It looks like Matt Simmons isn’t the only one who thinks a Small Bore Nuclear Device is Our Only Option. The idea is gaining traction, and the Russians, at least some of them like the former minister of nuclear energy Viktor Mikhailov, think it’s the only way to seal the leak:
“A nuclear explosion over the leak,” he says nonchalantly puffing a cigarette as he sits in a conference room at the Institute of Strategic Stability, where he is a director. “I don’t know what BP is waiting for, they are wasting their time. Only about 10 kilotons of nuclear explosion capacity and the problem is solved.”
A nuclear fix to the leaking well has been touted online and in the occasional newspaper op-ed for weeks now. Washington has repeatedly dismissed the idea and BP execs say they are not considering an explosion — nuclear or otherwise. But as a series of efforts to plug the 60,000 barrels of oil a day gushing from the sea floor have failed, talk of an extreme solution refuses to die.
For some, blasting the problem seems the most logical answer in the world. Mikhailov has had a distinguished career in the nuclear field, helping to close a Soviet Union program that used nuclear explosions to seal gas leaks. Ordinarily he’s an opponent of nuclear blasts, but he says an underwater explosion in the Gulf of Mexico would not be harmful and could cost no more than $10 million. That compares with the $2.35 billion BP has paid out in cleanup and compensation costs so far. “This option is worth the money,” he says.
Let’s assume, hypothetically, that the relief wells BP is drilling don’t seal the leak.
Is there really another option, or do we just let the well continue to gush oil until it runs out in perhaps 10 to 20 years?
H/T Zero Hedge