Nukes and Expensive Oil
A reader named Marilyn, from Oregon, wrote with the following question:
“I’ve read Internet threads where people want to use a nuclear weapon to close the oil well blowout in the Gulf of Mexico. Even Matt Simmons, who’s a hero to me because of his Peak Oil work, says we might need to use a nuclear weapon to close the well. Can you discuss that?”
I sure can…
Underwater Nuclear Bursts
Here’s my background even to comment on the subject. It’s based on my Navy experience, from many years ago. I should say right here that these are my personal views. Nothing I say is an “official” statement on behalf of the U.S. Navy, Department of Defense or U.S. government.
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, I flew a Navy aircraft built by Lockheed called the S-3. It was a graceful twin-engine, carrier-capable jet, and is now retired from Navy service (alas!).
If man was meant to fly, he’d have wings. Or the Navy/Lockheed S-3.
But when the S-3 was flying, one of its key missions was anti-submarine warfare (ASW). It was designed during the depths of the Cold War, when the world’s oceans were crawling with Soviet submarines. The S-3 was among the aircraft carrier’s ASW defenses.
To find Soviet submarines, the S-3 had a superb surface-search radar, and awesome electronic capabilities. The S-3 also carried a large load of sonobuoys that we’d drop in the water and use to listen for submarines.
The S-3 could carry air-delivered, conventionally armed torpedoes, if necessary. But the most powerful weapon capability for the S-3 was its ability to deliver a “special weapon,” namely a nuclear depth bomb called the B57. (This is all unclassified information, by the way. These days, you can look it up on the Internet.)
B57 Nuclear Depth Bomb, on carrying dolly.
Red nose is a plastic cover — please remove before flight.
Point is, back when I was flying S-3s, I became pretty smart about the ASW mission, and also about this particular special weapon. Thus do I know a few things about both nuclear weapons and underwater nuclear bursts.
What Could a Nuclear Weapon Accomplish?
Why are some people — the eminent Matt Simmons among them — discussing the use of nuclear weapons in the Gulf of Mexico? Does Matt know something that other people don’t? Well, I think Matt is off-base on this point. Don’t take it the “wrong” way, but Matt knows more about Peak Oil than he knows about underwater nuclear bursts.
As we used to say in the Navy, from a small splash, you get a big flash. Among people who have no or limited experience with nuclear weapons, this gives rise to many nuclear myths, if not fixations. That is, many people think that you can really DO SOMETHING with a nuclear weapon. Sorry to disappoint, but the last thing you want to do with a nuclear weapon is trigger it, particularly in a misplaced effort to seal a blownout oil well.
There’s GOT to be a better way to seal an oil well than this…
Let’s just consider the explosion. Yes, you can put a lot of energy into the earth — and the water and atmosphere — with a nuclear blast. But is that really what you want? There’s such a thing as putting “too much” energy on your target. And you still might not accomplish the mission.
Nuclear effects — especially subsurface nuclear effects — are not predictable. So even with the best efforts you will doubtless have many unintended consequences. It might seem like a good idea to place a nuclear bomb next to the leaking oil well, cook it off, move an immense level of energy toward that awful oil well and seal it up with fused glass. Except it doesn’t work that way.
Start at the Beginning
Let’s start at the beginning. You need to drill a hole first, into which to place your device. Hey, BP (BP: NYSE) is already drilling two holes next to the blownout well. The two holes are for relief wells. So now you want to drill a third hole for the nuclear device?
Then you need a nuclear device to emplace in the hole. Except that the U.S. has no nuclear devices rated for 5,000-foot and deeper water depths. Sure, U.S. special weapons are built to withstand multi-G accelerations, and all sorts of launch and drop shock loads. The devices can function in the vacuum of space. They can even pass through transient re-entry heating. But there’s no weapon design out there — none that I’ve ever heard of — to deal with the high external pressure under a mile or more of water.
That goes for nuclear-armed torpedoes as well — which I can’t discuss except to say that long ago, the Navy developed weapons to chase down Soviet deep-diving submarines. If you ever read Tom Clancy’s book The Hunt for Red October, he has a particular Soviet submarine diving to over 2,000 feet. That’s all I’ll tell you.
