Because they've deliberately put off plugging it to make themselves look worse, right?

This sort of thing is always going to happen, to which I was enlightened by the picture BM posted. The companies should have a measure in place to plug the leaks faster, but I find it unlikely that they will in the near future, as any solution I could think of is nonsensical! It's hard gaining access to anything that low down!

EDIT:

Don't be rash, here; I'm sure there have been natural oil spills in the past.

The environment will recover, but it may take a long time and the impact may be further reaching than that which is immediately evident.

No one talks about America's plastic ocean!
http://abluteau.files.wordpress.com/...3/debris-2.jpg
http://knowledge.allianz.com/nopi_do...gyre_map_q.jpg

Obama said the oil spill was worse than 9/11!!!!!

I wasn't aware the oil spill killed over 3000 people?

Were you not, Cammy?

Why don't they just nuke the fucking thing?

And everyone wonders why people make such a big deal out of it when they find out that a president smoked pot.

If that's directed at me, I'm being serious. Nuking it is just blowing a bomb up like 3 miles away (underground) and using the resonant shockwave to crush the pipe between the rocks (or something), right? The Russians do it. Often. Apparently it's viable. Just blow one up.

That seems like it would also be quite detrimental to the environment.

That's the one part I'm going to have to make some guesswork on:
They blow it up pretty deep underground, I think. Like, deep enough for it to work and not have a significant effect beyond a sign that says "Don;t go down this hole."

But what if they hit oil while getting it underground? Triple cluster fuck.

You just answerd your own question. My child.

No he didn't. He said it would have a similar level of effect on domestic policy and politics. Big difference.

Tonnes of nuclear testing has been performed underground, under the ocean. No significant levels of fallout have ever been recorded.

And that means what? BP is good at advertising their damage control?

Big shocker.

lol stocks

I may be misunderstanding what you're suggesting, but as a rule I don't think you can actually nuke anything without serious environmental repercussions, let alone that deep underground. It would probably cause a tsunami, or fuck with the continental shelf. Nuking it seems like one of those "replace a big problem with an even bigger one" kind of scenarios.

Did you even read my last post?

For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mururoa...uclear_testing

Wouldn't nuke it just blast open the sea floor, resulting in oil coming out at a much faster rate. Or possibly the nuke could ignite the whole oil reserve, that wouldn't do much good to the environment either.

According to the image in BM's blog post, they had to drill through 13,000 feet of rock to get from the seabed to the top of the oil deposit. That should be more than enough rock to absorb the impact from a small nuke.

Also, how would the oil catch on fire in an environment without gaseous oxygen?

I missed your post, but that link didn't really assuage any of my concerns. I'm not concerned about fallout, we're not talking about nuclear testing. I'm concerned about more immediate physical effects on the environment.

It's already been established that with enough dirt and water over something, it's pretty much harmless. But to use the shockwave of a nuclear detonation to clamp shut the oil pipe as Mac suggests seems far-fetched and dangerous. It seems like more would be involved than just burying it, crossing our fingers, and setting it off.

I don't know. I plead ignorance on this topic for the most part. It's just that based on what I know about nukes, using one to solve this issue seems implausible to me. Of course, the term "nuke" denotes alot of things. I probably wouldn't have any objections if someone said "high-powered explosives" instead.

Then what exactly would a nuke achieve. also I was thinking there could be some giant bubbles trapped in the oil deposit, or maybe the explosion would blast enough seawater away to allow oxygen in, making combustion possible.

EDIT: Dammit Sekto.

As far as combustion goes, I think there's far too much water involved for there to be any prolonged burn. What you have to be concerned about is combustion on the surface, but there would be 13,000 feet of water between the surface oil and any incendiary device we use, so surface combustion hardly seems probable.

What is this I don't even http://www.helium.com/items/1882339-...-killing-event

Nuclear weapons aren't that powerful. As weapons of war, sure. By comparison, anyway. Compared to pretty much any natural system or phenomenon, however, they're tiny. Earthquakes don't open up fissures to oil reserves, and the radiation is nothing compared to what we dump in the ocean as a matter of course (or ever to what's present naturally).

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/06/15/oil...ner/index.html

Interesting case of real life imitating art. Water World anyone?

Dont know if anyone posted this yet.

From the news reports I saw yesterday, BP's engineers were able to cap and stop the flow of oil for the first time since the spill started 84 days ago. I don't know how well this clean-up is going to fair, but I really hope it takes a positive turn.

Well, that's good.

NOW BLOW THAT FUCKER SKY-HIGH! BLOW IT UP! BLOW UP! BIG EXPLOSIONS, BOOSSSSHHHHH! KABOOM! AHAHAHAHAHA! KILL IT! KILL IT ALL!