In a recent New York Times op-ed piece entitled “Blow Up the Well to Save the Gulf,” Christopher Brownfield draws our attention to what could be a better alternative for dealing with the BP oil spill. BP CEO Tony Hayward admitted to Congress that his company has no intention of plugging the ruptured Macondo oil well in the Gulf of Mexico any longer. Experts predict the relief well that BP is going to build instead won’t even work. In light of BP and the Coast Guard’s inability to stem the tide of the oil leak, Brownfield makes a really great suggestion that gives the thinking human being pause. Why not let the US Navy stop the leak?
‘Blow up the well,’ suggests Brownfield
Brownfield suggests we blow up the well without any hesitation. Thousands of barrels of oil are leaking into the Gulf of Mexico each day, and BP and the Coast lack the resources and expertise to deal with any kind of high-powered demolitions needed to deal with the Macondo oil well effectively. Thus far, billions of dollars have been thrown at the problem, to only small effect.
Brownfield reports that BP and the Coast Guard would still have an important role to play, namely cleanup on the surface. . Engineers from Naval Reactors – “the secretive program that is responsible for designing nuclear reactors for nuclear submarines,” according to Brownfield – could have already dealt with how to blow up the well, if they’d been given leave to do so by President Obama.
Navy demolitions could commence then
This is not to say that a submarine fires a torpedo at the well and the blast seals off the oil well. Parallel to the Macondo well would first need to be drilled a hole. Explosives would then be put into the hole and detonated from a distance. Tons of explosives creating a “pressure wave hundreds of thousands of pounds per square inch” strong would implode BP’s big problem very easily, sending rock into the well to stop the flow. Brownfield writes that the “expansion and collapse of explosive gases inside the hole would act like a hydraulic jackhammer, further pulverizing the rock.” Nuclear devices wouldn’t even be necessary; they’d be overkill, in Brownfield’s view, though Soviet Russia has used them successfully for this purpose before.
Worst and best case scenario
At best the flow would be stopped and long-term cleanup could progress toward an endgame. The flow could just be increased by a larger hole also. Former Naval nuclear sub officer Brownfield believes, “It’s virtually inconceivable that an explosive could blast a bigger hole than already exists and release even more oil,” when the geological features of the ocean bed around the Macondo well are taken into consideration. Considering how much money might just be saved by abandoning ineffective capping techniques (not to mention stemming the tide so that damage to nature and the cost of long-term cleanup can be lessened a lot), it seems the course is clear for politicians with the foresight and courage to give the green light.
Citations
New York Times
nytimes.com/2010/06/22/opinion/22Brownfield.html?ref=opinionhttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/22/opinion/22Brownfield.html?ref=opinion
