Misplaced Pages

Project Plowshare: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:07, 7 September 2017 editKolbertBot (talk | contribs)Bots1,166,042 editsm Bot: HTTP→HTTPS← Previous edit Latest revision as of 09:53, 8 October 2024 edit undoSwinub (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users67,052 editsm Nuclear tests: Grammar 
(113 intermediate revisions by 64 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{short description|U.S. program examining the peaceful applications of nuclear explosives (1961–77)}}
{{hatnote|Not to be confused with the ] ].}}
{{About|proposed peaceful uses of nuclear weapons|the serialized Philip K. Dick novel with the same name|The Zap Gun|the Christian anti-nuclear protest movement|Plowshares Movement}}
]" plowshares shot displaced 12 million tons of earth and created a crater 320 feet (100 m) deep and 1,280 feet (390 m) wide]]
{{Use mdy dates|date=November 2018}}
'''Project Plowshare''' was the overall United States term for the development of techniques to use ]s for peaceful construction purposes. It was the US portion of what are called ] (PNE).
]" plowshares shot displaced 12 million tons of earth and created a crater {{convert|320|ft|m}} deep and {{convert|1280|ft|m}} wide.]]


'''Project Plowshare''' was the overall United States program for the development of techniques to use ]s for peaceful construction purposes. The program was organized in June 1957 as part of the worldwide ] efforts. As part of the program, 35<ref>{{Cite book |last=Weinersmith |first=Zach |title=10 Emerging Technologies That'll Improve and/or ruin everything |year= 2017 |isbn=978-0399563829 |pages=154 |language=English}}</ref> nuclear warheads were detonated in 27 separate tests. A similar program was carried out in the ] under the name ], although the Soviet program consisted of 124 tests.
Successful demonstrations of non-combat uses for nuclear explosives include ], stimulation of ], ] manufacture (test shot Anacostia resulted in ] being discovered), unlocking some of the mysteries of the so-called "r-Process" of stellar ] and probing the composition of the Earth's deep crust, creating ] ] data which has helped ]s and follow on mining company ].<ref name="Executive Summary"/><ref>https://wayback.archive.org/web/20060210141005/http://www.ociw.edu/ociw/symposia/series/symposium4/ms/becker.ps.gz</ref><ref></ref>


Successful demonstrations of non-combat uses for nuclear explosives include ], stimulation of ], ] manufacture,{{efn|Test shot Anacostia resulted in ] being discovered.}} unlocking some of the mysteries of the ] of ] and probing the composition of the ], creating ] ] data which has helped geologists and follow-on mining company ].<ref name="Executive Summary"/><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.ociw.edu/ociw/symposia/series/symposium4/ms/becker.ps.gz |title=Archived copy |website=www.ociw.edu |access-date=12 January 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060210141005/http://www.ociw.edu/ociw/symposia/series/symposium4/ms/becker.ps.gz |archive-date=10 February 2006 |url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.ociw.edu/ociw/symposia/series/symposium4/proceedings.html|title=Carnegie Observatories Astrophysics Series |date=February 10, 2006|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060210141005/http://www.ociw.edu/ociw/symposia/series/symposium4/proceedings.html |archive-date=February 10, 2006 }}</ref>
The project's uncharacteristically large and atmospherically vented ] also led geologists to determine that ] was formed as a result of a ] and not from a volcanic eruption, as had earlier been assumed. This became the first crater on Earth definitely proven to be from an ].<ref></ref>


The project's uncharacteristically large and atmospherically vented ] also led geologists to determine that ] was formed as a result of a ] and not from a ], as had earlier been assumed. This became the first crater on Earth definitely proven to be from an impact event.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://keyah.asu.edu/lessons/MeteorCrater/KM13.html|title=Keyah Math – Numerical Solutions for Culturally Diverse Geology|website=keyah.asu.edu}}</ref>
Negative impacts from Project Plowshare's 27 nuclear projects generated significant public opposition, which eventually led to the program's termination in 1977.<ref name =bks2011 /> These consequences included ] (projected to increase by CER Geonuclear Corporation to a level of 2% of the then-maximum level for drinking water)<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Jacobsen|first1=Sally|title=Turning up the Gas: AEC Prepares Another Nuclear Gas Stimulation Shot|journal=Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists|date=May 1972|volume=28|issue=5|page=37|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=pwsAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA37&dq=radioactive+tritium+RIO+BLANCO,+COLO&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VBVjVMXcOZeuyATxr4GADw&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=snippet&q=tritium%20water&f=false|issn=0096-3402}}</ref> and the deposition of ] from radioactive material being injected into the atmosphere before underground testing was mandated by treaty.


Negative impacts from Project Plowshare's tests generated significant public opposition, which eventually led to the program's termination in 1977.<ref name =bks2011 /> These consequences included ] (projected to increase by CER Geonuclear Corporation to a level of 2% of the then-maximum level for drinking water)<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Jacobsen|first1=Sally|title=Turning up the Gas: AEC Prepares Another Nuclear Gas Stimulation Shot|journal=Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists|date=May 1972|volume=28|issue=5|page=37|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=pwsAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA37|issn=0096-3402|doi=10.1080/00963402.1972.11457935}}</ref> and the deposition of ] from radioactive material being injected into the atmosphere before ] was ].
A similar Soviet program was carried out under the name ].


==Rationale== ==Rationale==
By exploiting the peaceful uses of the "friendly atom"—in medical applications, earth removal, and later in nuclear power plants—the nuclear industry and government sought to allay public fears about nuclear technology and promote the acceptance of ]{{Citation needed|date=February 2016}}. At the peak of the ], the United States Federal government initiated Project Plowshare, involving "peaceful nuclear explosions". The ] chairman at the time, ], announced that the Plowshares project was intended to "highlight the peaceful applications of nuclear explosive devices and thereby create a climate of world opinion that is more favorable to weapons development and tests".<ref>{{cite book |last1=Hewlett |first1=Richard G. |last2=Holl |first2=Jack M. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=0Cv_E3yLHG4C&pg=PA529 |title=Atoms for Peace and War, 1953-1961: Eisenhower and the Atomic Energy Commission |page=529 |date=1989 |publisher=University of California Press |location=Berkeley and Los Angeles, California |quote=highlight the peaceful applications of nuclear explosive devices and thereby create a climate of world opinion that is more favorable to weapons development and tests}}</ref><ref>"semiannual report to Congress in January 1958". Other mentions of Strauss making statements in Feb 1958 or hearings being held are on p 447, and 474 it seems. p.474's quotation: Senate Subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Relations, Hearings on Control and Reduction of Armaments, Feb. 28-April 17, 1958, Washington: Government Printing Office, 1958) pp.1336-64.</ref>{{quote needed|date=August 2015}} By exploiting the peaceful uses of the "friendly atom" in medical applications, earth removal, and later in nuclear power plants, the nuclear industry and government sought to allay public fears about nuclear technology and promote the acceptance of ].<ref>Stone, Oliver and Kuznick, Peter, ''The Untold History of the United States'' (Gallery Books, 2012), pp. 283–284 {{ISBN?}}</ref> At the peak of the ], the United States Federal government initiated Project Plowshare, involving "peaceful nuclear explosions". The ] chairman at the time, ], announced that the Plowshares project was intended to "highlight the peaceful applications of nuclear explosive devices and thereby create a climate of world opinion that is more favorable to weapons development and tests".<ref>{{cite book |last1=Hewlett |first1=Richard G. |last2=Holl |first2=Jack M. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=0Cv_E3yLHG4C&pg=PA529 |title=Atoms for Peace and War, 1953–1961: Eisenhower and the Atomic Energy Commission |page=529 |date=1989 |publisher=University of California Press |location=Berkeley and Los Angeles, California |quote=highlight the peaceful applications of nuclear explosive devices and thereby create a climate of world opinion that is more favorable to weapons development and tests|isbn=978-0520060180 }}</ref><ref>"semiannual report to Congress in January 1958". Other mentions of Strauss making statements in Feb 1958 or hearings being held are on p 447, and 474 it seems. p. 474's quotation: Senate Subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Relations, Hearings on Control and Reduction of Armaments, Feb. 28April 17, 1958, Washington: Government Printing Office, 1958) pp. 1336–1364.</ref>{{request quotation|date=August 2015}} These tests were to demonstrate that atomic bombs can be used for peaceful purposes, that the atomic sword could be beaten into a plowshare.


== Proposals == == Proposals ==
]
Proposed uses for nuclear explosives under Project Plowshare included widening the ], constructing a new sea-level waterway through ] nicknamed the Pan-Atomic Canal, cutting paths through mountainous areas for highways, and connecting inland river systems. Other proposals involved blasting underground caverns for water, natural gas, and petroleum storage. Serious consideration was also given to using these explosives for various mining operations. One proposal suggested using nuclear blasts to connect underground ]s in ]. Another plan involved surface blasting on the western slope of ]'s ] for a water transport project.<ref name=bks2011 />


Proposed uses for nuclear explosives under Project Plowshare included widening the ], constructing a new sea-level waterway through ] nicknamed the Pan-Atomic Canal, cutting paths through mountainous areas for highways, and connecting inland river systems. Other proposals involved blasting caverns for water, natural gas, and petroleum storage. Serious consideration was also given to using these explosives for various mining operations. One proposal suggested using nuclear blasts to connect underground ]s in ]. Another plan involved surface blasting on the western slope of ]'s ] for a water transport project.<ref name=bks2011 />
],<ref>{{cite journal | url = http://pubsindex.trb.org/document/view/default.asp?lbid=110048 | title =Preliminary Design Studies In A Nuclear Excavation — Project Carryall |publisher= Highway Research Board | year=1964 |issue=50 |pages= 32–39 |accessdate= 2016-08-17}}</ref> proposed in 1963 by the ], the California Division of Highways (now ]), and the ], would have used 22 nuclear explosions to excavate a massive roadcut through the ] in the ], to accommodate construction of ] and a new rail line.<ref name=bks2011/> At the end of the program, a major objective was to develop nuclear explosives, and blast techniques, for stimulating the flow of natural gas in "tight" underground reservoir formations. In the 1960s, a proposal was suggested for a modified ''in situ'' ] process which involved creation of a ] chimney (a zone in the ] created by breaking the rock into fragments) using a ].<ref name= chimney>{{Cite journal | last = Lombard| first = DB | last2 =Carpenter|first2=HC |title=Recovering Oil by Retorting a Nuclear Chimney in Oil Shale |journal = Journal of Petroleum Technology |publisher=Society of Petroleum Engineers |pages= 727–34 |issue= 19 |year = 1967}}</ref> However, this approach was abandoned for a number of technical reasons.


One of the first serious cratering proposals that came close to being carried out was ], which would have used several ]s to create an artificial harbor at ]. It was never carried out due to concerns for the native populations and the fact that there was little potential use for the harbor to justify its risk and expense.<ref>{{Citation | last = O'Neill | first = Dan | year = 2007 | orig-year = 1995 | title = The Firecracker Boys: H-Bombs, Inupiat Eskimos, and the Roots of the Environmental Movement | place = New York | publisher = Basic Books | isbn = 978-0-465-00348-8 | url-access = registration | url = https://archive.org/details/unset0000unse_p6n8 }}</ref>
== Plowshare testing ==
]
One of the first plowshare nuclear blast cratering proposals that came close to being carried out was ], which would have used several ]s to create an artificial harbor at ]. It was never carried out due to concerns for the native populations and the fact that there was little potential use for the harbor to justify its risk and expense.<ref>{{Citation | last = O'Neill | first = Dan | year = 2007 | origyear = 1995 | title = The Firecracker Boys: H-Bombs, Inupiat Eskimos, and the Roots of the Environmental Movement | place = New York | publisher = Basic Books | ISBN = 0-465-00348-6}}</ref>


],<ref>{{cite journal | url = http://pubsindex.trb.org/document/view/default.asp?lbid=110048 | title =Preliminary Design Studies In A Nuclear Excavation — Project Carryall | journal =Highway Research Record |publisher= Highway Research Board | year=1964 |issue=50 |pages= 32–39 |access-date= August 17, 2016| last1 =Fry | first1 =J. G. | last2 =Stane | first2 =R. A. | last3 =Crutchfield Jr | first3 =W. H. }}</ref> proposed in 1963 by the ], the California Division of Highways (now ]), and the ], would have used 22 nuclear explosions to excavate a massive roadcut through the ] in the ], to accommodate construction of ] and a new rail line.<ref name=bks2011/>
A number of ] cratering blasts were conducted; including the Buggy shot of 5 1&nbsp;kt devices for a channel/trench in Area 30 and the largest being 104 ] (435 ]) on July 6, 1962 at the north end of ], within the ]'s ] (NTS) in southern Nevada. The shot, "]", displaced more than 12 million ]s (11 ]s) of soil and resulted in a radioactive cloud that rose to an altitude of 12,000&nbsp;ft (3.7&nbsp;km). The ] plume headed northeast and then east towards the ]{{Citation needed|date=February 2016}}.


