  |
M.E.T.T.S. - Consulting Engineers > White Papers > A Nuclear Solution to the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill
A Nuclear Solution to the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill
Dr. Mike Clarke, FAusIMM, FIEAust, CPEng, RPEQ
CEO, M.E.T.T.S. Pty. Ltd.
Infrastructures Development and Resource Management Engineers
Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
Synopsis
The Gulf of Mexico oil spill from the wrecked Deepwater Horizon oil rig presents an extreme and presently uncontrolled hazard to the United States and Mexican east coasts. The extent of the environmental damage as at the beginning of June 2010 is still to be accessed, as will be the on-going damage until the oil flow is stopped. The escape of 12,000 to 15,000 barrels per day of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico has to be stopped.
The initial capping with flow redirection and ‘top kill’ mud injection have not worked. Another attempt at capping with siphoning may reduce oil escape but is not likely to solve the problem. The drilling of relief wells for eventual plugging the gushing well with cement will take several months.
In this scenario of unabated environmental damage some hard options that will involve least environmental risk need to be considered. One of those options is the plugging of the gushing well with a nuclear explosive charge. The explosion would create a depression in the sea floor that would consist to a layer of vitrified (glasslike) rock and mud, under which there would be a thick layer of highly compacted rock and mud. The vitrified and compacted rock and mud would act as a heavy cap at the end of the truncated and collapsed oil well casing.
The use of nuclear explosives is seen as a last resort option for the quick cessation of the oil spill. It does come with some risk of not completely stopping the flow, and a moderate risk from blast effects and residual radiation. It is however a real option if the next capping and siphoning attempt at controlling the spill fails.
The proposed system
Oil is gushing from the broken wellhead of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig. Previous attempts at stopping or reducing the flow have failed. A system that cuts off the flow as soon as possible is required.
Figure 1. A simplified schematic of the broken wellhead and oil emissions into the waters of the Gulf of Mexico.
Figure 2. The placement of a nuclear charge adjacent to the wellhead and broken blow-out preventer of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig.
The oil is under high pressure that has prevented the ’top kill’ option of filling the well-head with heavy drilling mud and similar materials from working. The other attempt of placing a hood over the well and allowing oil to flow to the surface by a flexible pipe, was also unsuccessful due to high flow and hydrostatic pressures. The formation of crystals of methane hydrates being the primary problem.
The Nuclear Detonation Option for Stemming the Oil-flow
The nuclear explosive could be a nuclear depth charge that would need to competent of withstanding the pressures at 1500 metres (5000 feet) and be able to be remotely triggered. The charge could be placed on the sea floor (as indicated) or suspended above the well if modelling of the blast pattern indicated that this would be a better option. One of the effects of the blast would be to crush the well lining in a compacted mass of mud and rock. The other effects would be to create a heavy mass of vitrified and compacted mud and rock above the truncated well – Figure 4.
It can be noted that the well is under 1500 metres of seawater and there is around 4000 metres of mud and rock to the oil reservoir. Note: The depth of water from the surface to the wellhead precludes the use of divers and is requiring remotely controlled systems to access the wellhead in attempts to stop the flow.
Note: The placing of a nuclear explosive charge would be done by the remote vehicles that have been used in previous attempts to cap the well.
Figure 3. The nuclear blast.
Figure 4. The truncation of the flowing oil well.
How Big the Nuclear Explosive Charge?
The nuclear explosive charge that would be used should be big enough to provide a reasonable degree of certainty that the oil flow can be stopped. Similarly the charge should be over-powered such that unnecessary environmental damage occurs. Getting the size of charge correct will in part be a function of the nuclear explosion modellers (probably military or ex-military) who know how to accurately determine the effects of nuclear explosives. The creation of a sufficiently large mass of vitrified and compacted mud and rock is the goal and this is where the rig geologists will need to communicate with the nuclear explosives experts. Lastly the design of the nuclear charge should also be such that the creation of ‘radioactively hot’ by-products is minimised and as such a nuclear explosive device with relatively ‘clean’ fission products should be chosen.
Risk Management, the Management of Public Outrage
Having public support for such a major change in nuclear weapons use and control will need to be garnered. The use of the environmental ‘least damage’ argument will assist as well as having the solid support of World leaders.