Wigwam Test
So let’s say that we overcome the initial obstacles of drilling a hole and emplacing a weapon. Let’s say that we can put a nuclear device down there next to the well. What happens with an underwater nuclear blast?
From unclassified sources, I can tell you that the deepest underwater nuclear explosion on record is the Operation Wigwam test, conducted on May 15, 1955. Wigwam consisted of a subsea 30-kiloton nuclear detonation, or a bit over twice the power of the 1945 Hiroshima blast.
The Wigwam test blast was about 450 miles southwest of San Diego, Calif. (29 Deg N, 126 Deg W) in open ocean, with water depth of 16,000 feet. The purpose of the test was to look at the vulnerability of submarines to deep underwater nuclear explosions. (I can’t tell you much on that, but it’s not pretty.)
The Wigwam nuclear device — a very large B7 “Betty” specially reinforced and rigged as a depth charge — was suspended by a 2,000-foot cable from a barge. The dry weight of the bomb was 8,250 pounds, and 5,700 pounds when submerged. After it detonated, here’s what the blast wave did, just before the fireball exited through the surface.
“Beware, beware!” Little splash, big flash. Cover your eyes and hope you’re upwind.
Oil, Water and… Radionuclides?
Right now we have a well spewing oil into the Gulf of Mexico. It looks like BP is getting the well under control. The relief wells are also going down, slowly but steadily. We can envision this tragedy coming to an end.
At this point, do we want to let loose a nuke and have radioactive particles mix with the oil and water? Do we want radioactive water vapor rising into the atmosphere just south of New Orleans?
And what of the shock wave? Do we want to rip the seafloor to shreds? Do we want a nuclear-level shock wave traveling through the seafloor in the vicinity of the BP oil well? What will that do? Will it break other oil pipelines installed on the bottom?
What of an oceanographic phenomenon called “bottom bounce”? That’s a situation in which the shock wave bounces off layers of seawater and travels back down to the ocean floor to be reflected even further out. You could, possibly, put destructive levels of energy many dozens of miles away from the burst point. You could break things faraway. So you see where I’m going with this.
What about the oceanic environment? This is not the early days of the Cold War. We know a lot these days about the complex biology of the ocean. Radioisotopes, like strontium and iodine, concentrate as you move up the food chain.
Your basic oyster is a filter feeder, moving hundreds of thousands of gallons of seawater through its system over its lifetime. This causes isotopes to concentrate to a level that can poison wildlife and people. Anybody or anything that eats these critters will surely suffer from radiation damage to every level of cellular function, and almost certainly to reproductive cells. More specifically, radioactive strontium and iodine concentrate in the bones and thyroid glands, respectively.
This is all straightforward, established science. If you want things to get even uglier, and last a real long time, you’ll use a nuclear weapon out in the Gulf of Mexico.
Bottom line is that we need to get the nuclear weapon discussion off the table. Put the nukes back in the bunkers, where they belong.
Where to from Here?
Marilyn, I’m glad you asked your question. But a nuke clearly isn’t the right choice.
With that said, another question comes to light…
With a small percentage of oil still flowing out of the well, a massive cleanup ensuing, more goverenment regulation and the effects of a drilling moratorium tying the hands of our energy industry – where do we go from here?
I’ll start by making a statement I’ve made before and I’ll make again: the cheap and easy oil is GONE. Finding new energy to fuel our nation is going to be harder, more regulated and more expensive.
Is a U.S. moratorium the right choice? I’ll let you decide that.
But there’s one matter that you won’t have a choice on: the higher price you pay for oil.
With oil sitting north of $70 a barrel I can’t imagine it getting any cheaper.
Indeed, a few years from now we may look back and deem this period the point where the U.S. lost its edge in energy.
That’s all for now. Thanks for reading…
Until we meet again,
Byron W. King
Whiskey & Gunpowder
June 11, 2010
Related Articles
Byron King
Prior to joining Penny Sleuth, Byron received his Juris Doctor from the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, was a cum laude graduate of Harvard University, served on the staff of the Chief of Naval Operations and as a field historian with the Navy. Our resident energy and oil expert, Byron is the editor of Outstanding Investments and Energy and Scarcity Investor. Byron has made frequent appearances in mainstream media such as The Washington Post, MSN Money, Marketwatch.com, Fox Business News, CNBC's Squawk Box, Larry Kudlow, Glenn Beck and PBS Newshour. He also had a feature article written in the Financial Times, and has appeared on both CNN and Marketplace radio broadcasts. Byron has also been quoted in various international publications such as The Guardian and De Volkskrant, and has been a guest on Canada's CBC television broadcast.