A project proposed in a 1963 memorandum by ] would have used 520 2-megaton nuclear explosions to excavate a canal through the ] in Israel at an estimated cost of $575 million ($5 billion in 2021), to serve as an alternative route to the ].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.osti.gov/opennet/servlets/purl/453701.pdf|title=Use of Nuclear Explosives for Excavation of Sea-Level Canal Across the Negev Desert|last=Maccabee|first=H. D.|publisher=United States Office of Scientific and Technical Information|date=1 July 1963|access-date=2 April 2021}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.businessinsider.com/us-planned-suez-canal-alternative-israel-blast-with-nuclear-bombs-1960s-2021-3|last=Guenot|first=Marianne|title=The US had a plan in the 1960s to blast an alternative Suez Canal through Israel using 520 nuclear bombs|publisher=Insider|date=25 March 2021|access-date=2 April 2021}}</ref>
The first PNE blast was ], conducted on December 10, 1961 in a salt bed 24&nbsp;mi (39&nbsp;km) southeast of ]. The explosion released 3.1 kilotons (13 TJ) of energy yield at a depth of 361 meters (1,184&nbsp;ft) which resulted in the formation of a {{convert|170|ft|m|abbr=on}} diameter, {{convert |80|ft|m|abbr=on}} high cavity. The test had many objectives. The most public of these involved the generation of ] which could then be used to generate electricity. Another objective was the production of useful ]s and their recovery. Another experiment involved ] ] ]. A fourth experiment involved geophysical studies based upon the timed seismic source. Only the last objective was considered a complete success. The blast unintentionally vented radioactive steam while the press watched. The partly developed ] detonation experiment that was to follow adjacent to the ] was then canceled.


At the end of the program, a major objective was to develop nuclear explosives, and blast techniques, for stimulating the flow of natural gas in "tight" underground reservoir formations. In the 1960s, a proposal was suggested for a modified ''in situ'' ] process which involved creation of a ] chimney (a zone in the ] created by breaking the rock into fragments) using a ].<ref name= chimney>{{Cite journal | last1 = Lombard| first1 = DB | last2 =Carpenter|first2=HC |title=Recovering Oil by Retorting a Nuclear Chimney in Oil Shale |journal = Journal of Petroleum Technology | volume = 19 |publisher=Society of Petroleum Engineers |pages= 727–734 |issue= 6 |year = 1967| doi = 10.2118/1669-PA |doi-access = free }}</ref> However, this approach was abandoned for a number of technical reasons.
Over the next 11 years 26 more nuclear explosion tests were conducted under the U.S. PNE program. The radioactive blast debris from 839 U.S. underground nuclear test explosions remains buried in-place and has been judged impractical to remove by the DOE's Nevada Site Office. Funding quietly ended in 1977. Costs for the program have been estimated at more than (US) $770 million.<ref name = bks2011 />

== Plowshare testing ==
The first ] (PNE) blast was ], conducted on December 10, 1961, in a salt bed {{cvt|24|mi|km}} southeast of ], in southeast ]. The explosion released 3.1&nbsp;kilotons (13&nbsp;TJ) of energy yield at a depth of {{cvt|361|m|ft|order=flip}} which resulted in the formation of a {{cvt|170|ft|m|adj=on}} diameter, {{cvt|80|ft|m|adj=on}} high cavity. The test had many objectives, the most public of which involved the generation of ] which could then be used to generate electricity. Another objective was the production of useful ]s and their recovery. Yet another experiment involved ] ] ], and a fourth experiment involved geophysical studies based upon the timed seismic source. Only the last objective was considered a complete success. The blast unintentionally vented radioactive steam while the press watched. The partly developed ] detonation experiment that was to follow adjacent to the ] was then canceled.

A number of ] cratering blasts were conducted; including the Buggy shot of five 1-kiloton devices for a channel/trench in Area 30 and the largest being 104 ] (435 ]) on July 6, 1962, at the north end of ], within the ]'s ] (NTS) in southern Nevada. The shot, "]", displaced more than {{convert|12|e6ST|e6kg|abbr=off}} of soil and resulted in a radioactive cloud that rose to an altitude of {{cvt|12000|ft|km}}. The ] plume headed northeast and then east towards the ].<ref name=bks2011/>

Over the next 11 years, 26 more nuclear explosion tests were conducted under the United States PNE program. The radioactive blast debris from 839 U.S. underground nuclear test explosions remain buried in-place and have been judged impractical to remove by the DOE's Nevada Site Office. Funding quietly ended in 1997, and costs for the program have been estimated at more than (US) $770 million.<ref name="bks2011" />


===Natural gas stimulation experiment=== ===Natural gas stimulation experiment===
Three nuclear explosion experiments were intended to stimulate the flow of ] from "tight" formation gas fields. Industrial participants included ] Company for the ] test; CER Geonuclear Corporation and ] for the ] test;<ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.library.hbs.edu/hc/lehman/company.html?company=austral_oil_co_inc|title = Austral Oil, Co., Inc. |publisher=Harvard Business School |accessdate = 2014-11-23}}</ref> and CER Geonuclear Corporation for the ] test. Three nuclear explosion experiments were intended to stimulate the flow of ] from "tight" formation gas fields. Industrial participants included ] Company for the ] test near ]; CER Geonuclear Corporation and ] for the ] test;<ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.library.hbs.edu/hc/lehman/company.html?company=austral_oil_co_inc|title = Austral Oil, Co., Inc. |publisher=Harvard Business School |access-date = November 23, 2014}}</ref> and CER Geonuclear Corporation for the ] test.

The final PNE blast took place on May 17, 1973, under Fawn Creek, {{cvt|76.4|km|mi|order=flip}} north of ]. Three 30-kiloton detonations took place simultaneously at depths of {{cvt|1758|, |1875|and|2015|m|ft|order=flip}}. If it had been successful, plans called for the use of hundreds of specialized nuclear explosives in the ] gas fields. The previous two tests had indicated that the produced natural gas would be too ] for safe use; the Rio Blanco test found that the three blast cavities had not connected as hoped, and the resulting gas still contained unacceptable levels of ].<ref name = "Dubious">{{cite news |url = http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,903965,00.html |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20081214071547/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,903965,00.html |url-status = dead |archive-date = December 14, 2008 |title=Environment: Project Dubious |date=April 9, 1973 |work= Time magazine |access-date= August 17, 2016}}</ref>

By 1974, approximately $82 million had been invested in the nuclear gas stimulation technology program. It was estimated that even after 25 years of production of all the natural gas deemed recoverable, only 15 to 40% of the investment would be recouped. Also, the concept that stove burners in California might soon emit trace amounts of blast radionuclides into family homes did not sit well with the general public. The contaminated gas was never channeled into commercial supply lines.

The situation remained so for the next three decades, but a resurgence in Colorado Western slope natural gas drilling has brought resource development closer and closer to the original underground detonations. By mid-2009, 84 drilling permits had been issued within a {{convert|3|mi|km|adj=on}} radius, with 11 permits within {{cvt|1|mi|km|spell=in}} mile of the site.<ref>{{cite news|first=Mark |last= Jaffe |url= http://www.denverpost.com/2009/07/01/colorado-drilling-rigs-closing-in-on-60s-nuke-site/ |title = Colorado drilling rigs closing in on '60s nuke site |newspaper=The Denver Post |date=July 2, 2009 |access-date = January 30, 2010}}</ref>

==Impacts, opposition and economics==
Operation Plowshare "started with great expectations and high hopes". Planners believed that the projects could be completed safely, but there was less confidence that they could be completed more economically than conventional methods. Moreover, there was insufficient public and Congressional support for the projects. ] and Coach were two examples where technical problems and environmental concerns prompted further feasibility studies which took several years, and each project was eventually canceled.<ref name="Executive Summary"/>

Citizen groups voiced concerns and opposition to some of the Plowshare tests. There were concerns that the blast effects from the Schooner explosion could dry up active wells or trigger an earthquake. There was opposition to both Rulison and Rio Blanco tests because of possible radioactive gas flaring operations and other environmental hazards.<ref name="Executive Summary"/> In a 1973 article, '']'' used the term "Project Dubious" to describe Operation Plowshare.<ref name="Dubious"/>

There were negative impacts from several of Project Plowshare’s 27 nuclear explosions, primarily those conducted in the project's infancy and those that were very high in explosive yield.

On Project Gnome and the Sedan test:<ref name=bks2011>{{Citation | first = Benjamin K | last = Sovacool | author-link = Benjamin K. Sovacool | year = 2011 | title = Contesting the Future of Nuclear Power: A Critical Global Assessment of Atomic Energy | publisher= ] | pages = 171–2}}</ref>
{{Blockquote |Project Gnome vented radioactive steam over the very press gallery that was called to confirm its safety. The next blast, a 104-kiloton detonation at Yucca Flat, Nevada, displaced 12 million tons of soil and resulted in a radioactive dust cloud that rose {{convert|12000|ft|disp=sqbr||}} and plumed toward the Mississippi River. Other consequences – blighted land, relocated communities, tritium-contaminated water, radioactivity, and fallout from debris being hurled high into the atmosphere – were ignored and downplayed until the program was terminated in 1977, due in large part to public opposition.<ref name=bks2011 />}}

Project Plowshare shows how something intended to improve national security can unwittingly do the opposite if it fails to fully consider the social, political, and environmental consequences. It also “underscores that public resentment and opposition can stop projects in their tracks”.<ref name=bks2011/>
]


The ] ] contends that the main problem with oil and gas stimulation, which many considered the most promising economic use of nuclear detonations, was that the produced oil and gas was radioactive, which caused consumers to reject it and this was ultimately the program's downfall.<ref name=bks2011 /> Oil and gas are sometimes ] to begin with, however, and the industry is set up to deal with oil and gas that contain radioactive contaminants.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://aoghs.org/technology/project-gasbuggy/|title="Gasbuggy" tests Nuclear Fracking – American Oil & Gas Historical Society|date=December 4, 2015}}</ref> Historian Dr. Michael Payne notes that it was primarily changing public opinion, in response to events such as the ], that drove the protests,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.innovationalberta.com/article.php?articleid=92|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070824172227/http://www.innovationalberta.com/article.php?articleid=92|archive-date=August 24, 2007|title=Innovation Alberta: Article Details|date=August 24, 2007}}</ref> court cases and general hostility that ended the oil and gas stimulation efforts. Furthermore, as the years went by without further development and production of nuclear weapons slowed, interest in peaceful applications waned in the 1950s–60s. Cheaper, non-nuclear stimulation techniques suitable for most US gas fields were developed in the following years.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.osti.gov/opennet/reports/plowshar.pdf|title=Plowshare Program Executive Summary, pp. 4–5}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.elmada.com/wagon/WWS005Projects.htm|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20040706025511/http://www.elmada.com/wagon/WWS005Projects.htm|archive-date=July 6, 2004|title=elmada.com/wagon: Nuclear Stimulation Projects|date=July 6, 2004}}</ref>
The final PNE blast took place on 17 May 1973, under Fawn Creek, 76.4&nbsp;km north of ]. Three 30 kiloton detonations took place simultaneously at depths of 1,758, 1,875, and 2,015 meters. If it had been successful, plans called for the use of hundreds of specialized nuclear explosives in the ] gas fields. The previous two tests had indicated that the produced natural gas would be too ] for safe use; the Rio Blanco test found that the three blast cavities had not connected as hoped, and the resulting gas still contained unacceptable levels of ].<ref name = "Dubious">{{cite news |url = http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,903965,00.html |title=Environment: Project Dubious |date=Apr 9, 1973 |work= Time magazine |accessdate= 2016-08-17}}</ref>


As a point of comparison, the most ] that did not result in customer product contamination issues was the 1976 Project Neva on the Sredne-Botuobinsk gas field in the ], made possible by multiple cleaner stimulation explosives, favorable rock strata and the possible creation of an underground contaminant storage cavity.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_uranium27.htm|title=The Soviet Program for Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Explosions|website=www.bibliotecapleyades.net}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url=https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/238468.pdf |title=Milo D. Nordyke, 2000. peaceful nuclear explosions (PNEs) in the Soviet Union over the period 1965 to 1988. |access-date=July 22, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161223024850/http://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/238468.pdf |archive-date=December 23, 2016 |url-status=dead }}</ref> The Soviet Union retains the record for the cleanest/lowest ] nuclear devices so far demonstrated.
By 1974, approximately $82 million had been invested in the nuclear gas stimulation technology program. It was estimated that even after 25 years of production of all the natural gas deemed recoverable, only 15 to 40 percent of the investment would be recouped. Also, the concept that stove burners in California might soon emit trace amounts of blast radionuclides into family homes did not sit well with the general public. The contaminated gas was never channeled into commercial supply lines.


