Nuking the Leak
Many observers -- with varying degrees of technical expertise in fixing oilfield disasters -- are now arguing that the time has come to consider sealing the Deepwater oil leak with a nuclear detonation.
Observers with varying degrees of technical expertise in fixing oilfield disasters – from bloggers who know nothing to engineers who know more than most – are saying that the time has come to consider sealing the Deepwater Horror with the ultimate weapon.
The big idea - send a nuclear bomb down to the blowout from hell, blast the well to smithereens, and turn the subsea formation into a vast wall of glassified rock that would seal off the oil forever.
The Department of Energy insists that the nuclear option is not on the table, but the more excitable contributors to the blogosphere have pointed out that federal nuclear scientists have been asked to contribute ideas for closing down the leak.
The bomb-the-well proponents point out that the Soviets sealed off out-of-control gas wells with nuclear explosives back in the ‘60s and ‘70s. Why not give it a try?
First, note that the Soviets were dealing with gas wells on dry land, not with oil wells beneath a mile of water.
Second, there are geopolitical angles to consider. Would we really want to give Mahmoud Ahmadinejad an excuse to put on a phony show of righteous indignation about the Great Satan setting off a nuke? It would be propaganda manna from heaven for his rancid regime, wrapped in a bow and topped off with chocolate mints, courtesy of Uncle Sam.
See how fast Ahmadinejad would dial up Iran's A-bomb program. See how fast other petro-rogues would try to finagle a bomb of their own, just in case, you see, that their oilfields spring a big leak.
Second, there is the small matter of unintended consequences. What if instead of sealing the leak, the blast enlarges it? What if the energy of the explosion creates subsea fractures that create new escape pathways for oil and gas? What if the blasted cavity collapses under the immense pressures beneath the seabed?
And what about impacts on the Gulf Coast's economy and communities? If you think that one of the world’s most productive fishing industries is in dire straits now, try persuading consumers to eat shrimp and oysters from a nuclear blast zone. Bombalaya, anyone?
Third, there are logistics questions. Who positions the nuke for the blast? BP? Anyone up for giving BP that job, please raise your hand.
That the nuclear option is under discussion at all is a testament to the spreading scope of the Gulf disaster – and to the environmental and security risks that we have run because we haven’t summoned the will to get off the oil dependence treadmill and diversify our energy economy.