It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Nuclear Fracking?

page: 1
14

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 11:23 AM
link   
I am opening this thread in an attempt to understand more about this apparently somewhat rare- or perhaps, unreported- phenomena. It appears that at one time, and perhaps now?- they were, (or are?) actually using nuclear devices of some kind to achieve the release of natural gas or perhaps even using them in certain mining operations- when several hundred pounds of TNT just won't do anymore...




This afternoon, I was reading through ProPublica’s chart of the history of government regulation, “From Gung-Ho to Uh-Oh“. I was very surprised that the first effort at releasing tight natural gas came from a nuclear bomb in 1969. The chart says that in 1969 “The government detonates a 43-kiloton nuclear bomb deep underground in an effort to get at natural gas deposits in Colorado.”

I suppose they shouldn’t have been surprised when it turned out that the resulting natural gas was too radioactive to use. The AP story which ProPublica links, “Legacy of nuclear drilling site in Colorado still lingers“, goes on to describe the 1969 explosion as causing the ground to roll, “Like a wave coming through.”

The government is going to regulate fracking ingredients more closely, but I don’t think we’re going to see drillers using nuclear weapons any time soon!


americansecurityproject.org...

Hmm. Now you might write this off as just myth. And I would too, except I have been doing a lot of reading lately trying to understand more about quakes, and also saw a reference to nuclear devices being used in another document. I am racking my brains trying to remember where....

But in any case, I turn this loose to the excellent diggers we have here to search and see what you can turn up on this mysterious subject. With all these crazy booms being heard all over the place these days, would it be that much of a surprise to find out that they were being caused by deep underground nuclear detonations- and that they are propagating so much farther than usual because of the tremendous power of nuclear devices?

Stars awarded for posts that contribute something of value, as usual with my threads... You can start by reading that article, and if I find that document I was reading I will post it. Thanks ATS.




posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   
That was not their only misguided attempt at using nuclear devices either.

I can't find a source for it.

But back in the 60's they detonated a nuclear weapon deep underground in Louisiana or Mississippi to get to oil.
Same result, oil was too irradiated to be used.

I'll keep looking for a source.
edit on 14-4-2012 by watchitburn because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by watchitburn
 


here is one wiki article that talks about one nuclear event like this:
en.wikipedia.org...

What I am wondering though, with the extensive development of smaller tactical nukes, if they haven't also developed similar small nuclear devices for certain mining operations- or natural gas release...

And here is another article that talks about "Peaceful Nuclear Explosions":


Possible applications for peaceful nuclear explosions include:

Large-scale excavation to create reservoirs, canals and ports.
Stimulating oil and gas recovery.
Creating cavities for underground oil, gas or waste storage.
Extinguishing gas field fires.
Space propulsion.
Interception of potentially dangerous Near Earth Objects (asteroids, etc).
Recovering oil from oil shale.
Energy production via molten fluorides underground producing steam for electricity.
Breaking up copper and phosphate ore preparatory to mining.

Of these, the first four have been tested (and even applied in some cases by the USSR) while the remaining five have been investigated but not tested.

A total of 151 PNE experiments have been carried out by both the USA (27) and the USSR (124 plus 32 tests that helped develop explosive devices used in PNEs). No other country has ever carried out a PNE testa and there are currently no moves towards a resumption of tests.


www.world-nuclear.org...
edit on Sat Apr 14th 2012 by TrueAmerican because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


Welll it's a stretch, but I wonder if they could be using small nukes for this still, and that could be the sources of some of these booms and roars/rumbles people are hearing? I know..... Iknow.....just throwing it out there.



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Part of Operation Plowshare. Other wacky ideas for the peaceful used of nuclear weapons; thermonuclear devices to be used for dredging harbors and widening the Panama Canal. There were 27 test blasts associated with the project before it was deemed a dumb idea.
en.wikipedia.org...