The public records for devices that produced the highest proportion of their yield via fusion-only reactions, and therefore created orders of magnitude smaller amounts of ] as a result, are the USSR's ] of the 1970s, with the three detonations that excavated part of ], being cited as 98% fusion each in the ''Taiga'' test's three 15-] explosive yield devices, that is, a total fission fraction of 0.3 ]s in a 15 kt device.<ref> by Milo D. Nordyke. Science & Global Security, 1998, Volume 7, pp. 1–117</ref> In comparison, the next three high fusion-yielding devices were all much too high in total explosive yield for oil and gas stimulation: the 50-megaton ] achieved a yield 97% derived from fusion,<ref>. Nuclearweaponarchive.org. Retrieved on May 1, 2011.</ref> while in the US, the 9.3-megaton ] test is reported as 95.2%,<ref>. Nuclearweaponarchive.org. Retrieved on May 1, 2011.</ref> and the 4.5-megaton ] test as 95% derived from fusion.<ref>. Nuclearweaponarchive.org. Retrieved on May 1, 2011.</ref>
The situation remained so for the next three decades, but a resurgence in Colorado Western slope natural gas drilling has brought resource development closer and closer to the original underground detonations. By mid-2009, 84 drilling permits had been issued within a 3-mile radius, with 11 permits within one mile of the site.<ref>{{cite web|first=Mark |last= Jaffe |url= http://www.denverpost.com/2009/07/01/colorado-drilling-rigs-closing-in-on-60s-nuke-site/ |title = Colorado drilling rigs closing in on '60s nuke site |publisher=The Denver Post |date=2009-07-02 |accessdate = 2010-01-30}}</ref>


== Nuclear tests == == Nuclear tests ==
The U.S. conducted 27 PNE shots in conjunction with other, weapons-related, test series.<ref name="Executive Summary"/> A report by the ] includes yields slightly different than that presented below.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/rdd-7.html |title=RESTRICTED DATA DECLASSIFICATION DECISIONS 1946 TO THE PRESENT, RDD-7, January 1, 2001. |accessdate=2016-08-17}}</ref> The U.S. conducted 27 PNE shots in conjunction with other, weapons-related, test series.<ref name="Executive Summary"/> A report by the ] includes yields slightly different from those presented below.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/rdd-7.html |title=Restricted Data Declassification Decisions 1946 to the Present, RDD-7, January 1, 2001. |access-date=August 17, 2016}}</ref>


{| class="sortable wikitable" style="margin:auto;" {| class="sortable wikitable" style="margin:auto;"
|+ '''Plowshare nuclear tests''' |+ '''Plowshare nuclear tests'''
|- |-
! Test name || Date || Location ! Test name || Date || Location
!Type !Type
!Depth of Burial !Depth of Burial
Line 51: Line 76:
|- |-
! '']'' ! '']''
| 10 December 1961 || ] | December 10, 1961 || ]
|Shaft |Shaft
|1,185&nbsp;ft (361 m) |1,185&nbsp;ft (361 m)
Line 58: Line 83:
|- |-
! '']'' ! '']''
| 6 July 1962 || ] | July 6, 1962 || ]
|Crater |Crater
|635&nbsp;ft (194 m) |635&nbsp;ft (194 m)
|Alluvium|| 104<td>] |Alluvium|| 104
| ]
|A excavation experiment in alluvium to determine feasibility of using nuclear explosions for large excavation projects, such as harbors and canals; provide data on crater size, radiological safety, seismic effects, and air blast. |An excavation experiment in alluvium to determine feasibility of using nuclear explosions for large excavation projects, such as harbors and canals; provide data on crater size, radiological safety, seismic effects, and air blast.
|- |-
! ''Anacostia'' ! ''Anacostia''
| 27 November 1962 || Nevada Test Site | November 27, 1962 || Nevada Test Site
|Shaft |Shaft
|747&nbsp;ft (227.7 m) |747&nbsp;ft (227.7 m)
Line 72: Line 98:
|- |-
! ''Kaweah'' ! ''Kaweah''
| 21 February 1963 || Nevada Test Site | February 21, 1963 || Nevada Test Site
|Shaft |Shaft
|745&nbsp;ft (227.1 m) |745&nbsp;ft (227.1 m)
Line 79: Line 105:
|- |-
! ''Tornillo'' ! ''Tornillo''
| 11 October 1963 || Nevada Test Site | October 11, 1963 || Nevada Test Site
|Shaft |Shaft
|489&nbsp;ft (149 m) |489&nbsp;ft (149 m)
Line 86: Line 112:
|- |-
! ''Klickitat'' ! ''Klickitat''
| 20 February 1964 || Nevada Test Site | February 20, 1964 || Nevada Test Site
|Shaft |Shaft
|1,616&nbsp;ft (492.6 m) |1,616&nbsp;ft (492.6 m)
Line 93: Line 119:
|- |-
! ''Ace'' ! ''Ace''
| 11 June 1964 || Nevada Test Site | June 11, 1964 || Nevada Test Site
|Shaft |Shaft
|862&nbsp;ft (262.7 m) |862&nbsp;ft (262.7 m)
Line 100: Line 126:
|- |-
! ''Dub'' ! ''Dub''
| 30 June 1964 || Nevada Test Site | June 30, 1964 || Nevada Test Site
|Shaft |Shaft
|848&nbsp;ft (258.5 m) |848&nbsp;ft (258.5 m)
Line 107: Line 133:
|- |-
! ''Par'' ! ''Par''
| 9 October 1964 || Nevada Test Site | October 9, 1964 || Nevada Test Site
|Shaft |Shaft
|1,325&nbsp;ft (403.9 m) |1,325&nbsp;ft (403.9 m)
Line 114: Line 140:
|- |-
! ''Handcar'' ! ''Handcar''
| 5 November 1964 || Nevada Test Site | November 5, 1964 || Nevada Test Site
|Shaft |Shaft
|1,332&nbsp;ft (406 m) |1,332&nbsp;ft (406 m)
Line 121: Line 147:
|- |-
! ''Sulky'' ! ''Sulky''
| 5 November 1964 || Nevada Test Site | November 5, 1964 || Nevada Test Site
|Shaft |Shaft
|90&nbsp;ft (27.4 m) |90&nbsp;ft (27.4 m)
Line 128: Line 154:
|- |-
! ''Palanquin'' ! ''Palanquin''
| 14 April 1965 || Nevada Test Site | April 14, 1965 || Nevada Test Site
|Crater |Crater
|280&nbsp;ft (85.3 m) |280&nbsp;ft (85.3 m)
Line 135: Line 161:
|- |-
! ''Templar'' ! ''Templar''
| 24 March 1966 || Nevada Test Site | March 24, 1966 || Nevada Test Site
|Shaft |Shaft
|495&nbsp;ft (150.9 m) |495&nbsp;ft (150.9 m)
Line 142: Line 168:
|- |-
! ''Vulcan'' ! ''Vulcan''
| 25 June 1966 || Nevada Test Site | June 25, 1966 || Nevada Test Site
|Shaft |Shaft
|1,057&nbsp;ft (322.2 m) |1,057&nbsp;ft (322.2 m)
Line 149: Line 175:
|- |-
! ''Saxon'' ! ''Saxon''
| 11 July 1966 || Nevada Test Site | July 11, 1966 || Nevada Test Site
|Shaft
|1.2 kt
|502&nbsp;ft (153 m) |502&nbsp;ft (153 m)
|Tuff|| 1.2 || ] |Tuff|| 1.2 || ]
Line 156: Line 182:
|- |-
! ''Simms'' ! ''Simms''
| 6 November 1966 || Nevada Test Site | November 6, 1966 || Nevada Test Site
|Shaft |Shaft
|650&nbsp;ft (198.1 m) |650&nbsp;ft (198.1 m)
Line 163: Line 189:
|- |-
! ''Switch'' ! ''Switch''
| 22 June 1967 || Nevada Test Site | June 22, 1967 || Nevada Test Site
|Shaft |Shaft
|990&nbsp;ft (301.8 m) |990&nbsp;ft (301.8 m)
Line 170: Line 196:
|- |-
! ''Marvel'' ! ''Marvel''
| 21 September 1967 || Nevada Test Site | September 21, 1967 || Nevada Test Site
|Shaft |Shaft
|572&nbsp;ft (174.3 m) |572&nbsp;ft (174.3 m)
Line 177: Line 203:
|- |-
! '']'' ! '']''
| 10 December 1967 || ] | December 10, 1967 || ]
|Shaft |Shaft
|4,240&nbsp;ft (1,292 m) |4,240&nbsp;ft (1,292 m)
Line 184: Line 210:
|- |-
! ''Cabriolet'' ! ''Cabriolet''
| 26 January 1968 || Nevada Test Site | January 26, 1968 || Nevada Test Site
|Crater |Crater
|170&nbsp;ft (51.8 m) |170&nbsp;ft (51.8 m)
Line 191: Line 217:
|- |-
! ''Buggy'' ! ''Buggy''
| 12 March 1968 || Nevada Test Site | March 12, 1968 || Nevada Test Site
|Crater |Crater
|135&nbsp;ft (41.1 m) |135&nbsp;ft (41.1 m)
Line 198: Line 224:
|- |-
! ''Stoddard'' ! ''Stoddard''
| 17 September 1968 || Nevada Test Site | September 17, 1968 || Nevada Test Site
|Shaft |Shaft
|1,535&nbsp;ft (467.9 m) |1,535&nbsp;ft (467.9 m)
Line 205: Line 231:
|- |-
! ''Schooner'' ! ''Schooner''
| 8 December 1968 || Nevada Test Site | December 8, 1968 || Nevada Test Site
|Crater |Crater
|365&nbsp;ft (111.3 m) |365&nbsp;ft (111.3 m)
Line 212: Line 238:
|- |-
! '']'' ! '']''
| 10 September 1969 || ], ] | September 10, 1969 || ], ]
|Shaft |Shaft
|8,425&nbsp;ft (2,567.9 m) |8,425&nbsp;ft (2,567.9 m)
Line 219: Line 245:
|- |-
!Flask -Green, -Yellow, -Red !Flask -Green, -Yellow, -Red
| 26 May 1970 || Nevada Test Site | May 26, 1970 || Nevada Test Site
|Shaft |Shaft
|Green, 1736&nbsp;ft (529.2 m); Yellow, 1,099&nbsp;ft (335 m); Red, 499&nbsp;ft (152.1 m) |Green, 1736&nbsp;ft (529.2 m); Yellow, 1,099&nbsp;ft (335 m); Red, 499&nbsp;ft (152.1 m)
Line 226: Line 252:
|- |-
! ''Miniata'' ! ''Miniata''
| 8 July 1971 || Nevada Test Site | July 8, 1971 || Nevada Test Site
|Shaft |Shaft
|1,735&nbsp;ft (528.8 m) |1,735&nbsp;ft (528.8 m)
Line 233: Line 259:
|- |-
! '']'' -1, -2, -3 ! '']'' -1, -2, -3
| 17 May 1973 || ] | May 17, 1973 || ]
|Shaft |Shaft
|5,840&nbsp;ft (1,780 m); 6,230&nbsp;ft (1,898.9 m); 6,690&nbsp;ft (2,039.1 m) |5,840&nbsp;ft (1,780 m); 6,230&nbsp;ft (1,898.9 m); 6,690&nbsp;ft (2,039.1 m)
Line 251: Line 277:
!Medium !Medium
!Yield !Yield
!Note
!Objective
|- |-
!Pre-Gnome !Pre-Gnome
Line 263: Line 289:
|- |-
!Toboggan !Toboggan
|November- December 1959 & April–June 1960 |November–December 1959 & April–June 1960
|Nevada Test Site |Nevada Test Site
|ditching experiment (High explosive, TNT) |ditching experiment (High explosive, TNT)
Line 272: Line 298:
|- |-
!Hobo !Hobo
|February- April 1960 |February–April 1960
|Nevada Test Site |Nevada Test Site
|seismic experiment (High explosive, TNT) |seismic experiment (High explosive, TNT)
Line 281: Line 307:
|- |-
!Stagecoach !Stagecoach
|March 1960 |March 1960
|Nevada Test Site |Nevada Test Site
|excavation experiment (High explosive, TNT) |excavation experiment (High explosive, TNT)
|Shot 1 – 80&nbsp;ft (24.4 m); Shot 2 - 17.1&nbsp;ft (5.2 m); Shot 3 - 34.2&nbsp;ft (10.4 m) |Shot 1 – 80&nbsp;ft (24.4 m); Shot 2 17.1&nbsp;ft (5.2 m); Shot 3 34.2&nbsp;ft (10.4 m)
|Alluvium |Alluvium
|Three 40,000&nbsp;lb. charges |Three 40,000&nbsp;lb. charges
Line 290: Line 316:
|- |-
!Plowboy !Plowboy
|March–July 1960 |March–July 1960
|Winnfield, Louisiana |]
|experiment |experiment
|Unknown |Unknown
|Unknown |Unknown
|Unknown |Unknown
|Mining operation to examine high explosive- induced fracturing of salt. |Mining operation to examine high explosive-induced fracturing of salt.
|- |-
!Buckboard !Buckboard
Line 302: Line 328:
|Nevada Test Site |Nevada Test Site
|excavation experiment (High explosive, TNT) |excavation experiment (High explosive, TNT)
|5 to 59.85&nbsp;ft (1.5 to 18.24 m) |5 to 59.85&nbsp;ft (1.5 to 18.24 m)
|Basalt |Basalt
|Three 40,000&nbsp;lb. charges and ten 1,000&nbsp;lb. charges |Three 40,000&nbsp;lb. charges and ten 1,000&nbsp;lb. charges
Line 310: Line 336:
|August 2, 1960 |August 2, 1960
|Rifle, Colorado |Rifle, Colorado
|tracer experiment (High explosive, nitromethane) |tracer experiment (High explosive, ])
|610&nbsp;ft (185.9 m) |610&nbsp;ft (185.9 m)
|Oil shale |Oil shale
Line 317: Line 343:
|- |-
!Scooter !Scooter
|17:17 am, 13 October 1960<ref>{{cite press release |last= |first= |date=13 October 1960 |title=Press Release, Subject: A Charge of 500 Tons of Chemical High Explosive (Non-Nuclear) was Detonated at 7:17 a.m. Today at the NTS (Plowshare) |url=https://www.osti.gov/opennet/detail?osti-id=16112563 |url-status= |location= |publisher= |agency=Atomic Energy Commission |archive-url= |archive-date= }}</ref>
|October 1960
|Nevada Test Site |Nevada Test Site
|excavation experiment (High explosive, TNT) |excavation experiment (High explosive, TNT)
|125&nbsp;ft (38.1 m) |125&nbsp;ft (38.1 m)
|Alluvium |Alluvium
|500 ton charges |500 ton charges
|To study crater dimension, throw out material distribution, ground motion, dust cloud growth, and long-range air blast. |To study crater dimension, throw out material distribution, ], dust cloud growth, and long-range air blast.

