Project Oilsand
Project Oilsand, also known as Project Oilsands, and originally known as Project Cauldron, was a 1958 proposal to exploit the
The proposal was devised by geologist Manley L. Natland at Los Angeles–based
History
The use of nuclear weapons for oil and gas extraction was first theorized by American geologist Manley L. Natland, of the
Natland was dispatched by Richfield to Alberta's
Prospects for Natland's hypothesis were boosted by two recent experiments, the
However, some experts had doubts. In 1959, oil sands pioneer Robert Fitzsimmons of the International Bitumen Company wrote a letter to the
Alberta reaction
A month after the Richfield meeting with the AEC, Natland and Richfield executives travelled to Edmonton to meet Alberta's deputy minister of mines and minerals Hubert H. Somerville to discuss the proposal on June 5, 1958, Somerville was supportive of the idea. Somerville relayed the proposal to Premier Ernest Manning who was interested in exploring the concept.[11] Following the meeting with deputy minister Somerville, Richfield executives met with federal regulators to discuss the proposal. This included staff of the Federal Mines Branch John Convey and Alexander Ignatieff; Donald Watson of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited; and Alexander Longair of the Defence Research Board, which was met with interest from the federal group.[12]
An investigative committee was formed with the support of Alberta's
In April 1959, the
These changes in Canadian public opinion are regarded by historian Michael Payne to be due to the shift in public perception of nuclear explosives following the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.[15] Prime Minister John Diefenbaker told Parliament that the decision to detonate an atomic bomb on or under Canadian soil would be made by Canada, not the United States, and ordered Project Cauldron/Oilsand placed on permanent hold, citing the risk of upsetting the Soviet Union during nuclear disarmament negotiations being conducted in Geneva.[16]
Method
Theoretical background
The general means by which the plan was to work was discussed in the October 1976 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists issue.[22] A patent was granted for the process that was intended: The Process for Stimulating Petroliferous Subterranean Formations with Contained Nuclear Explosions by Bray, Knutson, and Coffer which was first submitted in 1964.[23] With the nuclear detonation option being considered to have served as a forerunner to some of the nascent conventional ideas that are presently in use and proposed to extract oil from the Alberta regions Athabasca oil sands.[24]
Previous underground nuclear weapon tests by the AEC had provided scientific evidence on the effect on rock surrounding the blast.
Project Oilsand methods
For Project Oilsand, the proposed plan had a 9 kt (38 TJ) nuclear device buried 1,250 feet (380 m) underground in the Beaverhill Lake Group, 20 feet (6.1 m) below the base of the McMurray Formation above.[7] Natland and the AEC believed a 9 kt nuclear device was powerful enough to facilitate a meaningful test and be completely contained at the proposed depth with a "generous safety factor" to ensure radioactive debris could not escape.[26] The decision to drill to 1,250 feet was based on the safe containment formula developed after the Rainier test where depth in feet is equal to 450 times the energy in kilotons to the power of one-third (D = 450W1/3).[26] The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory considered the formula to be "extremely conservative" due to the resilient overlying Clearwater shale bed, and scientists believed a 30–40 kt (130–170 TJ) nuclear device could be detonated without causing a disruption to the surface, and theorized up to 100 kt (420 TJ) may have been used safely.[26]
Based on research by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, the cavity created by the detonation was estimated to be approximately 230 feet (70 m) in diameter.[26] The cavity was expected to collapse anywhere between a few seconds and few minutes following the detonation,[26] and "several million" cubic feet of oil sand would have fallen into the cavity, the oil separated by the intense heat, allowing recovery through conventional drilling.[27] Natland also believed that the pressure from the resulting shockwave was sufficient to crack the oil, increasing the total recoverable beyond the thermal effects.[27]
See also
References
- ^ a b c "The Bull Wheel" (PDF). Newsletter of the Petroleum History Society. 16 (4): 4. June 2005. Retrieved 13 October 2020.
- ^ Marsden 2011, p. 2.
- ^ Natland 1963, pp. 143–144.
- ^ Marsden 2011, p. 3.