Is it going on now? No. The seismic signature of an underground nuclear blast is quite distinctive.

edit on 4/14/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 11:53 AM
link   
Your post is referring to "Project Rulison" and "Project Rio Blanco" , both part of "Operation Plowshare":

Project Rulison - Wikipedia


Project Rulison, named after the rural community of Rulison, Colorado, was a 40-kiloton nuclear test project in the United States on September 10, 1969, about 8 miles SE of the town of Grand Valley, Colorado (now named Parachute, Colorado) near western Colorado's Grand Valley in Garfield County. The location of "Surface Ground Zero" is WikiMiniAtlas 39°24′19.0″N 107°56′54.7″W / 39.40528°N 107.948528°W / 39.40528; -107.948528. It was part of the Operation Mandrel weapons test series under the name Mandrel Rulison, as well as the Operation Plowshare project which explored peaceful engineering uses of nuclear explosions. The peaceful aim of Project Rulison was to determine if natural gas could be easily liberated from underground regions.


Project Rio Blanco - Wikipedia


Project Rio Blanco was an underground nuclear test that took place on May 17, 1973 in Rio Blanco County, Colorado, approximately 58 km northwest of Rifle. Three 33-kiloton nuclear devices were detonated nearly simultaneously in a single emplacement well at depths of 5,838, 6,230, and 6,689 feet below ground level. The tests were conducted in fine-grain, low-permeability sandstone lenses at the base of the Fort Union Formation and the upper portion of the Mesaverde Formation.


A shot also took place in NM called "Project Gasbuggy"

Project Gasbuggy - Wikipedia


Project Gasbuggy was an underground nuclear detonation carried out by the United States Atomic Energy Commission on December 10, 1967 in rural northern New Mexico. It was part of Operation Plowshare, a program designed to find peaceful uses for nuclear explosions.



Operation Plowshare was an attempt to find peaceful uses for nuclear devices. Ideas from making harbours, canals, to blasting through mountains for railroads were theorized.

Operation Plowshare - Wikipedia


Project Plowshare was the overall United States term for the development of techniques to use nuclear explosives for peaceful construction purposes. The phrase was coined in 1961, taken from Micah 4:3 ("And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more"). It was the U.S. portion of what are called Peaceful Nuclear Explosions (PNE).



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
Is it going on now? No. The seismic signature of an underground nuclear blast is quite distinctive.


I would agree, for the most part, except that assumes a large nuclear yield. I don't know that signature would be anywhere near the same for a much smaller device that does not necessarily excite the same resonance modes in the earth. I am just wondering if there could be much smaller ones in use now. And this fact kept extremely secret.



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 

I don't see any point. Remember? The products are radioactive.
Fracking (liquid) seems to work just fine, probably better.



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   
The Russians had a much more extensive program called "Nuclear Explosions for the National Economy". They made many more test shots, and actually created some "useful" applications.

Nuclear Explosions for the National Economy - Wikipedia


Nuclear Explosions for the National Economy (sometimes referred to as Program #7[1]), was a Soviet program to investigate peaceful nuclear explosions (PNEs). It was analogous to the US program Operation Plowshare.


They also had a "Program#6" that was part of the same project.

The Russians did everything from making lakes, canals, dams, to creating underground caverns for natural gas storage to storage for hazardous waste. The Russians also used it in the natural resource sector in both open pit and underground mines. They even sealed some gas well blow-outs with small nukes.



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 

I don't see any point. Remember? The products are radioactive.
Fracking (liquid) seems to work just fine, probably better.


There are many drawbacks to hydraulic fracking as well, talking from experience.



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 12:02 PM
link   
I came across a rather humorous article that talks about many of these stupid PNE ideas and other nuclear blunders.

link


The plan was really just a way for the military to get around the looming 1963 Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which made it illegal to test weapons in the upper atmosphere and in the ocean. The Sedan Test was Operation Plowshare's second test and it was, in scientific terms, a son of a bitch.



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


But what about mini neutron bombs? Or is there some way they have figured out how to harness the power of the explosion without the radioactive fallout?



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 12:10 PM
link   
You know, it wouldn't surprise me one bit if they're still doing something idiotic like nuclear fracking. The whole idea of fracking is repugnant to me, and I think they're going to piss off the earth if they keep going.

However, the price of natural gas in the commodities market is around $2.00. Before they started this fracking insanity, the price was close to $14.00.

They are fracking themselves right out of business. I assume that small nukes are somewhat expensive. The more gas they loosen up within the earth, the cheaper it becomes. At the price it is now, I'm having a hard time believing that these natural gas companies are making any profit whatsoever.