ShareThis
Byron, I submitted an idea early last week to the BP website, however due to the volume of suggestions they receive it may never be read. Perhaps I’m off base with this idea, but here it is.
I’m not a scientist nor an engineer, but I do love playing with Iron Magnetite. I understand that a nuclear blast is not the logical answer, nor was golf balls or mud. Perhaps using Iron Magnetite material to shove into the pipe and sealing it with an earth magnet cap. The pipe is metal, Iron Magnetite is magnetic, you have to peel the Iron off of a earth magnet the attraction is so strong. It appears that they could have used the very cap they have now plugging that hole, lined it with earth magnet. Between the metal pipe, the iron and the magnet it would have created a natural seal. These materials work even under water. They could drill a whole in the magnetic cap seal and simply extracted the oil. The iron magnetite is piled up at the old eagle mountain mine outside of Palm Springs. The pile is so large you can see it from the google satellite. Magnets can be found anywhere. Even old recking yards.
What do you think?
Hello Byron,
Matt Simmons did not suggest using an underwater nuclear blast to seal the well. He was advocating using a nuke several thousand feet below the ocean floor adjacent to the well. He was patterning his suggestion after the several Soviet gas well blowouts which were stopped by specially designed long narrow cylinder nukes that were lowered into holes that were drilled next to the problem wells.
Thanks!
Byron,
I’d been wondering if anyone was thinking about this in the best traditions of thinking about the unthinkable, and when I started reading the articles was amazed. Posted about how this was probably a really bad idea at The Defeatists (http://thedefeatists.typepad.c.....-idea.html) and cross posted it at the Veterans Today website. I was looking at it from the grunt perspective, and was a bit diffident about the effects of a deep water burst. Your info confirmed my suspicions — bad idea.
I was particularly taken by your comment that the effects of a nuclear weapon are unpredictable. We know a lot about what Nukes do, but only in so far as we were testing specific weapons in specific locations under specific conditions. As soon as you start throwing around variables, you start altering the nature of the reality you are trying to unfold. In a way, it’s sort of the Jack D Ripper–Doomsday way of thinking about this. If this then this; then this; then that; then…well, we didn’t think that far. Since the people who have tried to justify this absurdity as an intellectually valid option are frequently citing the Soviet Union’s experience with using nuclear devices to cap gas wells, I’m even more reluctant to go along with it. We’re dealing with an ecological disaster — the loss of the oil qua oil is the only thing that is minimal about this — and some are asking about looking to the Soviets who managed to turn a good 45% of the Eurasian landmass into a toxic cleanup site for answers.
Talk about the laws of unintended consequences.
Fair winds and following seas,
Mike
[...] Whiskey & Gunpowder- Nukes and Expensive Oil [...]
See chapter ‘START AT THE BEGINING’ PARAGRAPH 2 – 5,000 FT DEPTH
See chapter ‘ WIGWAM TEST’ PARAGRAPH 3 – 16,000 FT DEPTH
AMBIGUOUS ?
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Agora Financial, GreatDanes. GreatDanes said: Nukes and Expensive Oil http://shar.es/mkgqd [...]
I heard that Russia closed some leaking underwater oil wells with nukes. My dayughter told me that some other leak, maybe Mexican, was closed by an explosion (I assume non-nuke) after leaking for several months. Explosives have closed many oil wells on land – hundreds in Kuwait after Saddam Hussan ignited them in 1991.
I don’t like the idea of a nuke, but maybe conventional explosives would work.
I wonder if BP is trying to do a solution that would let them recover the oil. That’s good, but much better is the fastest method, even if it closes the hole completely so they can’t get oil out of it. Better to lose tens of millions from not getting the the oil, than lose billions paying expenses. Also, if an explosion closes it quickly, we’d be more ready to let them drill more wells.
Q: What causes the outflow from the well?
A: High gas pressure.