Initially scheduled for July,<ref>{{cite report |date=31 July 1960 |title=TWX to OBrien et al, Subject: High Explosive Scooter Detonation has been Delayed |url=https://www.osti.gov/opennet/detail?osti-id=16372937 |publisher=Atomic Energy Commission |page= |docket= |access-date= |quote=}}</ref> the shot was delayed due to the accidental use of dummy detonators. As the detonators had to be placed in the center of the charge, organizers were required to dig down to the TNT charge and then use a steam heated mandrel to melt to its center, an extremely hazardous process.<ref name=dragon>{{cite report |last=Carothers |first=J |date=June 1995 |title=Caging the dragon: the containment of underground nuclear explosions |url=https://www.osti.gov/biblio/524871 |publisher=USDOE Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas, NV (United States); Defense Nuclear Agency, Alexandria, VA (United States); Lawrence Livermore National Lab. (LLNL), Livermore, CA (United States) |pages=65–68 |osti= 524871|docket=DOE/NV-388; DNA-TR-95-74; DE98000017 |access-date= |quote=}}</ref>
|- |-
!Rowboat !Rowboat
|June 1961 |June 1961
|Nevada Test Site |Nevada Test Site
|row-charge experiment (High explosive, TNT) |row-charge experiment (High explosive, TNT)
Line 335: Line 363:
|- |-
!Yo-Yo !Yo-Yo
|Summer 1961 |Summer 1961
|At LRL, near Tracy, California |At LRL, near Tracy, California
|simulated excavation experiment (High explosive) |simulated excavation experiment (High explosive)
|Varied |Varied
|Oil-sand mixture |Oil-sand mixture
|100 gm charges |100 gm charges
|To develop estimates for the quantities of radiation released to the atmosphere by a cratering detonation. |To develop estimates for the quantities of radiation released to the atmosphere by a cratering detonation.
|- |-
!Pre-Buggy I !Pre-Buggy I
|November 1962- February 1963 |November 1962 February 1963
|Nevada Test Site |Nevada Test Site
|row-charge experiment (High explosive, nitromethane) |row-charge experiment (High explosive, nitromethane)
|15 to 21.4&nbsp;ft (4.57 to 6.52 m) for single-charge detonations; all row-charge detonations at 19.8&nbsp;ft (6.04 m) |15 to 21.4&nbsp;ft (4.57 to 6.52 m) for single-charge detonations; all row-charge detonations at 19.8&nbsp;ft (6.04 m)
|Alluvium |Alluvium
|Six single-charge detonations, four multiple-charge |Six single-charge detonations, four multiple-charge
|U.S. Army Engineer Cratering Group Study of row- charge phenomenology and effects in preparation for nuclear row-charge tests. |U.S. Army Engineer Cratering Group Study of row- charge phenomenology and effects in preparation for nuclear row-charge tests.
|- |-
!Pre-Buggy II !Pre-Buggy II
|June–August 1963 |June–August 1963
|Nevada Test Site |Nevada Test Site
|row-charge experiment (High explosive, nitromethane) |row-charge experiment (High explosive, nitromethane)
|18.5 to 23&nbsp;ft (5.64 to 7.0 m) |18.5 to 23&nbsp;ft (5.64 to 7.0 m)
|Alluvium |Alluvium
|Five rows of five 1,000&nbsp;lb. charges |Five rows of five 1,000&nbsp;lb. charges
|U.S. Army Corps of Engineers study of row-charge phenomenology and effects in preparation for a nuclear row- charge experiment. |U.S. Army Corps of Engineers study of row-charge phenomenology and effects in preparation for a nuclear row- charge experiment.
|- |-
!Pre-Schooner I !Pre-Schooner I
|February 1964 |February 1964
|Nevada Test Site |Nevada Test Site
|cratering experiment (High explosive, nitromethane) |cratering experiment (High explosive, nitromethane)
|42 to 66&nbsp;ft (18.3 to 20.1 m) |42 to 66&nbsp;ft (18.3 to 20.1 m)
|Basalt |Basalt
|Four 40,000&nbsp;lb. spherical charges |Four 40,000&nbsp;lb. spherical charges
|U.S. Army Engineer Nuclear Cratering Group study of basic cratering phenomenology in preparation for nuclear cratering experiments. |U.S. Army Engineer Nuclear Cratering Group study of basic cratering phenomenology in preparation for nuclear cratering experiments.
|- |-
!Dugout !Dugout
|June 24, 1964 |June 24, 1964
|Nevada Test Site |Nevada Test Site
|row charge experiment (High explosive, nitromethane) |row charge experiment (High explosive, nitromethane)
|59&nbsp;ft (18.0 m) |59&nbsp;ft (18.0 m)
|Basalt |Basalt
|simultaneous detonation of a row of five 20 ton charges placed 45 feet (13.7 m) apart (1 crater radius) |simultaneous detonation of a row of five 20 ton charges placed 45 feet (13.7 m) apart (1 crater radius)
|Study fundamental processes involved in row charge excavating dense, hard rock. |Study fundamental processes involved in row charge excavating dense, hard rock.
|- |-
!Pre-Schooner II !Pre-Schooner II
|September 30, 1965 |September 30, 1965
|Owyhee County, southwestern Idaho |Owyhee County, southwestern Idaho
|cratering experiment (high explosive, nitromethane) |cratering experiment (high explosive, nitromethane)
|71&nbsp;ft (21.6 m) |71&nbsp;ft (21.6 m)
|Rhyolite |Rhyolite
Line 389: Line 417:
|- |-
!Pre-Gondola I, II, III !Pre-Gondola I, II, III
|October 1966 - October 1969 |October 1966 October 1969
|Near Fort Peck Reservoir, Valley County, Montana |Near Fort Peck Reservoir, Valley County, Montana
|excavation experiments (High explosive, nitromethane) |excavation experiments (High explosive, nitromethane)
Line 398: Line 426:
|- |-
!Tugboat !Tugboat
|November 1969- December 1970 |November 1969 December 1970
|Kawaihae Bay, Hawaii |]
|excavation experiment (High explosive, TNT) |excavation experiment (High explosive, TNT)
|4–8&nbsp;ft (1.2-2.4 m) |4–8&nbsp;ft (1.2–2.4 m)
|Water |Water
|Unknown |Unknown
Line 408: Line 436:
!Trinidad !Trinidad
|July–December 1970 |July–December 1970
|Trinidad, Colorado (six miles west) |] (six miles west)
|excavation experiment (High explosive) |excavation experiment (High explosive)
|Unknown |Unknown
Line 416: Line 444:
|- |-
!Old Reliable !Old Reliable
|August 1971- March 1972 |August 1971 March 1972
|Galiuro Mountains, 44 miles northeast Tucson, Arizona |Galiuro Mountains, 44 miles northeast Tucson, Arizona
|fracturing experiment (High explosive, ammonium nitrate) |fracturing experiment (High explosive, ammonium nitrate)
Line 433: Line 461:
!Date !Date
!Location !Location
!Type
!Purpose !Purpose
|- |-
Line 439: Line 466:
|1959 |1959
|Nevada Test Site |Nevada Test Site
|Nuclear explosive
|Investigate excavation efficiency as a function of yield and depth in planning for Project Chariot. |Investigate excavation efficiency as a function of yield and depth in planning for Project Chariot.
|- |-
!'']''
!Oilsands
|1959 |1959
|Athabasca, Canada |Athabasca, Canada
|Nuclear explosive
|Study the feasibility of oil recovery using a nuclear explosive detonation in the Athabascan tar sands. |Study the feasibility of oil recovery using a nuclear explosive detonation in the Athabascan tar sands.
|- |-
Line 451: Line 476:
|1959 |1959
|Not determined |Not determined
|Nuclear explosive
|Study a nuclear detonation to shatter an oil shale formation to extract oil. |Study a nuclear detonation to shatter an oil shale formation to extract oil.
|- |-
Line 457: Line 481:
|1961 |1961
|Not determined |Not determined
|Nuclear explosive
|A deeply buried clean nuclear explosive detonation excavation experiment |A deeply buried clean nuclear explosive detonation excavation experiment
|- |-
Line 463: Line 486:
|1963 |1963
|Carlsbad, NM (GNOME site) |Carlsbad, NM (GNOME site)
|Nuclear explosive
|Produce neutron-rich isotopes of known trans- plutonium elements. |Produce neutron-rich isotopes of known trans- plutonium elements.
|- |-
Line 469: Line 491:
|1963 |1963
|Not determined |Not determined
|Nuclear explosive
|Scaling experiment. |Scaling experiment.
|- |-
!Carryall !'']''
|1963
|Nov-63
|Bristol Mountains Mojave Desert, CA |Bristol Mountains Mojave Desert, CA
|Row-charge excavation experiment to cut through the ] for realignment of the Santa Fe railroad and a new highway I-40.
|Nuclear explosive
|Row-charge excavation experiment to cut through the Bristol Mountains for realignment of the Santa Fe railroad and a new highway I-40.
|- |-
!Dogsled !Dogsled
|1964 |1964
|Colorado Plateau CO or AZ |Colorado Plateau CO or AZ
|Nuclear explosive
|Study cratering characteristics in dry sandstone; study ground shock and air blast intensities. |Study cratering characteristics in dry sandstone; study ground shock and air blast intensities.
|- |-
!Tennessee/ Tombigee Waterway !]
|1964 |1964
|Northeast Mississippi |Northeast Mississippi
|Nuclear explosive
|Excavation of three miles of a divide cut through low hills; connect Tennessee and Tombigee rivers; dig 250-mile long canal. |Excavation of three miles of a divide cut through low hills; connect Tennessee and Tombigee rivers; dig 250-mile long canal.
|- |-
!Interoceanic Sea-Level Canal Study !Interoceanic Sea-Level Canal Study
|1965–70
|1965-70
|Pan-American Isthmus (Central America) |Pan-American Isthmus (Central America)
|Nuclear explosive
|Commission appointed in 1965 to conduct feasibility studies of several sea-level routes for an Atlantic- Pacific interoceanic canal. Two routes were in Panama and one in northwestern Colombia. The 1970 final report recommended, in part, that no current U.S. canal policy should be made on the basis that nuclear excavation technology will be available for canal construction. AEC deferred in making any decision. |Commission appointed in 1965 to conduct feasibility studies of several sea-level routes for an Atlantic- Pacific interoceanic canal. Two routes were in Panama and one in northwestern Colombia. The 1970 final report recommended, in part, that no current U.S. canal policy should be made on the basis that nuclear excavation technology will be available for canal construction. AEC deferred in making any decision.
|- |-
!Flivver !Flivver
|Mar-66 |Mar. 1966
|Nevada Test Site |Nevada Test Site
|Nuclear explosive
|A low-yield cratering detonation to study basic cratering phenomenology. |A low-yield cratering detonation to study basic cratering phenomenology.
|- |-
!Dragon Trail !Dragon Trail
|Dec-66 |Dec. 1966
|Rio Blanco County, CO |Rio Blanco County, CO
|Nuclear explosive
|Natural gas stimulation experiment; different geological characteristics than either GASBUGGY or RULISON; geological study completed. |Natural gas stimulation experiment; different geological characteristics than either GASBUGGY or RULISON; geological study completed.
|- |-
!Ketch !'']''
|Aug-67 |Aug. 1967
|Renovo, PA (12 miles SW) |Renovo, PA (12 miles SW)
|Nuclear explosive
|Create a large chimney of broken rock with void space to store natural gas under high pressure. |Create a large chimney of broken rock with void space to store natural gas under high pressure.
|- |-
!Bronco !Bronco
|Oct-67 |Oct. 1967
|Rio Blanco County, CO |Rio Blanco County, CO
|Nuclear explosive
|Break oil shale deposits for in situ retorting; exploratory core holes drilled. |Break oil shale deposits for in situ retorting; exploratory core holes drilled.
|- |-
!Sloop !Sloop
|Oct. 1967 – 1968
|10/67-68
|Safford, AZ (11 miles NE) |Safford, AZ (11 miles NE)
|Nuclear explosive
|Fracturing copper ore; extract copper by in situ leaching methods; feasibility study completed. |Fracturing copper ore; extract copper by in situ leaching methods; feasibility study completed.
|- |-
!Thunderbird !'']
|1967 |1967
|Buffalo, WY (35 miles E) |Gillette, WY (20 miles W)
|Nuclear explosive
|Coal gasification; fracture rock-containing coal and in situ combustion of the coal would produce low-Btu gas and other products. |Coal gasification; fracture rock-containing coal and in situ combustion of the coal would produce low-Btu gas and other products.
|- |-
!Galley !Galley
|1967–68
|1967-68
|Not determined |Not determined
|Nuclear explosive
|A high-yield row charge in hard rock under terrain of varying elevations. |A high-yield row charge in hard rock under terrain of varying elevations.
|- |-
!Aquarius !Aquarius
|1968–70
|1968-70
|Clear Creek or San Simon, AZ |Clear Creek or San Simon, AZ
|Nuclear explosive
|Water resource management; dam construction, subsurface storage, purification; aquifer modification. |Water resource management; dam construction, subsurface storage, purification; aquifer modification.
|- |-
!Wagon Wheel !Wagon Wheel
|Jan.&nbsp;1968&nbsp;–&nbsp;1974
|01/68-74
|Pinedale, WY (19 miles S) |Pinedale, WY (19 miles S)
|Nuclear explosive
|Natural gas stimulation; study stimulation at various depths; an exploratory hole and two hydrological wells were drilled. |Natural gas stimulation; study stimulation at various depths; an exploratory hole and two hydrological wells were drilled.
|- |-
!Wasp !Wasp
|Jul. 1969 – 1974
|07/69-74
|Pinedale, WY (24 miles NW) |Pinedale, WY (24 miles NW)
|Nuclear explosive
|Natural gas stimulation; meteorological observations taken. |Natural gas stimulation; meteorological observations taken.
|- |-
Line 559: Line 566:
|1969 |1969
|near Ouray, UT |near Ouray, UT
|Nuclear explosive
|Oil shale maturation; exploratory hole drilled. |Oil shale maturation; exploratory hole drilled.
|- |-
Line 565: Line 571:
|1969 |1969
|Nevada Test Site |Nevada Test Site
|Nuclear explosive
|Cratering experiment to extend excavation information on yields and rock types relevant to the trans-Isthmian canal. |Cratering experiment to extend excavation information on yields and rock types relevant to the trans-Isthmian canal.
|- |-
!Australian Harbor Project !Australian Harbor Project
|1969 |1969
|Cape Keraudren (NW coast of Australia) |] (NW coast of Australia)
|Nuclear explosive
|First discussed with U.S. officials in 1962, the U.S. formally agreed to participate in a joint feasibility study with the Australian government in early 1969 for using nuclear explosives to construct a harbor. The project was stopped in March 1969 when it was determined that there was an insufficient economic basis to proceed. |First discussed with U.S. officials in 1962, the U.S. formally agreed to participate in a joint feasibility study with the Australian government in early 1969 for using nuclear explosives to construct a harbor. The project was stopped in March 1969 when it was determined that there was an insufficient economic basis to proceed.
|- |-
!Yawl !Yawl
|1969–70
|1969-70
|Nevada Test Site |Nevada Test Site
|Nuclear explosive
|Cratering experiment to extend excavation information on yields and rock types relevant to the trans-Isthmian canal. |Cratering experiment to extend excavation information on yields and rock types relevant to the trans-Isthmian canal.
|- |-
Line 583: Line 586:
|1971 |1971
|Not determined |Not determined
|Geothermal resource experiment; fracturing would allow fluids circulated in fracture zones to be converted to steam to generate electricity.<ref name="Executive Summary">{{cite web|url=https://www.osti.gov/opennet/reports/plowshar.pdf|title=Executive Summary: Plowshare Program|publisher=US Department of Energy, Office of Science and Technical Information|access-date=August 17, 2016}} {{PD-notice}}</ref>
|Nuclear explosive
|-
|Geothermal resource experiment; fracturing would allow fluids circulated in fracture zones to be converted to steam to generate electricity.<ref name="Executive Summary">{{cite web|url=https://www.osti.gov/opennet/reports/plowshar.pdf|title=Executive Summary: Plowshare Program|publisher=US Department of Energy, Office of Science and Technical Information|accessdate=2016-08-17}} {{PD-notice}}</ref>
!'']''
|1970
||Various sites in California, New Mexico, Idaho and Oregon
|Several nuclear quarrying projects to create rock fill for dam projects.<ref name=OSTI1>{{Cite report |url=https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1046574 |title=The Off-Site Plowshare and Vela Uniform Programs: Assessing Potential Environmental Liabilities through an Examination of Proposed Nuclear Projects,High Explosive Experiments, and High Explosive Construction Activities |last1=Beck |first1=Colleen M. |last2=Edwards |first2=Susan R. |last3=King |first3=Maureen L. |date=2011-09-01 |issue=Tech Rpt 111 DOE/NV/26383-22, 1046575 |doi=10.2172/1046575 |volume=1 |language=en|section=Project Travois|pages=3–259}}</ref><ref name=Yoman>{{Cite report |url=https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/36/010/36010774.pdf |author=Yoman, John|title=Symposium on Engineering with Nuclear Explosives |date=May 1970 |language=en|section=Summary of Nuclear-Excavation Applications|pages=267–268}}</ref>
|} |}


