They are guardedly optimistic about the chances of success. It sounds like this has as much chance of success as everything else that they have tried so far. As far as we know there are even odds of either killing the well or the blowout getting rapidly worse as the well deteriorates, releasing 2.5 billion barrels of oil into the ocean.

There may actually be a chance of hurricanes filled with crude oil and methane gas. What a great concept for a 70's Charlton Heston movie.

Nuking it will only open it up more per nuclear weapons designer/physicist/former Berkley prof/talk show host Bill Wattenberg (KGO sat & Sun evenings 10p-1am) See KGO.com for archive of last weeks program.

Thanks
JK

Actually, if I understand things correctly, Russia has successfully (according to claims) deployed nukes on more than one occasion to "cap" similar blowouts.

Now, I'm no expert, but a guy with considerable experience in dealing with leaking fluids spoke in favor of blowing the well on CNN over the weekend.

http://money.cnn.com/video/fortune/2010/06/27/f_gf_clinton_bp_oil.fortune/index.html

The whole "Russians nuking the well" story has ignored a lot of reality.

First, the Russian wells weren't underwater.

Second, the nukes were used on wells that had been leaking long enough that special nuclear charges were developed to stop the flow. Which is good because they needed time to drill new holes, they couldn't just shove the charges down the throat of the spewing hole.

Third. Did I mention the 20% failure rate?

Finally, the Russians "using nukes to extinguish gas well fires in natural gas fields, not sealing oil wells gushing liquid". The BP well doesn't have a fire.