Q: How do you relieve high gas pressure?
A: Deplete the formation.
Q: How do you do that?
A: Drill more wells.
Estimated realty losses along the Gulf Coast measure in billions. Lost business and lost jobs mean more lost billions.
Bringing in some deepwater platforms would be cheap in comparison.
My understanding is that there are very few drilling platforms capable of tapping this field. Construction time to fabricate these specialized rigs is measured in years.
Additionally , it seems that the well casing and bore pipe have been compromised some distance below the sea floor. Any increase in back pressure causes more oil/gas to be forced out into the surrounding rock strata and then out into the Gulf through existing cracks and fissures; many some distance from the well head we see on the live feed.
The scope of the problem has not been publicly defined.
Fantastic, Byron. We enjoyed it a great deal more than most for reasons we won’t discuss, either. How about a couple of more possibilities that you didn’t have room for, like a “bay surge?” This has roughly the same speed and effect as a Tsunami (a wall of water travelling at 200 mph), and would not improve the skylines of New Orleans, Houston, and who knows where else? Like throwing a rock into a pond, the force would spread out in all directions. Oops! There went a Princess cruise ship. Second, what about thermoclines? This won’t be a very technical description, but what happens to a ball when you drop it? It bounces. What happens if there is a barrier that stops the ball before it reaches the height of it’s trajectory? At a very good guess, it dribbles back and forth between the various barriers, maintaining its momentum longer because the distance is restricted, and in the case of thermonuclear force might easily spread into additional forces like a gigantic video game, and those could start bouncing into each other… I grew up around Oceanographers, Meterologists, and sailors, and while that explanation might cause a pained look or two in academic circles, it is close enough for interested Gulf watchers who don’t want to do extensive reading. And then there are tectonic plates…
[...] former Viking aviator Byron King debunks the idea of tossing a nuke into the gulf. The short version is we never chased submarines capable of diving anywhere close to the depth of [...]
brisa, you’re correct about the relatively few platforms. This moratorium has already had Anadarko announce that they’re pulling three such rigs out and will be moving them to other countries’ offshore areas.
Byron, well written, spot on. The unknown dangers (as well as the known) preclude the use of (in this uncharted realm: the testing of) a nuke. The fact that we have to drill a hole a mile beneath the sea surface and then thru another 8,000 feet of rock (planet surface) to access new oil and it is an economically viable business model (when done correctly) speaks volumes to “Peak Oil” and the future price increases that are sure to follow.
Brilliant piece, yet SURELY high explosives piled as close as possible to the BP pipe on the sea bed would have the effect of imploding and thus sealing the downhole pipe? The leak could’nt be made worse as only the top 30 or 40 ft of the ‘hole’ would be damaged and sealed. Tons of aggregate and sand could be poured or ‘directed’ over the explosives prior to blasting? D. Collingwood, 85, Jade Close, London, E16. 3TZ UK
An article with some interesting anecdotes about cold war weaponry but devoid of an intelligent and logical analysis of the current situation in the gulf.
In other words, a useless essay in relation to solving the current problem.
BP is NOT getting the well under control – to say this is to display incredible ignorance and gullability.
The relief wells are FAR from certain to work – again, to be state otherwise shows the author to be incapable of making a meaningful contribution to this debate. The wigwam test as a comparison is just plain daft – Simmons et al are suggesting that the nuclear device be detonated deep in the sea bed. This author simply does not comprehend the gravity of the current situation – not even 0.1% of how serious it is and the threat that we face. I am glad that he so loves and adores the weapons of mass destruction that he used to operate. Oh, and by the way, the “but that’s all I can say about that” stuff is just pure egotism and showing off.
“With a small percentage of oil still flowing out of the well, a massive cleanup ensuing, more goverenment regulation and the effects of a drilling moratorium tying the hands of our energy industry – where do we go from here?”
Huh? Small percentage? First, we don’t know what the percentage is — the government and BP have lied about ALL their numbers so we have no good idea of what’s going on. Second, even if it is only a small percentage still escaping (which I do not believe is the case), it’s the raw numbers of barrels escaping per day that is important.
