Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Let's nuke the oil out of the ground

Posted by Jan Frel at 4:40 PM on June 30, 2006.


There is enough for another Oil Century buried deep in Colorado, but it ain't going to be easy to get out -- unless we nuke it. All in favor, say aye.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get The Mix in your
mailbox!

 

I'm at a loss for words from this post from The Oil Drum:

Well, as Gazprom consolidates its grip on Russian gas it could be that we may need access to all that oil locked up in the oil shale somewhat sooner than the four years that Shell have said it needs before it can even decide if their process is viable (and I'll cover that in a later post). Now before I get into the piece that follows I should explain that I don't hold any particular animus towards the states of Colorado, Utah, Wyoming or Idaho and so when I start talking about disposing of nuclear weapons in those states by making use of them it should be taken as merely a technical discussion (grin).

The need for a relatively rapidly available resource to allow us to continue being able to supply the worlds needs for oil, even as it increases into the future, will require some fairly rapid and agile production of resources, and as I noted in the first post of this series, with some 2 trillion extractable barrels of oil locked up in the oil shales of the above four states, there lies a potential answer to the problem. But conventional means for extraction, particularly the levels of capital required, and other issues that I will discuss later, make it unlikely that these normal means will produce any significant impact on the gap in economic supply that will develop in the near future. The use of nuclear explosives has the potential to solve that problem. And to explain, rather simply how this might be done (as with the other techie talks), I will explain how, conceptually, this might be achieved.

Who's game? Read on...

Digg!

Jan Frel is an AlterNet staff writer.


On the religious right 'nuts,' liberals, and catching a break
A response to a colleague...
Post by Evan Derkacz. October 17, 2006.
Bush thinking of 'replacing' Iraqi government? [VIDEO]
A whole new definition of Democracy.
Post by Evan Derkacz. October 16, 2006.
Religious right rally's first gaffe
Church opposes bigoted agenda
Post by Evan Derkacz. October 16, 2006.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
I have no problem with it
Posted by: sheeplepeeple on Jun 30, 2006 5:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Use whatever means to get the oil, as long as it is reasonably safe. I am not a hairshirt liberal. Hairshirt liberals are like the polar opposite of the religious fundamentalists on the right. They want to subject everyone to some sort of masochistic neopuritanical torture.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I have no problem with it Posted by: Gaubladt
» Wait... it can be done safely? Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» Hey: Sheeple People Posted by: famouspipeliner
» And I'm sure all week long... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
I have a huge F'ing problem with it!!
Posted by: FauxPorteno on Jun 30, 2006 6:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Those of us who are native Coloradoans find this idea beyond unsavory! Easy to say one doesn't have a problem with it when they won't be the ones driving the newly irradiated I-70 corridor on their way to Vail or Beaver Creek, which will soon thereafter be littered with oil rigs and wells. I have personally seen Halliburton rigs everywhere - that alone scares the shit out of me!! Unlike the author, I have a natural affinity for the state of CO. I don't think it gets much better than CO - at least geopysically speaking. It is the crown jewel of the US IMHO. An increasing number of Californians relocating to cities like Montrose and Grand Junction likely agree as well.

The point is why destroy some of the most scenic parts of western CO and the US for a fuel source that should be going the way of the dinoaur (hahaha). This will delay our already retarded progress towards realizing the ultimate goal of developing clean, plentiful energy sources and we will be destroying treasures like CO in the process.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» back to school moron! Posted by: FauxPorteno
» Yes, but just imagine... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: back to school moron! Posted by: famouspipeliner
More Cookes.
Posted by: douglashoyt on Jun 30, 2006 7:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It makes little difference how much oil is in the ground, and whether or not it can be recovered profitably.

It cannot be used without increasing the rate of global warming. Oil is over.

The sooner we spend time and money on advanced, non poluting energy the better.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Maybe we can just combine it with ...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Jun 30, 2006 7:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... that weapons test using a million and a half pounds of explosives.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Am I missing something
Posted by: kkinder on Jun 30, 2006 10:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just a recap from the Oil Drum story: You use the heat and blast of a nuclear bomb to extract oil. The heat is between 180 and 1,000 degrees. If the oil shale is close enough to be super-heated from a nuclear bast, would the resulting fuel not be radio active?

That's just great! Denver has a smog problem as it is, but at least it isn't nuclear smog.

Horrible idea. As a Colorado Native, I'm opposed to this. Fortunately, the Colorado Constitution requires a vote of the people prior to nuclear activity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm having a bad case of deja vu here
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jun 30, 2006 10:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'd recommend John McPhee's "The Curve of Binding Energy" to anyone reading this. The nuclear fantasies of the 50's are so patently ridiculous... but now I hear them being echoed again.

Let's just talk about "MICE" - Megaton Ice Contained Explosions - a project to create tritium by exploding nuclear weapons inside ice sheets (no joking!). Haven't we moved beyond this kind of idiocy? Dr Strangelove, i.e. Bechtel-BWX-University of California, is back in the saddle by all accounts:

In their own words: the Bechtel UC BWX contract

This is just too much - this is rabid lunacy for sure.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Oh, wait... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» How do we keep Posted by: YogiBear
» I know how! Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: The Atom is Our Friend. Posted by: doinaheckuvajob
A Shroom Cloud
Posted by: famouspipeliner on Jul 2, 2006 1:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Who are these people at oil whatever and what do they know?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A Shroom Cloud Posted by: FauxPorteno
» RE: A Shroom Cloud Posted by: famouspipeliner
I doubt it.
Posted by: grokked on Jul 3, 2006 7:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You know, I think, on some level, there really is a case to be made for an almost kneejerk reaction on the part of many liberals to all things nuclear. It is a pattern that really worries me as regards (if and when) fusion reaches a point where it might seem practical.

As regards this plan, I think I would like to know more about what the atomic scientists (I take the article to be mostly the position of oil men) have to say before completely writing it off.

My initial thought is that the resulting oil product obtained would be heavily contaminated with radioactive byproducts, which would then be both:
1) released into the air when burned, and also
2) build up as engine sludge inside any engine that burned it. Thus making the engines a radioactive hazard to dispose of.

Somehow, I doubt if this will ever fly regardless of how much the corporate wingnuttery want it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Well, here's a question... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» I would say again... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: I would say again... Posted by: Jesse
» RE: I would say again... Posted by: Jesse
» Well, lets put it this way... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
Hey, SheeplePeople...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Jul 4, 2006 7:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm still waiting to hear your reasonable and science-based arguments. Oh wait... you ran into a few folks who actually DO know what they are talking about and don't agree with your talking points, so you ran like hell.

...But thanks for sparking debate among those who actually do have something reasonable, sane, and relatively well informed to say.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Baaa Posted by: famouspipeliner
Hairshirts are itchy
Posted by: eringhorm on Jul 5, 2006 12:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sorry, sheeple, no hairshirts in my closet. But when the discussion turns to using nuclear-f'n-weapons just to get more oil, I think we've jumped the shark big time. The fact this is even being considered ought to be enough for us to throw the brakes on and decide it's time to look for a new, long-term solution that doesn't involve levelling mountains with a-bombs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]