A vortex of fire erupts at the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


Setting a small patch of the Deepwater oil spill ablaze was enough to create a vortex of fire—a tornado of flame that makes the ships fighting the slick look like toy boats.

Nor is that the only way this spill boggles in size. New estimates peg the spill at as much as 60,000 barrels a day, though some of that is a result of BP's semi-successful effort to cut the riser pipe and attach the so-called lower marine riser package to cap the well. That method now enables a system to recapture some 15,000 barrels a day but also exacerbated the leak—and it remains unclear whether the amount caught is more than the amount of oil added to the leak by cutting the riser pipe in the first place.

What is clear is that the oil spill is having an outsized environmental (dead sea cucumbers), economic (the end of much Gulf of Mexico fishing) and even political impact. President Obama characterized the spill as a "siege," saying, "we will fight this spill with everything we've got for as long as it takes," during an address from the Oval Office on June 15. Certainly, the vortex of fire looks like an act of war.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


But we have only ourselves to blame for the spill. After all, it's our incessant demand for petroleum that drives oil companies like BP to ignore environmental and engineering safeguards in a rush to barrel black gold. "For decades, we've talked and talked about the need to end America's century-long addiction to fossil fuels," Obama noted. "And for decades, we have failed to act with the sense of urgency that this challenge requires.  Time and again, the path forward has been blocked—not only by oil industry lobbyists, but also by a lack of political courage and candor."

Of course, Obama may have created his own political vortex by calling for such a "clean energy future." That may be the only way to really stop the circumstances that led to the Macondo well spewing into the Gulf of Mexico in the first place. But it is also the kind of initiative that doomed President Jimmy Carter and his famous cardigan—an early effort towards energy conservation—to just one term in office.

At least we're just lucky that the June 15 lightning strike that touched off a blaze on the good ship Discoverer Enterprise capturing some of the oil didn't cause it's own vortex of fire—again setting back efforts to stop the spill. In the end, that act of nature let another 15,000 barrels or so into the Gulf—just a small fraction of an oil spill that has become, as Obama said, "the worst environmental disaster America has ever faced."

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe