Using a nuclear explosion to contain an oil spill may sound startlingly reckless to many, but the idea may not be that outlandish. One oil-price website reports Russia has used the technique on numerous occasions with a high success rate, and an Austin expert says BP should be strongly considering that option right now.
The latest effort to stop the flow of thousands of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico involves pumping mud and oil into the well. "This is very difficult to do at 16 thousand feet," said Martin Chenevert, PhD. This UT professor specializes in petroleum engineering. He says BP should have a back-up plan and believes there are only two alternatives. "They could still use a chemical explosive, but if they can't, if they can't do that, then the only way is to use some sort of nuclear explosive to close the well in," said Chenevert.
The use of nukes underwater has been met with the expected skepticism.
All I can think of is the 3-eyed fish on the Simpson's series," said Patrick Abbott of Austin. That sentiment was echoed by D.K. Ezekoye of Austin who said, "Yeah I think about the marine life, I think about the fact somebody tosses a stick of dynamite and you see the fish start bubbling up."
But Dr. Chenevert and articles like one posted on oilprice.net say the idea of nuking an out of control oil well has been used rather successfully in Russia and may be more ecologically friendly than the other alternative, chemical explosives which would require extensive digging around the well.
"It may take 60 days to 90 days to enlarge the hole so there's more time involved, there would more leakage to the ocean floor," said Dr. Chenevert.
A nuclear devise would be dropped deep down the existing well and covered with rock and cement. "Rock serves as the barrier if the well is contained with a nuclear explosive. If you are 16-thousand feet down and you have all this rock on top of you it would be very unlikely that you would have the radiation escaping," said Chenevert.
