTHING is ALWAYS bad") decide that a nuclear blast is the best option then we should go for it.

    Tell me, kdawson, where did you get your degree in nuclear engineering? You don't have one? Well then how about your degree in environmental engineering? No? Then how can you say that the nuclear option is a bad idea before trained scientists that actually know what they're doing have even evaluated the situation?

    --
    -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
  32. Re:BP's fucked.. but look, over there, a communist by InfoJunkie777 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    God bless the USDIA and their evil overlords the CIA plus the DEA who keeps the warlords in business.

    --
    Don't explain computers to laymen. Simpler to explain sex to a virgin. -- Robert A. Heinlein
  33. Re:Terribly inaccurate - team is multidisciplinary by Thing+1 · · Score: 2, Funny

    George Cooper, Alexander Slocum and Jonathan I Katz, though? Not nuke guys.

    Wait, what? No, really? He's back?

    --
    I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  34. The better nuclear option by wiredlogic · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Obama should just issue an executive order dissolving the corporate charters of Transocean and the US subsidiaries of BP using his authority to protect our territorial waters.

    --
    I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.