There will be questions from some environmental groups as to why a non-nuclear explosive was not used. The answers to this question are relatively simple, and are that:
1. A non-nuclear blast would not create mud and rock vitrification or the same level of mud and rock compaction,
2. A physically small nuclear charge could be in place far more quickly than a bulky and relatively low energy conventional explosive charge, and
3. Any of the advanced nuclear power states should have a suitable nuclear device in their armouries, with a minimal delivery time once the decision is made to proceed.
Completing the Project
Figure 5. Drilling a relief well and moving to re-start petroleum production.
In this schematic the use of a relief well to permanently seal the well is indicated. That well or new production wells could be developed to restart oil flow in the future.
The relief well(s) would avoid the vitrified and compressed mud and rock in the blast zone and re-enter the main well at some distance below the blast zone. That distance would be determined by modelling the known geology with the estimated depth of blast influence into the seafloor mud and rock.
The relief well drilling should start in as short period as is safely possible after the nuclear detonation. Monitoring of the area around the well for continuing and significant outflows of oil would be wise. Note: The nuclear detonation should not be assumed to be a final solution to stopping the oil spill.
The Sense of Utilising Nuclear Weapons in an Environmental Emergency
In the case of this particular spill, the use of nuclear explosives could be looked upon as a least harm attempt to prevent major future environmental damage. It is not a perfect solution but is a practical solution with a good chance of success.
Is this an unique concept? Answer: No.
In recently published newspaper articles (eg ‘The unthinkable: Calls to use nuclear bomb to seal BP's Gulf of Mexico oil leak’, The Courier-Mail, Brisbane, May 31, 2010) this concept has been briefly discussed, and there are references to the use of nuclear explosives by the Russians in the past to stop oil spills.
Will this regular occurrence concept? Answer: Possibly, but we should all hope that this will be a one-off event!
Multiple levels of blow-out protection combined with automated rapid response systems should reduce the hazards that have been so evident in the Deepwater Horizon rig disaster.
NOTE:
You are welcome to quote up to a maximum of three paragraphs from the above white paper, on condition that you include attribution to this website, as follows:
SOURCE: M.E.T.T.S. Pty. Ltd. Website http://www.metts.com.au
The Gulf of Mexico oil spill from the wrecked Deepwater Horizon oil rig presents an extreme and presently uncontrolled hazard to the United States and Mexican east coasts. The extent of the environmental damage as at the beginning of June 2010 is still to be accessed, as will be the on-going damage until the oil flow is stopped. The escape of 12,000 to 15,000 barrels per day of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico has to be stopped.
The initial capping with flow redirection and ‘top kill’ mud injection have not worked. Another attempt at capping with siphoning may reduce oil escape but is not likely to solve the problem. The drilling of relief wells for eventual plugging the gushing well with cement will take several months.
In this scenario of unabated environmental damage some hard options that will involve least environmental risk need to be considered. One of those options is the plugging of the gushing well with a nuclear explosive charge. The explosion would create a depression in the sea floor that would consist to a layer of vitrified (glasslike) rock and mud, under which there would be a thick layer of highly compacted rock and mud. The vitrified and compacted rock and mud would act as a heavy cap at the end of the truncated and collapsed oil well casing.
The use of nuclear explosives is seen as a last resort option for the quick cessation of the oil spill. It does come with some risk of not completely stopping the flow, and a moderate risk from blast effects and residual radiation. It is however a real option if the next capping and siphoning attempt at controlling the spill fails.
The proposed system
Oil is gushing from the broken wellhead of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig. Previous attempts at stopping or reducing the flow have failed. A system that cuts off the flow as soon as possible is required.
Figure 1. A simplified schematic of the broken wellhead and oil emissions into the waters of the Gulf of Mexico.
Figure 2. The placement of a nuclear charge adjacent to the wellhead and broken blow-out preventer of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig.
The oil is under high pressure that has prevented the ’top kill’ option of filling the well-head with heavy drilling mud and similar materials from working. The other attempt of placing a hood over the well and allowing oil to flow to the surface by a flexible pipe, was also unsuccessful due to high flow and hydrostatic pressures. The formation of crystals of methane hydrates being the primary problem.