As someone else pointed out, it appears as if the entire well has been compromised. It cannot be capped, it cannot be stopped. We can suck up a certain percent of the oil, but not the millions of gallons a day. The “massive” cleanup is impossible, not merely massive. What will stop the oil leaking is nothing that BP or the gov can do, it is the emptying of the oil chamber, months or years in the future.
Regulations and moratoriums are far too late and far too little.
Going forward we will be very lucky if we don’t kill off the Atlantic Ocean.
Byron, there isn’t a small percentage of oil still flowing from the well.
There’s an increasing amount of oil flowing because BP needs to reduce pressure down well. So as not to collapse the whole system and, potentially, release 2.5 billion (with a B) barrels of oil.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6593/648967
Possibly.
I’d say the nuclear option should remain under consideration. 2.5 billion barrels of oil released would be slightly harmful to humanity.
Byron, well written, spot on. The unknown dangers (as well as the known) preclude the use of (in this uncharted realm: the testing of) a nuke. The fact that we have to drill a hole a mile beneath the sea surface and then thru another 8,000 feet of rock (planet surface) to access new oil and it is an economically viable business model (when done correctly) speaks volumes to “Peak Oil” and the future price increases that are sure to follow.
So… Richard thinks (on June 17th) that I’m not “making a meaningful contribution to this debate.”
And Richard still wants to detonate a nuclear weapon deep under the seabed. In a hole that has not yet been drilled? With a bomb that does not exist?
Huh? who’s not making a meaningful contribution? Here’s what I said, had Richard read the artidcle:
“The two holes (BP is currentlly drilling) are for relief wells. So now you want to drill a third hole for the nuclear device?
“Then you need a nuclear device to emplace in the hole. Except that the U.S. has no nuclear devices rated for 5,000-foot and deeper water depths. ”
Does Richard know of any “extra” holes that are being drilled in the seabed, near the blown out well, to serve as the last chamber? Does he know of any nuclear devices rated for 5,000 foot water depths, and deeper? Or does he know, but he can’t discuss it because he has too high of a security clearance? If so, Richard, then you’re just showing us all your egoism at work.
And OBTW, dude, what makes you think I “love and adore” nuclear weapons? You’re the mad bomber who apparently wants to cook off a nuke underwater. That’s probably a good reason why you should never get near one.
And OBTW again, Richard, what kind of high performance combat jet did YOU ever fly? I’m not much for bragging. But as Will Rogers once noted, “If something’s true, then you ain’t bragging.”
Byron, dear, I would have chewed Richard’s ears off for you, but how nice to know you actually read comments. I’m only Roger Ramjet’s sister, but at a very good guess you never dropped a bomb on anything? I would not wish to offend any fighting man so I will not use the (otherwise perfectly respectable) phrase that aviators like Byron and “Roger” might use joshing a close friend who had been a bomber pilot. When Byron strapped on his lethal little machine in defense of our country (Thank you, Byron.) he wasn’t lumbering around carrying a tractor-trailer load of nukes. Only the very best fly HPCJ, and the best of the best become squadron commanders, hmmm, Byron?
Here is an excellent way to tell the heroes from the braggarts: heroes tell you funny stories like my brother’s about chasing a Vietnamese on a bicycle down a winding road at low altitude in his tiny jet. The armed cyclist looked back/up one time too many and crashed into a ditch. “Roger” laughed, thought “I don’t have to kill you, live little man and tell your grandchildren,” waggled his wings, and flew away. My husband claimed to hold the RVN record for digging foxholes with the buttons on his fatigues when he hit the ground and nothing would have induced him to discuss how he won awards for valor or the circumstances under which he had seven RTO’s shot out from under him.
Finally, Richard, when some men say “I can’t talk about that” it means that to this day they could end up in Ft. Levenworth if they did. It is better not even to say “I can’t talk about that” if it can be avoided. You reveal your ignorance of military customs in many ways and my conclusion is that you never earned the right to salute any man. Obama always looks lost attempting to do it because a salute is a gesture of recognition and respect between warriors, not just a hand motion he does incorrectly. (MDC insists I should say “between professional fighting men” but I prefer my older definition.) I wish I had earned that right, but I am definitely qualified to defend the men who fight for all of us, not because they “need” it but because they deserve it. If you can prove you acquitted yourself well on the field of battle I will apologize, although I will still think poorly of your sense and manners. Smile…gee, Byron, had you realized how high you are in my esteem? LBT
the idea of removing a nuke from the discussion because of the depth is not valid. we have speciality built subs that can go to that depth so building a casing should not be difficult. as far as the nuke itself my past reading iindicates that we have build and tested low yield devices that emit low levels of radiation. you must understand that i’m not a scientist (a bad speller yes) but we need to have a fall back plan if all else should fail with a time frame on when to act. a nuke itself used in the gulf is most likely not a dooms day choice. we have a large amount of experience with this type of explosive and if needed we should use it.