I'm not doubting the theory that they are using dangerous methods to extract the gas, but their greed means they will have to stop fracking in order to let the price go back up. This is why I'm doubting that fracking is the cause of all the booming people have been hearing lately. Natural gas isn't stored, unless it is turned into something like propane by liquifying the gas. It has to be piped to where it will be used. There is very little profit right now.

205.254.135.7...




Unless they are running low and have to keep re-fracking in slightly different areas to feed the same consumer base, I can't help but think that something else is going on underground, and TPTB want to divert our attention by blaming fracking.



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 

Are you sure you know what a neutron bomb is? They do produce radioactive products and would be very, very expensive to build (tritium is not cheap). Might as well use TNT (or fracking fluid).



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 

Are you sure you know what a neutron bomb is? They do produce radioactive products and would be very, very expensive to build (tritium is not cheap). Might as well use TNT (or fracking fluid).


lol, yeah, that was a dumb question about neutron bombs. I used to know this stuff, but it's been quite a while, so I forgot. Neutron bombs are not the item for the job, as they are intended to kill using more radiation than typical nuclear weapons, and have less blast and heat.


en.wikipedia.org...

Ok, so everybody pretty much agrees then that nuclear fracking, in any form, is not in use today for any purpose whatsoever...



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 11:43 PM
link   
TA, I've been wondering about this in regards to EQs and also the strange boom sounds

Is this of any help in your research?
It includes this


showing the difference of how the siesmographs read EQ seismic waves vs underground nuclear blast. The distinction is very clear to see with the S and P waves.

However this forensic seismology on underground nuclear blasts only detects mag 4 or larger.

Govt site


....Using data recorded worldwide by a host of seismic monitoring stations, the team successfully differentiated the nuclear blasts from typical regional earthquakes, characterized the yields of the tests, and noted inconsistencies between the announced test yields and the seismic data.

Seismic P waves are compressional waves, similar to sound waves in the air. Shear (S) waves are transverse waves, like those that propagate along a rope when one end is shaken. Because underground explosions are spherically symmetric disturbances, they radiate seismic P waves efficiently. In contrast, earthquakes result from sliding or rupture along a buried fault surface and strongly excite the transverse motions of S waves. Thus, we expect that explosions will show strong P waves and weak S waves and that earthquakes will show weak P waves and strong S waves

ETA: I see Phage mentioned this distinction

edit on 16-4-2012 by violet because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 01:35 AM
link   
This article references being able to reduce seismic signal


A Review of the Cavity Decoupling Evasion Scenario: Implications for Seismic Monitoring of Underground Nuclear Explosions

The concept that it might be possible to significantly reduce the seismic signal radiated by an underground nuclear explosion by detonating the device in a sufficiently large air-filled cavity (i.e. cavity decoupling) was first proposed publicly by A. L. Latter of the U.S. at the 1959 Nuclear Test Ban Conference in Geneva, Switzerland. Despite the fact that the concept has been around for more than 50 years, it continues to pose the greatest challenge to effective seismic monitoring of possible clandestine underground nuclear tests.

source



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 04:25 AM
link   
Darn it, I can't edit my first post in this now.
The edit function could do with lasting longer than 4 measley hours.

I want to correct myself that I meant I was wondering if any type of secretive blasting is going on underground , not neccasarily nuclear



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 09:45 PM
link   
Nuclear? atomic? I'd guess atomic explosives would suffice.

I think the explosion would taint the natural gas in unmistakable ways, and draw the attention of the test ban treaty monitors unless it was so small one may as well have used conventional explosives anyway. If the explosion vented, the treaty air monitors would sniff it out. Treaty monitors are diligent due to the dangers of new countries testing their weapons, and I think the efforts are multinational, so the US could not simply ignore the signs.

Efforts to muffle explosions by setting them off in cavities would undermine the effort to crack rock to release gas. This is because the muffling also minimizes the stress waves emitted from the source region. Cavities are quite expensive to construct, and never worked very well anyway - the rock is not as symmetrical as the geometry of the cavities, and so cancellation of seismic waves was far less than theoretical estimates. Most thought the muffling scenarios were just concocted to justify political stonewalling of efforts to pass treaties.

Neat idea, though, and the economics might be good (if anyone were willing to buy the natural gas).



new topics

top topics



 
14

log in

join