- ^ a b c d Natland 1963, p. 144.
- ^ Marsden 2011, p. 14.
- ^ a b Natland 1963, p. 146.
- ^ Natland 1963, pp. 146–147.
- ^ a b Marsden 2011, p. 22.
- ^ "Project Oilsand". Government of Alberta. Retrieved 2016-07-24.
- ^ Marsden 2011, p. 23.
- ^ Alberta Technical Committee 1959, p. A2.
- ^ Breen 1993, p. 452.
- ^ "EcoNews, Serving the Vision of a Sustainable Vancouver Island". Earthfuture.com. Retrieved 2008-10-23.
- ^ "Innovation Alberta: Article Details". 24 August 2007. Archived from the original on 2007-08-24. Retrieved 31 December 2022.
- ^ Pratt, Michael (October 3, 2015). "Alberta's oilsands almost saw nuclear detonation to free up trapped bitumen as part of Operation Cauldron in the 1950s". Calgary Sun. Archived from the original on 2016-01-27. Retrieved 2016-07-24.
- ^ Sovacool, Benjamin K. (2011), Contesting the Future of Nuclear Power: A Critical Global Assessment of Atomic Energy, World Scientific, pp. 171–2
- ^ Wells, Bruce (4 December 2022). "Project Gasbuggy tests Nuclear "Fracking"". American Oil & Gas Historical Society. Retrieved 31 December 2022.
- ^ "Innovation Alberta: Article Details". 24 August 2007. Archived from the original on 2007-08-24. Retrieved 31 December 2022.
- ^ "Plowshare Program Executive Summary, pg 4–5" (PDF). Retrieved 31 December 2022.
- ^ "elmada.com/wagon: Nuclear Stimulation Projects". 6 July 2004. Archived from the original on 2004-07-06. Retrieved 31 December 2022.
- ISSN 0096-3402. Retrieved 13 October 2020.
- ^ US patent 3409082, Bray, Bruce G.; Coffer, Henry F. & Knutson, Carroll F., "Process for stimulating petroliferous subterranean formations with contained nuclear explosions", published 1968-11-05
- ^ Adler, Les (October 29, 2013). "America's tar Baby". OpEdNews. Retrieved 13 October 2020.
- ^ Natland 1963, p. 145.
- ^ a b c d e Natland 1963, p. 148.
- ^ a b Natland 1963, p. 149.
Bibliography
- Alberta Technical Committee (August 1959). Alberta Technical Committee Report to the Minister of Mines and Minerals and the Oil and Gas Conservation Board. Edmonton: Government of the Province of Alberta. Retrieved 13 October 2020.
- Breen, David (1993). Alberta's petroleum industry and the Conservation Board. Edmonton, Alberta: The University of Alberta Press. ISBN 0-88864-245-8. Retrieved 13 October 2020.
- Marsden, William (2011). Stupid to the last drop: how Alberta is bringing environmental Armageddon to Canada (and doesn't seem to care). Toronto: Vantage Canada. OCLC 775440775. Retrieved October 13, 2020.
- Natland, M. L. (1963). "Project Oilsand". In Carrigy, M. A. (ed.). The K.A. Clark Volume (PDF). Edmonton: Research Council of Alberta. pp. 143–157.
Further reading
- Bray, Bruce G.; Knutson, Carroll F.; Wahl, Harry A.; Dew, John N. (1965). "Economics of Contained Nuclear Explosions Applied to Petroleum Reservoir Stimulation". Journal of Petroleum Technology. 17 (10): 1145–1152. doi:10.2118/1133-PA.
- Payne, Michael (September 18, 2001). "#32 Project Oil Sands, Alberta's Experience with the Atomic Bomb". Innovation Alberta (Interview). Archived from the original on 2008-01-08.
External links
- J. R. Walker (29 January 1959). "Oil Sands A-Bomb Seen Great Danger". Calgary Herald. Retrieved 22 February 2014.
- The Canadian Press (29 January 1959). "'No Danger' Alberta Oil Expert Says". Calgary Herald. Retrieved 22 February 2014.