==See also==
==Impacts, opposition and economics==
* ]
Operation Plowshare "started with great expectations and high hopes". Planners believed that the projects could be completed safely, but there was less confidence that they could be completed more economically than conventional methods. Moreover, there was insufficient public and Congressional support for the projects. ] and Coach were two examples where technical problems and environmental concerns prompted further feasibility studies which took several years, and each project was eventually canceled.<ref name="Executive Summary"/>
* ]
] formed a crater 100 m (330 ft) deep with a diameter of about 390 m (1,300 ft), as a means of investigating the possibilities of using ] for large-scale earth moving. If this test was conducted in 1965+, when improvements in device design were realized, a "100-fold" reduction in radiation release was considered feasible.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGXS_Qgfqno|title=Declassified U.S. Nuclear Test Film #35|first=|last=talkingsticktv|date=7 November 2007|publisher=|via=YouTube}}</ref> The 140 kiloton Soviet ], comparable in yield to the Sedan test of 104 kt, formed ], reportedly used as a watering hole for ] and human swimming.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/1000/largest-crater-from-an-underground-nuclear-explosion|title=Largest crater from an underground nuclear explosion|author=Guinness World Records|publisher=|accessdate=October 24, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Russia/Sovwpnprog.html|title=The Soviet Nuclear Weapons Program|publisher=|accessdate=October 24, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{YouTube|XEqYroQEtA8|Russia Today documentary that visits the lake at around the 1 minute mark}}</ref>]]
* ] – the equivalent Soviet program(s) that achieved "practical application" status.
Citizen groups voiced concerns and opposition to some of the Plowshare tests. There were concerns that the blast effects from the Schooner explosion could dry up active wells or trigger an earthquake. There was opposition to both Rulison and Rio Blanco tests because of possible radioactive gas flaring operations and other environmental hazards.<ref name="Executive Summary"/> In a 1973 article, '']'' used the term "Project Dubious" to describe Operation Plowshare.<ref name="Dubious"/>
* ]
* ], a study conducted from the 1950s to the 1960s into propelling spacecraft by detonating nuclear bombs behind them.


==Notes==
There were negative impacts from a select few of Project Plowshare’s 27 nuclear explosions, primarily those conducted in the projects infancy and those that were very high in explosive yield.
{{Reflist|group=lower-alpha}}


==References==
On Project Gnome and the Sedan test:<ref name=bks2011>{{Citation | first = Benjamin K | last = Sovacool | author-link = Benjamin K. Sovacool | year = 2011 | title = ]: A Critical Global Assessment of Atomic Energy | journal = ] | pages = 171–2}}</ref>
{{Reflist|22em}}
{{quote |Project Gnome vented radioactive steam over the very press gallery that was called to confirm its safety. The next blast, a 104-kiloton detonation at Yucca Flat, Nevada, displaced 12 million tons of soil and resulted in a radioactive dust cloud that rose 12,000 feet and plumed toward the Mississippi River. Other consequences – blighted land, relocated communities, tritium-contaminated water, radioactivity, and fallout from debris being hurled high into the atmosphere – were ignored and downplayed until the program was terminated in 1977, due in large part to public opposition.<ref name=bks2011 />}}


==Further reading==
Project Plowshare shows how something intended to improve national security can unwittingly do the opposite if it fails to fully consider the social, political, and environmental consequences. It also “underscores that public resentment and opposition can stop projects in their tracks”.<ref name=bks2011/>
]

While the above ], ] contends that the main problem with oil and gas stimulation, which many considered as the most promising economic use of nuclear detonations, was the problem that the produced oil and gas was radioactive, which caused consumers to reject it and this was ultimately the programs downfall.<ref name=bks2011 /> In contrast, ] to begin with and the industry is set up to deal with oil and gas that contain radioactive contaminants, moreover in contrast to earlier stimulation efforts,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://aoghs.org/technology/project-gasbuggy/|title="Gasbuggy" tests Nuclear Fracking - American Oil & Gas Historical Society|date=4 December 2015|publisher=}}</ref> contamination from many ''later'' tests was not a show-stopping issue, historian Dr. Michael Payne notes that it was primarily changing public opinion due to the societal preception-shift, to one fearing all nuclear detonations, caused by events such as the ], that resulted in protests,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.innovationalberta.com/article.php?articleid=92|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20070824172227/http://www.innovationalberta.com/article.php?articleid=92|archivedate=2007-08-24|title=Innovation Alberta: Article Details|date=24 August 2007|publisher=}}</ref> court cases and general hostility that ended the oil and gas stimulation efforts. Furthermore, as the years went by without further development and the closing/curtailment in output of nuclear weapons factories, this evaporated the existing ] advantage of operation Plowshare that had earlier been present in the United States in the 50s-60s, it was increasingly found in the following decades that most US fields could instead be stimulated by non-nuclear techniques which were found to be likely cheaper.<ref></ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.elmada.com/wagon/WWS005Projects.htm|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20040706025511/http://www.elmada.com/wagon/WWS005Projects.htm|archivedate=2004-07-06|title=elmada.com/wagon: Nuclear Stimulation Projects|date=6 July 2004|publisher=}}</ref>

As a point of comparison, the most ] that did not result in customer product contamination issues was the 1976 Project Neva on the Sredne-Botuobinsk gas field in the ], made possible by multiple cleaner stimulation explosives, favorable rock strata and the possible creation of an underground contaminant storage cavity.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_uranium27.htm|title=The Soviet Program for Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Explosions|publisher=}}</ref><ref></ref> The Soviet Union retains the record for the cleanest/lowest ] nuclear devices so far demonstrated.

The public records for devices that produced the highest proportion of their yield via fusion-only reactions, and therefore created orders of magnitude smaller amounts of ] as a result, are the USSRs ] of the 1970s, with the 3 detonations that excavated part of ], being cited as 98% fusion each in the ''Taiga'' test's three 15 ] explosive yield devices, that is, a total fission fraction of 0.3 ]s in a 15 kt device.<ref> by Milo D. Nordyke. Science & Global Security, 1998, Volume 7, pp. 1-117</ref> In comparison, the next three high fusion yielding devices were all much too high in total explosive yield for oil and gas stimulation, the 50 megaton ] achieved a yield 97% derived from fusion,<ref>. Nuclearweaponarchive.org. Retrieved on 2011-05-01.</ref> While in the US, the 9.3 megaton ] test is reported as 95.2%,<ref>. Nuclearweaponarchive.org. Retrieved on 2011-05-01.</ref> and the 4.5 megaton ] test as 95% derived from fusion.<ref>. Nuclearweaponarchive.org. Retrieved on 2011-05-01.</ref>

==Books==
* *
* *

==See also==
*]
*]
*] - the equivalent Soviet program(s) that achieved "practical application" status.
*]
*], a 1958 proposal to exploit the Athabasca Oil Sands in Canada via the underground detonation of nuclear bombs.

