To Nuke, Or Not To Nuke
by George Ure
http://urbansurvival.com/week.htm
That is the question - or at least seems to be one to ponder going forward. Although the decision won't weigh on president Obama for a couple of months while other tactics are used/tried, we're seeing an uptick in the number of reports that use of one (or more) small tactical nukes to close off the oil mess in the Gulf of Mexico will be considered: "Nuking the Oil Well" from KVUE (Austin, TX) is a must read. We covered this option coming up a couple of weeks back in Peoplenomics for subscribers.
Fortunately,
as luck would have it, we keep a real-life full nuclear engineer on staff at
UrbanSurvival to field just this type of question (and build innovative coffee
warmers and such...). He offers this:
"I
have to chime in here on the subject of using a nuclear weapon as part of a
program to seal off the leaking well in Mississippi Canyon 252 (per
Peoplenomics #456-B). In short, no one (in their right mind) would
ever light off a warhead in such a scenario. The tests done using nuclear
explosives to modify oil and gas production were all conducted as part of
studies to increase gas, and later oil, flow rates. The fractures
induced by nuclear explosions were thought to be useful in opening up flow
paths for gas or oil. Other options were to use the heat to transform oil
shales into flowable product. The studies don't support the use of nukes
as a way to seal off a fracture.
Now, if
we are looking at this from a radical linguistics point of view, if this
"Top Kill" (an interesting term in all the headlines - I wonder how
that has populated Clif's dying oceans language?) doesn't work and we have to
try something else, odds are you'd see the headlines read something like
"The Nuclear Option in the Gulf" since that term is thrown around a
lot. It would probably involve shaped charges and lot's of debris being
blasted into the area, followed by cement - but that is just a guess.
Speaking of nuclear, such an option would wind up looking like the sarcophagus
over Chernobyl Station #4. If you are keying your flow charts off of
clif's linguistics work, I ask that you keep this in mind as there is no
need to overly stress out an already stressed out public (unless you know far
more than is being released to the public yet - then I stand corrected).
Anyway,
I've been wrong before and could be wrong again, but the thought of using a
nuclear explosive to seal off a leak doesn't fit with any of the test shots
done back in the day. That said, the world is sliding into a grim abyss
and who knows what sorts of bad decisions are going to be made in the coming years.
Thought I'd throw my two cents in.
Thanks,
(The
Urban Reactor Dude --- name withheld for duh reasons)
Select
References:
Nuclear Explosion Petroleum-Stimulation Projects, United
States and USSR (Cost you something since you're not a nuke
eng. with the right memberships)
I was
happily keeping this note buried in my inbox (recently weeded down to only
5,000 items), until this talk of nuking came up - again.
Here's
the problem as I figure it: The
production explosions of the 1970's seem to have been aimed at enhancing
oil/gas production, but if my scan of the gray literature on this stuff is
right, about all they were able to do was to make a bunch of radioactive natural
gas and byproducts. Good idea, just of limited application.
On the
other side of the discussion is the reported Russian experience which I think
is something like a four out of six success rate (or whatever - that will come
out in a few months when comes time to 'sell' the project to the public.
Although
the public will no doubt drop into mass hysteria mode about any talk of nukes,
the real solution would be to use HAARP & related technologies to induce
an earthquake with the idea of creating a slip-strike which could close the
wounded crust. But, can't let on too much about that, can we?
In lieu
of using HAARP, (was that mid Atlantic quake this morning a tune-up / test?)
one can envision a kind of simulated small nuclear induced earthquake.
Maybe one largish device (Hiroshima X2 maybe) and then a couple of slightly
delayed 'small pusher devices' which would push earth from one side of the
leaking well toward what could be a 'hollow' on the other side.
All of
which might pencil out provided we had perfect knowledge of the pressures,
knowledge of how the methane hydrates would react, and so on. My biggest
concerns, however, are that if the nuke shots were too small, they would
not do anything but make the environment not only oily but radioactive.
On the other hand, if too big, then the fracturing of rock starts going off (as
fracturing was the intent of the early oil & gas production enhancement
tests) and you might get the equivalent of popping a pimple, except this pimple
would ooze oil instead of...oh oh, not a breakfast time analogy, but you get
the idea.
The
idea of using nukes doesn't bother me. I know enough about water
moderated reactors to figure the odds of significant release of radioactivity
from such an effort would be nearly zero. Reason? First, the shots
would be done in wells which would likely put them 1,000 feet (or so) under the
seabed. Right there, you're talking something that happened somewhat
routinely around Las Vegas (can I say commuter flights to Tonopah without
everyone getting edgy?).