another question would be the use of shaped explosives that are non-nuclear. we have them. we use them.
i try to stay in contact weekly with friends that either live right in the area (2 miles or less from the beach) or are going to the beaches once twice a week. so far in flordia some of the beaches on the west cost are beginning to see impact. one friend has joked that he will not need to use suntan blocker because in a few weeks the oil will do the trick. one thing they each mention is the smell.
a quistion that i have asked various forms before and received no answer on is the amount of water in the entire gulf vs. the amount of oil. where is the tipping point to the mix? when does it become a global crises because of the lost of both western and eastern sea coasts of the united states? i would like to see someone develop a progress plan that would show us what to expect on a weekly / monthly basis how the oil is spreading and its effects.
after the haricane tore apart the the gulf region we had thousands of people displaced and moved into other areas of the country. this created hudge problems that still are not corrected today. should this spill ruin large areas and destroy entire industries what plans will we need to reach out and help these people?
to rap this up i would like to thank the person who put together this page for his service to our country. my son is also in the armed forces andd you all have my greatest respect…
terry
Terry, an interesting series of thoughts, thank you. I deal mostly in common sense, which tells me that attempting to put a shape charge into a hole that far down, even with waldos, like some Jacques Costeau fairy tail, might be just a bit difficult. Now that you jiggle my memory, I am pretty well acquainted with a grade A nut (even by my gloriously high standards) who did underwater demolition at six thousand/day back when $6,000 was pretty serious money, and David might have something to add. Born in the wrong century, he was, like I. Another of his odder jobs was crawling into drain pipes to remove rather large alligators which had sought refuge there. He was in jail for a while for setting fire to his limousine even though he did not file an insurance claim. He used a bunch of the bones he accumulated to make a suit of “armor” to wear at Renaissance Festivals.
Terry, my regards to your son, and may he not have any personally fatal encounters while in Sand Land with those who don’t play nicely. Actually…this page was something W&G Editor Gary Gibson and I came up with about 18 months ago when I started writing for him. We wanted more reader involvement, a way to keep great articles like Byron’s up a week instead of gone in a day, some relief from his enormous reader mail–much of which is certainly of a caliber to deserve showcasing–and, um, sort of as a toy for me because I’m so prolific a writer he couldn’t find room for all I turn out. He tasked me to develop new talent, and I found half a dozen good writers among those who started commenting! We spun off http://www.thetexasring.com, and you’ll find lots of good stuff over there. Lots of Tony De Maio’s “Fabulous Fables for Modern Folk,” fine thinking from Michael Rough, more of my work, Tex Norton, and others–and we pride ourselves that when you comment on an article on TTR you get a personal reply from the author. Most of us are retired and can handle it. Desert Rat, dear, when are you going to write me the article I keep asking for? You can keep trying to sound like a prospector wandering around with a pack donkey, but you aren’t fooling any of us, you know: there’s a first class mind and a lot of information under that home-spun wisdom! Hug, Linda
Folks,
I know nothing about physics, I am a dreamer.
I wonder why it is not possible to find some old ship of the right size, install a number of connector tubes on the top, modify the bottom so it digs into the ocean floor and surrounds the oil leaking tube. Lower it with the required number of ships, then use the lowering lines to drop heavy circular weights that weigh more than the well pressure.
I am now going back to bed to dream.
Ocos
[...] Nukes and Expensive OilA reader named Marilyn, from Oregon, wrote with the following question: … “I’ve read Internet threads where people want to use a nuclear weapon to close the oil well blowout in the Gulf of Mexico. Even Matt Simmons, who’s a hero to me because of his Peak Oil … Here’s my background even to comment on the subject. [...]