==References==
{{reflist|22em}}


==External links== ==External links==
{{commons category|Operation Plowshare}} {{Commons category|Operation Plowshare}}
*{{YouTube| M1k4fbuIOlY | "Plowshare (1961)- US Atomic Energy Commission" }} * {{YouTube| M1k4fbuIOlY | "Plowshare (1961) US Atomic Energy Commission" }}
* {{Citation | first = Bruce A | last = Bolt | title = Nuclear Explosions and Earthquakes: The Parted Veil | place = San Francisco, ], US | publisher = WH Freeman & Co | year = 1976 | ISBN = 0-7167-0276-2}}. * {{Citation | first = Bruce A | last = Bolt | title = Nuclear Explosions and Earthquakes: The Parted Veil | place = San Francisco | publisher = WH Freeman & Co | year = 1976 | isbn = 0-7167-0276-2}}.
* {{Citation | first = Chuck | last = Hansen | author-link = Chuck Hansen | title = US Nuclear Weapons: The Secret History | place = Arlington, TX | publisher = Aerofax | year = 1988 | ISBN = 0-517-56740-7}}. * {{Citation | first = Chuck | last = Hansen | author-link = Chuck Hansen | title = US Nuclear Weapons: The Secret History | place = Arlington, TX | publisher = Aerofax | year = 1988 | isbn = 0-517-56740-7}}.
* {{Citation | first = Chuck | last = Hansen | author-mask = 3 | url = http://www.uscoldwar.com/ | publisher = US cold war | title = The Swords of Armageddon: US Nuclear Weapons Development Since 1945 | format = CD-ROM | accessdate = 2016-08-17}}. * {{Citation | first = Chuck | last = Hansen | author-mask = 3 | url = http://www.uscoldwar.com/ | publisher = US cold war | title = The Swords of Armageddon: US Nuclear Weapons Development Since 1945 | format = CD-ROM | access-date = August 17, 2016}}.
* {{Citation | first = Scott | last = Kirsch | title = Proving Grounds: Project Plowshare and the Unrealized Dream of Nuclear Earthmoving | place = New Brunswick, NJ and London | publisher = Rutgers University Press | year = 2005}}. * {{Citation | first = Scott | last = Kirsch | title = Proving Grounds: Project Plowshare and the Unrealized Dream of Nuclear Earthmoving | place = New Brunswick, NJ and London | publisher = Rutgers University Press | year = 2005}}.
* {{Citation | first = Richard L | last = Miller | title = Under the Cloud: The Decades of Nuclear Testing | place = Woodlands, TX | publisher = Two Sixty Press | year = 1999 | ISBN = 1-881043-05-3}}. * {{Citation | first = Richard L | last = Miller | title = Under the Cloud: The Decades of Nuclear Testing | place = Woodlands, TX | publisher = Two Sixty Press | year = 1999 | isbn = 1-881043-05-3}}.
* {{Citation | editor-first = Stephen I | editor-last = Schwartz | title = Atomic Audit: The Costs and Consequences of U.S. Nuclear Weapons Since 1940 | place = Washington, DC | url = http://www.brookings.edu/ | publisher = Brookings Institution Press | year = 1998 | ISBN = 0-8157-7773-6 | accessdate = 2016-08-17}}. * {{Citation | editor-first = Stephen I | editor-last = Schwartz | title = Atomic Audit: The Costs and Consequences of U.S. Nuclear Weapons Since 1940 | place = Washington, DC | url = http://www.brookings.edu/ | publisher = Brookings Institution Press | year = 1998 | isbn = 0-8157-7773-6 | access-date = August 17, 2016}}.
* {{cite web| url=http://www.nv.doe.gov/library/publications/historical/DOENV_209_REV15.pdf| archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20100615231826/http://www.nv.doe.gov/library/publications/historical/DOENV_209_REV15.pdf| archivedate=2010-06-15 |title = United States Nuclear Tests, July 1945 through September 1992 | id = DOE/NV-209-REV15 |date=December 2000 | location = US | publisher = Department of Energy Nevada Operations Office|format= PDF}} * {{cite web| url=http://www.nv.doe.gov/library/publications/historical/DOENV_209_REV15.pdf| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100615231826/http://www.nv.doe.gov/library/publications/historical/DOENV_209_REV15.pdf| archive-date=June 15, 2010 |title = United States Nuclear Tests, July 1945 through September 1992 | id = DOE/NV-209-REV15 |date=December 2000 | location = US | publisher = Department of Energy Nevada Operations Office}}
* {{Citation | url = http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/websites/osti.gov/www.osti.gov/osti/opennet/plowshar.pdf | title = Plowshare Program | publisher = OSTI | format = PDF | accessdate = 2016-08-17}}. * {{Citation | url = http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/websites/osti.gov/www.osti.gov/osti/opennet/plowshar.pdf | title = Plowshare Program | publisher = OSTI | access-date = August 17, 2016}}.
* {{Citation | url = http://www.cancer.gov/i131 | publisher = National Cancer Institute | title = Radioactive I-131 from Fallout | contribution = Background}}. * {{Citation | url = http://www.cancer.gov/i131 | publisher = National Cancer Institute | title = Radioactive I-131 from Fallout | date = December 5, 2014 | contribution = Background}}.
* {{Citation | title = Estimated Exposures and Thyroid Doses Received by the American People from Iodine-131 in Fallout Following Nevada Atmospheric Nuclear Bomb Tests | type = report | publisher = National Cancer Institute | chapter = Executive Summary | url = https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK100833/ | quote= Figure 1 – Per capita thyroid doses resulting from all exposure routes from all test}}. * {{Citation | title = Estimated Exposures and Thyroid Doses Received by the American People from Iodine-131 in Fallout Following Nevada Atmospheric Nuclear Bomb Tests | type = report | publisher = National Cancer Institute | chapter = Executive Summary | year = 1999 | chapter-url = https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK100833/ | quote= Figure 1 – Per capita thyroid doses resulting from all exposure routes from all test}}.
* {{Citation | url = http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/469154-Il8yqP/webviewable/469154.pdf | title = Focused Evaluation of Selected Remedial Alternatives for the Underground Test Area | id = DOE/NV-465 |date=April 1997 | publisher = Environmental Restoration Division, Operations Office, Department of Energy | format = PDF | place = Nevada, US}}. * {{Citation | url = http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/469154-Il8yqP/webviewable/469154.pdf | title = Focused Evaluation of Selected Remedial Alternatives for the Underground Test Area | id = DOE/NV-465 |date=April 1997 | publisher = Environmental Restoration Division, Operations Office, Department of Energy | doi = 10.2172/469154 | place = Nevada, US}}.
* {{Citation | url = http://www.nv.doe.gov/library/publications/historical/plowshare.pdf | title = NV | place = US | publisher = DOE | contribution = Plowshare | quote = Declassification of the yields of 11 nuclear tests conducted as part of the plowshare... program}}. * {{Citation | url = http://www.nv.doe.gov/library/publications/historical/plowshare.pdf | title = NV | place = US | publisher = DOE | contribution = Plowshare | quote = Declassification of the yields of 11 nuclear tests conducted as part of the plowshare... program | url-status = dead | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20060907224410/http://www.nv.doe.gov/library/publications/historical/plowshare.pdf | archive-date = September 7, 2006 }}.
* {{Citation | url = http://www.atomictraveler.com/PlowshareProgram.pdf | type = chronology | contribution = Plowshare Program | title = Atomic traveler | format = PDF}} milestones, including proposed tests and projects conducted. * {{Citation | url = http://www.atomictraveler.com/PlowshareProgram.pdf | type = chronology | contribution = Plowshare Program | title = Atomic traveler }} milestones, including proposed tests and projects conducted.
* {{Internet Archive short film |id=Plowshar1961|name=Plowshare (Part I) (ca. 1961)}} * {{Internet Archive short film |id=Plowshar1961|name=Plowshare (Part I) (ca. 1961)}}
* {{Internet Archive short film |id=Plowshar1961_2|name=Plowshare (Part II) (ca. 1961)}} * {{Internet Archive short film |id=Plowshar1961_2|name=Plowshare (Part II) (ca. 1961)}}
Line 643: Line 634:


{{US Nuclear Tests}} {{US Nuclear Tests}}
{{Authority control}}


] ]
] ]
]

Latest revision as of 09:53, 8 October 2024

U.S. program examining the peaceful applications of nuclear explosives (1961–77) This article is about proposed peaceful uses of nuclear weapons. For the serialized Philip K. Dick novel with the same name, see The Zap Gun. For the Christian anti-nuclear protest movement, see Plowshares Movement.

The 1962 "Sedan" plowshares shot displaced 12 million tons of earth and created a crater 320 feet (98 m) deep and 1,280 feet (390 m) wide.

Project Plowshare was the overall United States program for the development of techniques to use nuclear explosives for peaceful construction purposes. The program was organized in June 1957 as part of the worldwide Atoms for Peace efforts. As part of the program, 35 nuclear warheads were detonated in 27 separate tests. A similar program was carried out in the Soviet Union under the name Nuclear Explosions for the National Economy, although the Soviet program consisted of 124 tests.

Successful demonstrations of non-combat uses for nuclear explosives include rock blasting, stimulation of tight gas, chemical element manufacture, unlocking some of the mysteries of the R-process of stellar nucleosynthesis and probing the composition of the Earth's deep crust, creating reflection seismology vibroseis data which has helped geologists and follow-on mining company prospecting.

The project's uncharacteristically large and atmospherically vented Sedan nuclear test also led geologists to determine that Barringer crater was formed as a result of a meteor impact and not from a volcanic eruption, as had earlier been assumed. This became the first crater on Earth definitely proven to be from an impact event.

Negative impacts from Project Plowshare's tests generated significant public opposition, which eventually led to the program's termination in 1977. These consequences included tritiated water (projected to increase by CER Geonuclear Corporation to a level of 2% of the then-maximum level for drinking water) and the deposition of fallout from radioactive material being injected into the atmosphere before underground testing was mandated by treaty.

Rationale

By exploiting the peaceful uses of the "friendly atom" in medical applications, earth removal, and later in nuclear power plants, the nuclear industry and government sought to allay public fears about nuclear technology and promote the acceptance of nuclear weapons. At the peak of the Atomic Age, the United States Federal government initiated Project Plowshare, involving "peaceful nuclear explosions". The United States Atomic Energy Commission chairman at the time, Lewis Strauss, announced that the Plowshares project was intended to "highlight the peaceful applications of nuclear explosive devices and thereby create a climate of world opinion that is more favorable to weapons development and tests". These tests were to demonstrate that atomic bombs can be used for peaceful purposes, that the atomic sword could be beaten into a plowshare.

Proposals

One of the Chariot schemes involved chaining five thermonuclear devices to create an artificial harbor.

Proposed uses for nuclear explosives under Project Plowshare included widening the Panama Canal, constructing a new sea-level waterway through Nicaragua nicknamed the Pan-Atomic Canal, cutting paths through mountainous areas for highways, and connecting inland river systems. Other proposals involved blasting caverns for water, natural gas, and petroleum storage. Serious consideration was also given to using these explosives for various mining operations. One proposal suggested using nuclear blasts to connect underground aquifers in Arizona. Another plan involved surface blasting on the western slope of California's Sacramento Valley for a water transport project.

One of the first serious cratering proposals that came close to being carried out was Project Chariot, which would have used several hydrogen bombs to create an artificial harbor at Cape Thompson, Alaska. It was never carried out due to concerns for the native populations and the fact that there was little potential use for the harbor to justify its risk and expense.

Project Carryall, proposed in 1963 by the Atomic Energy Commission, the California Division of Highways (now Caltrans), and the Santa Fe Railway, would have used 22 nuclear explosions to excavate a massive roadcut through the Bristol Mountains in the Mojave Desert, to accommodate construction of Interstate 40 and a new rail line.

A project proposed in a 1963 memorandum by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory would have used 520 2-megaton nuclear explosions to excavate a canal through the Negev Desert in Israel at an estimated cost of $575 million ($5 billion in 2021), to serve as an alternative route to the Suez Canal.

At the end of the program, a major objective was to develop nuclear explosives, and blast techniques, for stimulating the flow of natural gas in "tight" underground reservoir formations. In the 1960s, a proposal was suggested for a modified in situ shale oil extraction process which involved creation of a rubble chimney (a zone in the oil shale formation created by breaking the rock into fragments) using a nuclear explosive. However, this approach was abandoned for a number of technical reasons.

Plowshare testing

The first Peaceful Nuclear Explosion (PNE) blast was Project Gnome, conducted on December 10, 1961, in a salt bed 24 mi (39 km) southeast of Carlsbad, in southeast New Mexico. The explosion released 3.1 kilotons (13 TJ) of energy yield at a depth of 1,184 ft (361 m) which resulted in the formation of a 170 ft (52 m) diameter, 80 ft (24 m) high cavity. The test had many objectives, the most public of which involved the generation of steam which could then be used to generate electricity. Another objective was the production of useful radioisotopes and their recovery. Yet another experiment involved neutron time-of-flight physics, and a fourth experiment involved geophysical studies based upon the timed seismic source. Only the last objective was considered a complete success. The blast unintentionally vented radioactive steam while the press watched. The partly developed Project Coach detonation experiment that was to follow adjacent to the Gnome test was then canceled.

A number of proof-of-concept cratering blasts were conducted; including the Buggy shot of five 1-kiloton devices for a channel/trench in Area 30 and the largest being 104 kiloton (435 terajoule) on July 6, 1962, at the north end of Yucca Flats, within the Atomic Energy Commission's Nevada Test Site (NTS) in southern Nevada. The shot, "Sedan", displaced more than 12 million short tons (11,000 million kilograms) of soil and resulted in a radioactive cloud that rose to an altitude of 12,000 ft (3.7 km). The radioactive dust plume headed northeast and then east towards the Mississippi River.

Over the next 11 years, 26 more nuclear explosion tests were conducted under the United States PNE program. The radioactive blast debris from 839 U.S. underground nuclear test explosions remain buried in-place and have been judged impractical to remove by the DOE's Nevada Site Office. Funding quietly ended in 1997, and costs for the program have been estimated at more than (US) $770 million.

Natural gas stimulation experiment

Three nuclear explosion experiments were intended to stimulate the flow of natural gas from "tight" formation gas fields. Industrial participants included El Paso Natural Gas Company for the Gasbuggy test near Farmington, New Mexico; CER Geonuclear Corporation and Austral Oil Company for the Rulison test; and CER Geonuclear Corporation for the Rio Blanco test.

The final PNE blast took place on May 17, 1973, under Fawn Creek, 47.5 mi (76.4 km) north of Grand Junction, Colorado. Three 30-kiloton detonations took place simultaneously at depths of 5,768, 6,152 and 6,611 ft (1,758, 1,875 and 2,015 m). If it had been successful, plans called for the use of hundreds of specialized nuclear explosives in the western Rockies gas fields. The previous two tests had indicated that the produced natural gas would be too radioactive for safe use; the Rio Blanco test found that the three blast cavities had not connected as hoped, and the resulting gas still contained unacceptable levels of radionuclides.