Then on
top of what would be an underground test, you have a mile of
seawater. Nope, not too worried about that since under ground (seabed is
just wet dirt), and then under water would not be like the shallow water nukes tests off Eneweta.
We read
further about Operation Wigwam which was conducted in about 2,000 feet of
water, 500 miles off San Diego in 1955 which was a 30 kiloton
device. the Hiroshima bomb, for comparison, was 12.5 kT. The plume wasn't
too high, although you wouldn't want to vape it...
The
plume from 1958's Operation Hardtack rose only a reported 1,700 feet
and that was set off just 500 feet down. So, honestly,
10-times deep and then underground? I wouldn't want to be swimming there
at the time, but radioactivity release potential? Extremely low by my
reckoning.
That
said, it wouldn't be the initial explosion I'd worry about - it'd be the
seismographs up north in the minutes to months following. Why?
A
successful nuke shot in terms of sealing the leaks might bring on a
secondary line of troubles: Touching off major movement of the New Madrid seismic zone which extends almost
(and possibly) into the Gulf of Mexico.
Of
course, if the leak isn't sealed by the blasts, then oil flow could be
massively increased, which in turn could change the underground pressures
which hold up the south end of the Mississippi Delta...and then terms like 'continental subsidence' start coming to mind.
But that's just monkey-mind tripping out.
A
reread of the seismic history of the region might be of interest here.
Ultimately
this leads to some very tough decisions (which will come out when the next
Shape of Things to Come report is released tomorrow from my friend Cliff (clif)
at www.halfpasthuman.com
since the predictive linguistics this time around might be fairly labeled
instead "predicament linguistics") but you'll get access to that
tomorrow.
As
usual, we will try to stick with the facts as we know them, and not read too
far ahead even with the Libretto although we've been talking about Diaspora for
a long time around here and strange as it seems, a couple of hundred million
people getting up and moving around due to either subsidence or oily death
rains really could be a big deal.
===
AF 'bomber guy' here: First, a short tutorial on nuke tactics is in
order . . .
For war planning purposes, there are three types of nuclear detonations:
- on the surface of land or the ocean - above the surface (air burst of varying
altitude -- low to high) - Below the surface (land or water)
Applying these detonation tactics to the Deepwater Horizon rig, the best
option is a hybrid undersea 'airburst' (far below the surface of the sea, but
just above the sea floor). Using a small yield detonation occurring approx.
100-200' above the damaged well head, this tactic would melt and fuse the sea
floor in the immediate blast vicinity, essentially cauterizing the oil
well-wound.
To guarantee the drill-wound 'stays shut' after detonation, BP could
have tons of debris and concrete standing-by in barges to pump over top of the
fused 'well bandage' once the 'all clear' is given.
Your concerns about methane-ice and oil plumes seems legitimate. The
intense nuclear detonation temperatures could pose a serious and unknown hazard
with this material in the blast area. IMO, this is the most serious danger for
such an option, a tough one to model due to the various dynamics of the oil
well, methane gas and deep ocean/high pressure environment.
If I were advising BP, the DoD, the DOE and the EPA, I'd ask them to run
constant simulations on banks of super computers to model all of the possible
blast variables and effects, including their degree of likelihood. Once 'best
guess' simulation results are known, the safest and most logical alternative
could be approved and employed.
AF 'bomber guy' here: First, a short tutorial on nuke tactics is in
order . . .
For war planning purposes, there are three types of nuclear detonations:
- on the surface of land or the ocean - above the surface (air burst of varying
altitude -- low to high) - Below the surface (land or water)
Applying these detonation tactics to the Deepwater Horizon rig, the best
option is a hybrid undersea 'airburst' (far below the surface of the sea, but
just above the sea floor). Using a small yield detonation occurring approx.
100-200' above the damaged well head, this tactic would melt and fuse the sea
floor in the immediate blast vicinity, essentially cauterizing the oil well-wound.
To guarantee the drill-wound 'stays shut' after detonation, BP could
have tons of debris and concrete standing-by in barges to pump over top of the
fused 'well bandage' once the 'all clear' is given.
Your concerns about methane-ice and oil plumes seems legitimate. The
intense nuclear detonation temperatures could pose a serious and unknown hazard
with this material in the blast area. IMO, this is the most serious danger for
such an option, a tough one to model due to the various dynamics of the oil well,
methane gas and deep ocean/high pressure environment.
If I were advising BP, the DoD, the DOE and the EPA, I'd ask them to run
constant simulations on banks of super computers to model all of the possible
blast variables and effects, including their degree of likelihood. Once 'best
guess' simulation results are known, the safest and most logical alternative
could be approved and employed.