The Nuclear Detonation Option for Stemming the Oil-flow
The nuclear explosive could be a nuclear depth charge that would need to competent of withstanding the pressures at 1500 metres (5000 feet) and be able to be remotely triggered. The charge could be placed on the sea floor (as indicated) or suspended above the well if modelling of the blast pattern indicated that this would be a better option. One of the effects of the blast would be to crush the well lining in a compacted mass of mud and rock. The other effects would be to create a heavy mass of vitrified and compacted mud and rock above the truncated well – Figure 4.
It can be noted that the well is under 1500 metres of seawater and there is around 4000 metres of mud and rock to the oil reservoir. Note: The depth of water from the surface to the wellhead precludes the use of divers and is requiring remotely controlled systems to access the wellhead in attempts to stop the flow.
Note: The placing of a nuclear explosive charge would be done by the remote vehicles that have been used in previous attempts to cap the well.
Figure 3. The nuclear blast.
Figure 4. The truncation of the flowing oil well.
How Big the Nuclear Explosive Charge?
The nuclear explosive charge that would be used should be big enough to provide a reasonable degree of certainty that the oil flow can be stopped. Similarly the charge should be over-powered such that unnecessary environmental damage occurs. Getting the size of charge correct will in part be a function of the nuclear explosion modellers (probably military or ex-military) who know how to accurately determine the effects of nuclear explosives. The creation of a sufficiently large mass of vitrified and compacted mud and rock is the goal and this is where the rig geologists will need to communicate with the nuclear explosives experts. Lastly the design of the nuclear charge should also be such that the creation of ‘radioactively hot’ by-products is minimised and as such a nuclear explosive device with relatively ‘clean’ fission products should be chosen.
Risk Management, the Management of Public Outrage
Having public support for such a major change in nuclear weapons use and control will need to be garnered. The use of the environmental ‘least damage’ argument will assist as well as having the solid support of World leaders.
There will be questions from some environmental groups as to why a non-nuclear explosive was not used. The answers to this question are relatively simple, and are that:
1. A non-nuclear blast would not create mud and rock vitrification or the same level of mud and rock compaction,
2. A physically small nuclear charge could be in place far more quickly than a bulky and relatively low energy conventional explosive charge, and
3. Any of the advanced nuclear power states should have a suitable nuclear device in their armouries, with a minimal delivery time once the decision is made to proceed.
Completing the Project
Figure 5. Drilling a relief well and moving to re-start petroleum production.
In this schematic the use of a relief well to permanently seal the well is indicated. That well or new production wells could be developed to restart oil flow in the future.
The relief well(s) would avoid the vitrified and compressed mud and rock in the blast zone and re-enter the main well at some distance below the blast zone. That distance would be determined by modelling the known geology with the estimated depth of blast influence into the seafloor mud and rock.
The relief well drilling should start in as short period as is safely possible after the nuclear detonation. Monitoring of the area around the well for continuing and significant outflows of oil would be wise. Note: The nuclear detonation should not be assumed to be a final solution to stopping the oil spill.
The Sense of Utilising Nuclear Weapons in an Environmental Emergency
In the case of this particular spill, the use of nuclear explosives could be looked upon as a least harm attempt to prevent major future environmental damage. It is not a perfect solution but is a practical solution with a good chance of success.
Is this an unique concept? Answer: No.
In recently published newspaper articles (eg ‘The unthinkable: Calls to use nuclear bomb to seal BP's Gulf of Mexico oil leak’, The Courier-Mail, Brisbane, May 31, 2010) this concept has been briefly discussed, and there are references to the use of nuclear explosives by the Russians in the past to stop oil spills.
Will this regular occurrence concept? Answer: Possibly, but we should all hope that this will be a one-off event!
Multiple levels of blow-out protection combined with automated rapid response systems should reduce the hazards that have been so evident in the Deepwater Horizon rig disaster.
NOTE:
You are welcome to quote up to a maximum of three paragraphs from the above white paper, on condition that you include attribution to this website, as follows:
SOURCE: M.E.T.T.S. Pty. Ltd. Website http://www.metts.com.au
M.E.T.T.S. Pty. Ltd. - Consulting Engineers PO Box 843, Helensvale QLD 4212, Australia TEL: (07) 5502 8093 • (Int'l) +61-7-5502 8093 EMAIL: metts[at]metts.com.au © 1999-2010 M.E.T.T.S. Pty. Ltd. All Rights Reserved. |
.