By 1974, approximately $82 million had been invested in the nuclear gas stimulation technology program. It was estimated that even after 25 years of production of all the natural gas deemed recoverable, only 15 to 40% of the investment would be recouped. Also, the concept that stove burners in California might soon emit trace amounts of blast radionuclides into family homes did not sit well with the general public. The contaminated gas was never channeled into commercial supply lines.

The situation remained so for the next three decades, but a resurgence in Colorado Western slope natural gas drilling has brought resource development closer and closer to the original underground detonations. By mid-2009, 84 drilling permits had been issued within a 3-mile (4.8 km) radius, with 11 permits within one mi (1.6 km) mile of the site.

Impacts, opposition and economics

Operation Plowshare "started with great expectations and high hopes". Planners believed that the projects could be completed safely, but there was less confidence that they could be completed more economically than conventional methods. Moreover, there was insufficient public and Congressional support for the projects. Projects Chariot and Coach were two examples where technical problems and environmental concerns prompted further feasibility studies which took several years, and each project was eventually canceled.

Citizen groups voiced concerns and opposition to some of the Plowshare tests. There were concerns that the blast effects from the Schooner explosion could dry up active wells or trigger an earthquake. There was opposition to both Rulison and Rio Blanco tests because of possible radioactive gas flaring operations and other environmental hazards. In a 1973 article, Time used the term "Project Dubious" to describe Operation Plowshare.

There were negative impacts from several of Project Plowshare’s 27 nuclear explosions, primarily those conducted in the project's infancy and those that were very high in explosive yield.

On Project Gnome and the Sedan test:

Project Gnome vented radioactive steam over the very press gallery that was called to confirm its safety. The next blast, a 104-kiloton detonation at Yucca Flat, Nevada, displaced 12 million tons of soil and resulted in a radioactive dust cloud that rose 12,000 feet and plumed toward the Mississippi River. Other consequences – blighted land, relocated communities, tritium-contaminated water, radioactivity, and fallout from debris being hurled high into the atmosphere – were ignored and downplayed until the program was terminated in 1977, due in large part to public opposition.

Project Plowshare shows how something intended to improve national security can unwittingly do the opposite if it fails to fully consider the social, political, and environmental consequences. It also “underscores that public resentment and opposition can stop projects in their tracks”.

United States and Soviet Union/Russia nuclear stockpiles. The slow down in the production of nuclear weapons, beginning in the late 1970s in the US, greatly impacted on the economic calculations of peaceful uses of nuclear detonations.

The social scientist Benjamin Sovacool contends that the main problem with oil and gas stimulation, which many considered the most promising economic use of nuclear detonations, was that the produced oil and gas was radioactive, which caused consumers to reject it and this was ultimately the program's downfall. Oil and gas are sometimes naturally radioactive to begin with, however, and the industry is set up to deal with oil and gas that contain radioactive contaminants. Historian Dr. Michael Payne notes that it was primarily changing public opinion, in response to events such as the Cuban Missile Crisis, that drove the protests, court cases and general hostility that ended the oil and gas stimulation efforts. Furthermore, as the years went by without further development and production of nuclear weapons slowed, interest in peaceful applications waned in the 1950s–60s. Cheaper, non-nuclear stimulation techniques suitable for most US gas fields were developed in the following years.

As a point of comparison, the most successful and profitable nuclear stimulation effort that did not result in customer product contamination issues was the 1976 Project Neva on the Sredne-Botuobinsk gas field in the Soviet Union, made possible by multiple cleaner stimulation explosives, favorable rock strata and the possible creation of an underground contaminant storage cavity. The Soviet Union retains the record for the cleanest/lowest fission-fraction nuclear devices so far demonstrated.

The public records for devices that produced the highest proportion of their yield via fusion-only reactions, and therefore created orders of magnitude smaller amounts of long-lived fission products as a result, are the USSR's Peaceful nuclear explosions of the 1970s, with the three detonations that excavated part of Pechora–Kama Canal, being cited as 98% fusion each in the Taiga test's three 15-kiloton explosive yield devices, that is, a total fission fraction of 0.3 kilotons in a 15 kt device. In comparison, the next three high fusion-yielding devices were all much too high in total explosive yield for oil and gas stimulation: the 50-megaton Tsar Bomba achieved a yield 97% derived from fusion, while in the US, the 9.3-megaton Hardtack Poplar test is reported as 95.2%, and the 4.5-megaton Redwing Navajo test as 95% derived from fusion.

Nuclear tests

The U.S. conducted 27 PNE shots in conjunction with other, weapons-related, test series. A report by the Federation of American Scientists includes yields slightly different from those presented below.

Plowshare nuclear tests
Test name Date Location Type Depth of Burial Medium Yield (kilotons) Test series Objective
Gnome December 10, 1961 Carlsbad, New Mexico Shaft 1,185 ft (361 m) Salt 3 Nougat A multipurpose experiment designed to provide data concerning: (1) heat generated from a nuclear explosion; (2) isotopes production; (3) neutron physics; (4) seismic measurements in a salt medium; and (5) design data for developing nuclear devices specifically for peaceful uses.
Sedan July 6, 1962 Nevada Test Site Crater 635 ft (194 m) Alluvium 104 Storax An excavation experiment in alluvium to determine feasibility of using nuclear explosions for large excavation projects, such as harbors and canals; provide data on crater size, radiological safety, seismic effects, and air blast.
Anacostia November 27, 1962 Nevada Test Site Shaft 747 ft (227.7 m) Tuff 5.2 Storax A device-development experiment to produce heavy elements and provide radiochemical analysis data for the planned Coach Project.
Kaweah February 21, 1963 Nevada Test Site Shaft 745 ft (227.1 m) Alluvium 3 Dominic I and II A device-development experiment to produce heavy elements and provide technical data for the planned Coach Project.
Tornillo October 11, 1963 Nevada Test Site Shaft 489 ft (149 m) Alluvium 0.38 Niblick A device-development experiment to produce a clean nuclear explosive for excavation applications.
Klickitat February 20, 1964 Nevada Test Site Shaft 1,616 ft (492.6 m) Tuff 70 Niblick A device-development experiment to produce an improved nuclear explosive for excavation applications.
Ace June 11, 1964 Nevada Test Site Shaft 862 ft (262.7 m) Alluvium 3 Niblick A device-development experiment to produce an improved nuclear explosive for excavation applications.
Dub June 30, 1964 Nevada Test Site Shaft 848 ft (258.5 m) Alluvium 11.7 Niblick A device-development experiment to study emplacement techniques.
Par October 9, 1964 Nevada Test Site Shaft 1,325 ft (403.9 m) Alluvium 38 Whetstone A device-development experiment designed to increase the neutron flux needed for the creation of heavy elements.
Handcar November 5, 1964 Nevada Test Site Shaft 1,332 ft (406 m) Dolomite (carbonate rock) 12 Whetstone An emplacement experiment to study the effects of nuclear explosions in carbonate rock.
Sulky November 5, 1964 Nevada Test Site Shaft 90 ft (27.4 m) Basalt 0.9 Whetstone An excavation experiment to explore cratering mechanics in hard, dry rock and study dispersion patterns of airborne radionuclides released under these conditions.
Palanquin April 14, 1965 Nevada Test Site Crater 280 ft (85.3 m) Rhyolite 4.3 Whetstone An excavation experiment in hard, dry rock to study dispersion patterns of airborne radionuclides released under these conditions.
Templar March 24, 1966 Nevada Test Site Shaft 495 ft (150.9 m) Tuff 0.37 Flintlock To develop an improved nuclear explosive for excavation applications.
Vulcan June 25, 1966 Nevada Test Site Shaft 1,057 ft (322.2 m) Alluvium 25 Flintlock A heavy element device-development test to evaluate neutron flux performance.
Saxon July 11, 1966 Nevada Test Site Shaft 502 ft (153 m) Tuff 1.2 Latchkey A device-development experiment to improve nuclear explosives for excavation applications.
Simms November 6, 1966 Nevada Test Site Shaft 650 ft (198.1 m) Alluvium 2.3 Latchkey A device-development experiment to evaluate clean nuclear explosives for excavation applications.
Switch June 22, 1967 Nevada Test Site Shaft 990 ft (301.8 m) Tuff 3.1 Latchkey A device-development experiment to evaluate clean nuclear explosives for excavation applications.
Marvel September 21, 1967 Nevada Test Site Shaft 572 ft (174.3 m) Alluvium 2.2 Crosstie An emplacement experiment to investigate underground phenomenology related to emplacement techniques.
Gasbuggy December 10, 1967 Farmington, New Mexico Shaft 4,240 ft (1,292 m) Sandstone, gas bearing formation 29 Crosstie A gas stimulation experiment to investigate the feasibility of using nuclear explosives to stimulate a low-permeability gas field; first Plowshare joint government-industry nuclear experiment to evaluate an industrial application.
Cabriolet January 26, 1968 Nevada Test Site Crater 170 ft (51.8 m) Rhyolite 2.3 Crosstie An excavation experiment to explore cratering mechanics in hard, dry rock and study dispersion patterns of airborne radionuclides released under these conditions.
Buggy March 12, 1968 Nevada Test Site Crater 135 ft (41.1 m) Basalt 5 at 1.1 each Crosstie A five-detonation excavation experiment to study the effects and phenomenology of nuclear row-charge excavation detonations.
Stoddard September 17, 1968 Nevada Test Site Shaft 1,535 ft (467.9 m) Tuff 31 Bowline A device-development experiment to develop clean nuclear explosives for excavation applications.
Schooner December 8, 1968 Nevada Test Site Crater 365 ft (111.3 m) Tuff 30 Bowline An excavation experiment to study the effects and phenomenology of cratering detonations in hard rock.
Rulison September 10, 1969 Grand Valley, Colorado Shaft 8,425 ft (2,567.9 m) Sandstone 43 Mandrel A gas stimulation experiment to investigate the feasibility of using nuclear explosives to stimulate a low-permeability gas field; provide engineering data on the use of nuclear explosions for gas stimulation; on changes in gas production and recovery rates; and on techniques to reduce the radioactive contamination to the gas.
Flask -Green, -Yellow, -Red May 26, 1970 Nevada Test Site Shaft Green, 1736 ft (529.2 m); Yellow, 1,099 ft (335 m); Red, 499 ft (152.1 m) Green, Tuff; Yellow and Red, Alluvium Green, 105; Yellow, 0.9; Red, 0.4 tons Mandrel A three-detonation device development experiment to develop improved nuclear explosives for excavation applications.
Miniata July 8, 1971 Nevada Test Site Shaft 1,735 ft (528.8 m) Tuff 83 Grommet To develop a clean nuclear explosive for excavation applications.
Rio Blanco -1, -2, -3 May 17, 1973 Rifle, Colorado Shaft 5,840 ft (1,780 m); 6,230 ft (1,898.9 m); 6,690 ft (2,039.1 m) Sandstone, gas-bearing formation 3 at 33 each Toggle A gas stimulation experiment to investigate the feasibility of using nuclear explosives to stimulate a low-permeability gas field; develop technology for recovering natural gas from reservoirs with very low permeability.

Non-nuclear tests

In addition to the nuclear tests, Plowshare executed a number of non-nuclear test projects in an attempt to learn more about how the nuclear explosives could best be used. Several of these projects led to practical utility as well as to furthering knowledge about large explosives. These projects included:

Test name Date Location Type Depth of Burial Medium Yield Note
Pre-Gnome February 10–16, 1959 Southeast of Carlsbad, New Mexico seismic experiment (High explosive) 1,200 ft (365.8 m), each Bedded salt 3.65 tons Three seismic experiments to measure ground shock for the planned GNOME nuclear test.
Toboggan November–December 1959 & April–June 1960 Nevada Test Site ditching experiment (High explosive, TNT) 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6.1 m) Playa (combination of silt and clay) Series of 122 detonations of both linear and point HE charges Study ditching characteristics of both-end detonated and multidetonated HE explosives in preparation for nuclear row charge experiments.
Hobo February–April 1960 Nevada Test Site seismic experiment (High explosive, TNT) Unknown Tuff Three explosions, varying from 500 to 1,000 lb. charges each To study rock fracturing and related phenomena produced by contained explosions.
Stagecoach March 1960 Nevada Test Site excavation experiment (High explosive, TNT) Shot 1 – 80 ft (24.4 m); Shot 2 17.1 ft (5.2 m); Shot 3 – 34.2 ft (10.4 m) Alluvium Three 40,000 lb. charges Examine blast, seismic effects and throw out characteristics in preparation for nuclear cratering experiments.
Plowboy March–July 1960 Winnfield, Louisiana experiment Unknown Unknown Unknown Mining operation to examine high explosive-induced fracturing of salt.
Buckboard July–September 1960 Nevada Test Site excavation experiment (High explosive, TNT) 5 to 59.85 ft (1.5 to 18.24 m) Basalt Three 40,000 lb. charges and ten 1,000 lb. charges Establish depth of burst curves for underground explosives in a hard rock medium.
Pinot August 2, 1960 Rifle, Colorado tracer experiment (High explosive, nitromethane) 610 ft (185.9 m) Oil shale Unknown To determine how gases in a confined underground explosion migrate.
Scooter 17:17 am, 13 October 1960 Nevada Test Site excavation experiment (High explosive, TNT) 125 ft (38.1 m) Alluvium 500 ton charges To study crater dimension, throw out material distribution, ground motion, dust cloud growth, and long-range air blast.

Initially scheduled for July, the shot was delayed due to the accidental use of dummy detonators. As the detonators had to be placed in the center of the charge, organizers were required to dig down to the TNT charge and then use a steam heated mandrel to melt to its center, an extremely hazardous process.

Rowboat June 1961 Nevada Test Site row-charge experiment (High explosive, TNT) Varied Alluvium 8 detonations of series of four 278 lb. charges To study the effects of depth of burial and charge separation on crater dimensions.
Yo-Yo Summer 1961 At LRL, near Tracy, California simulated excavation experiment (High explosive) Varied Oil-sand mixture 100 gm charges To develop estimates for the quantities of radiation released to the atmosphere by a cratering detonation.
Pre-Buggy I November 1962 – February 1963 Nevada Test Site row-charge experiment (High explosive, nitromethane) 15 to 21.4 ft (4.57 to 6.52 m) for single-charge detonations; all row-charge detonations at 19.8 ft (6.04 m) Alluvium Six single-charge detonations, four multiple-charge U.S. Army Engineer Cratering Group Study of row- charge phenomenology and effects in preparation for nuclear row-charge tests.
Pre-Buggy II June–August 1963 Nevada Test Site row-charge experiment (High explosive, nitromethane) 18.5 to 23 ft (5.64 to 7.0 m) Alluvium Five rows of five 1,000 lb. charges U.S. Army Corps of Engineers study of row-charge phenomenology and effects in preparation for a nuclear row- charge experiment.
Pre-Schooner I February 1964 Nevada Test Site cratering experiment (High explosive, nitromethane) 42 to 66 ft (18.3 to 20.1 m) Basalt Four 40,000 lb. spherical charges U.S. Army Engineer Nuclear Cratering Group study of basic cratering phenomenology in preparation for nuclear cratering experiments.
Dugout June 24, 1964 Nevada Test Site row charge experiment (High explosive, nitromethane) 59 ft (18.0 m) Basalt simultaneous detonation of a row of five 20 ton charges placed 45 feet (13.7 m) apart (1 crater radius) Study fundamental processes involved in row charge excavating dense, hard rock.
Pre-Schooner II September 30, 1965 Owyhee County, southwestern Idaho cratering experiment (high explosive, nitromethane) 71 ft (21.6 m) Rhyolite 85 ton charge Obtain data for proposed Schooner nuclear cratering test, particularly cavity growth, seismic effects, and air blast.
Pre-Gondola I, II, III October 1966 – October 1969 Near Fort Peck Reservoir, Valley County, Montana excavation experiments (High explosive, nitromethane) Varied Saturated Bearclaw shale Pre-Gondola I, four 20-ton charges; Pre-Gondola II, row of five charges totaling 140 tons; Pre-Gondola III, Phase I, three rows of seven one-ton charges; Phase II, one row of seven 30- ton charges; Phase III, one row of five charges varying from five to 35 tons and totaling 70 tons U.S. Army Corps of Engineers project to provide seismic calibration test data and cratering characteristics for excavation projects.
Tugboat November 1969 – December 1970 Kawaihae Bay, Hawaii excavation experiment (High explosive, TNT) 4–8 ft (1.2–2.4 m) Water Unknown To study excavation of a small boat harbor in a weak coral medium.
Trinidad July–December 1970 Trinidad, Colorado (six miles west) excavation experiment (High explosive) Unknown Sandstone/shale Unknown Four series of row-charge detonations to study excavation designs.
Old Reliable August 1971 – March 1972 Galiuro Mountains, 44 miles northeast Tucson, Arizona fracturing experiment (High explosive, ammonium nitrate) Unknown Unknown 2,002 tons To promote fracturing and in situ leaching of copper ore.

Proposed nuclear projects

A number of projects were proposed and some planning accomplished, but were not followed through on. A list of these is given here:

Name Date Location Purpose
Oxcart 1959 Nevada Test Site Investigate excavation efficiency as a function of yield and depth in planning for Project Chariot.
Oilsand 1959 Athabasca, Canada Study the feasibility of oil recovery using a nuclear explosive detonation in the Athabascan tar sands.
Oil Shale 1959 Not determined Study a nuclear detonation to shatter an oil shale formation to extract oil.
Ditchdigger 1961 Not determined A deeply buried clean nuclear explosive detonation excavation experiment
Coach 1963 Carlsbad, NM (GNOME site) Produce neutron-rich isotopes of known trans- plutonium elements.
Phaeton 1963 Not determined Scaling experiment.
Carryall 1963 Bristol Mountains Mojave Desert, CA Row-charge excavation experiment to cut through the Bristol Mountains for realignment of the Santa Fe railroad and a new highway I-40.
Dogsled 1964 Colorado Plateau CO or AZ Study cratering characteristics in dry sandstone; study ground shock and air blast intensities.
Tennessee/ Tombigee Waterway 1964 Northeast Mississippi Excavation of three miles of a divide cut through low hills; connect Tennessee and Tombigee rivers; dig 250-mile long canal.
Interoceanic Sea-Level Canal Study 1965–70 Pan-American Isthmus (Central America) Commission appointed in 1965 to conduct feasibility studies of several sea-level routes for an Atlantic- Pacific interoceanic canal. Two routes were in Panama and one in northwestern Colombia. The 1970 final report recommended, in part, that no current U.S. canal policy should be made on the basis that nuclear excavation technology will be available for canal construction. AEC deferred in making any decision.
Flivver Mar. 1966 Nevada Test Site A low-yield cratering detonation to study basic cratering phenomenology.
Dragon Trail Dec. 1966 Rio Blanco County, CO Natural gas stimulation experiment; different geological characteristics than either GASBUGGY or RULISON; geological study completed.
Ketch Aug. 1967 Renovo, PA (12 miles SW) Create a large chimney of broken rock with void space to store natural gas under high pressure.
Bronco Oct. 1967 Rio Blanco County, CO Break oil shale deposits for in situ retorting; exploratory core holes drilled.
Sloop Oct. 1967 – 1968 Safford, AZ (11 miles NE) Fracturing copper ore; extract copper by in situ leaching methods; feasibility study completed.
Thunderbird 1967 Gillette, WY (20 miles W) Coal gasification; fracture rock-containing coal and in situ combustion of the coal would produce low-Btu gas and other products.
Galley 1967–68 Not determined A high-yield row charge in hard rock under terrain of varying elevations.
Aquarius 1968–70 Clear Creek or San Simon, AZ Water resource management; dam construction, subsurface storage, purification; aquifer modification.
Wagon Wheel Jan. 1968 – 1974 Pinedale, WY (19 miles S) Natural gas stimulation; study stimulation at various depths; an exploratory hole and two hydrological wells were drilled.
Wasp Jul. 1969 – 1974 Pinedale, WY (24 miles NW) Natural gas stimulation; meteorological observations taken.
Utah 1969 near Ouray, UT Oil shale maturation; exploratory hole drilled.
Sturtevant 1969 Nevada Test Site Cratering experiment to extend excavation information on yields and rock types relevant to the trans-Isthmian canal.
Australian Harbor Project 1969 Cape Keraudren (NW coast of Australia) First discussed with U.S. officials in 1962, the U.S. formally agreed to participate in a joint feasibility study with the Australian government in early 1969 for using nuclear explosives to construct a harbor. The project was stopped in March 1969 when it was determined that there was an insufficient economic basis to proceed.
Yawl 1969–70 Nevada Test Site Cratering experiment to extend excavation information on yields and rock types relevant to the trans-Isthmian canal.
Geothermal Power Plant 1971 Not determined Geothermal resource experiment; fracturing would allow fluids circulated in fracture zones to be converted to steam to generate electricity.
Travois 1970 Various sites in California, New Mexico, Idaho and Oregon Several nuclear quarrying projects to create rock fill for dam projects.

See also

Notes

  1. Test shot Anacostia resulted in Curium-250 being discovered.

References

  1. Weinersmith, Zach (2017). 10 Emerging Technologies That'll Improve and/or ruin everything. p. 154. ISBN 978-0399563829.
  2. ^ "Executive Summary: Plowshare Program" (PDF). US Department of Energy, Office of Science and Technical Information. Retrieved August 17, 2016. Public Domain This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
  3. "Archived copy". www.ociw.edu. Archived from the original on February 10, 2006. Retrieved January 12, 2022.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  4. "Carnegie Observatories Astrophysics Series". February 10, 2006. Archived from the original on February 10, 2006.
  5. "Keyah Math – Numerical Solutions for Culturally Diverse Geology". keyah.asu.edu.
  6. ^ Sovacool, Benjamin K (2011), Contesting the Future of Nuclear Power: A Critical Global Assessment of Atomic Energy, World Scientific, pp. 171–2
  7. Jacobsen, Sally (May 1972). "Turning up the Gas: AEC Prepares Another Nuclear Gas Stimulation Shot". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. 28 (5): 37. doi:10.1080/00963402.1972.11457935. ISSN 0096-3402.
  8. Stone, Oliver and Kuznick, Peter, The Untold History of the United States (Gallery Books, 2012), pp. 283–284
  9. Hewlett, Richard G.; Holl, Jack M. (1989). Atoms for Peace and War, 1953–1961: Eisenhower and the Atomic Energy Commission. Berkeley and Los Angeles, California: University of California Press. p. 529. ISBN 978-0520060180. highlight the peaceful applications of nuclear explosive devices and thereby create a climate of world opinion that is more favorable to weapons development and tests
  10. "semiannual report to Congress in January 1958". Other mentions of Strauss making statements in Feb 1958 or hearings being held are on p 447, and 474 it seems. p. 474's quotation: Senate Subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Relations, Hearings on Control and Reduction of Armaments, Feb. 28 – April 17, 1958, Washington: Government Printing Office, 1958) pp. 1336–1364.
  11. O'Neill, Dan (2007) , The Firecracker Boys: H-Bombs, Inupiat Eskimos, and the Roots of the Environmental Movement, New York: Basic Books, ISBN 978-0-465-00348-8
  12. Fry, J. G.; Stane, R. A.; Crutchfield Jr, W. H. (1964). "Preliminary Design Studies In A Nuclear Excavation — Project Carryall". Highway Research Record (50). Highway Research Board: 32–39. Retrieved August 17, 2016.
  13. Maccabee, H. D. (July 1, 1963). "Use of Nuclear Explosives for Excavation of Sea-Level Canal Across the Negev Desert" (PDF). United States Office of Scientific and Technical Information. Retrieved April 2, 2021.
  14. Guenot, Marianne (March 25, 2021). "The US had a plan in the 1960s to blast an alternative Suez Canal through Israel using 520 nuclear bombs". Insider. Retrieved April 2, 2021.
  15. Lombard, DB; Carpenter, HC (1967). "Recovering Oil by Retorting a Nuclear Chimney in Oil Shale". Journal of Petroleum Technology. 19 (6). Society of Petroleum Engineers: 727–734. doi:10.2118/1669-PA.
  16. "Austral Oil, Co., Inc". Harvard Business School. Retrieved November 23, 2014.
  17. ^ "Environment: Project Dubious". Time magazine. April 9, 1973. Archived from the original on December 14, 2008. Retrieved August 17, 2016.
  18. Jaffe, Mark (July 2, 2009). "Colorado drilling rigs closing in on '60s nuke site". The Denver Post. Retrieved January 30, 2010.
  19. ""Gasbuggy" tests Nuclear Fracking – American Oil & Gas Historical Society". December 4, 2015.
  20. "Innovation Alberta: Article Details". August 24, 2007. Archived from the original on August 24, 2007.
  21. "Plowshare Program Executive Summary, pp. 4–5" (PDF).
  22. "elmada.com/wagon: Nuclear Stimulation Projects". July 6, 2004. Archived from the original on July 6, 2004.
  23. "The Soviet Program for Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Explosions". www.bibliotecapleyades.net.
  24. "Milo D. Nordyke, 2000. peaceful nuclear explosions (PNEs) in the Soviet Union over the period 1965 to 1988" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on December 23, 2016. Retrieved July 22, 2016.
  25. The Soviet Program for Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Explosions by Milo D. Nordyke. Science & Global Security, 1998, Volume 7, pp. 1–117
  26. 4.5 Thermonuclear Weapon Designs and Later Subsections. Nuclearweaponarchive.org. Retrieved on May 1, 2011.
  27. Operation Hardtack I. Nuclearweaponarchive.org. Retrieved on May 1, 2011.
  28. Operation Redwing. Nuclearweaponarchive.org. Retrieved on May 1, 2011.
  29. "Restricted Data Declassification Decisions 1946 to the Present, RDD-7, January 1, 2001". Retrieved August 17, 2016.
  30. "Press Release, Subject: A Charge of 500 Tons of Chemical High Explosive (Non-Nuclear) was Detonated at 7:17 a.m. Today at the NTS (Plowshare)" (Press release). Atomic Energy Commission. October 13, 1960.
  31. TWX to OBrien et al, Subject: High Explosive Scooter Detonation has been Delayed (Report). Atomic Energy Commission. July 31, 1960.
  32. Carothers, J (June 1995). Caging the dragon: the containment of underground nuclear explosions (Report). USDOE Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas, NV (United States); Defense Nuclear Agency, Alexandria, VA (United States); Lawrence Livermore National Lab. (LLNL), Livermore, CA (United States). pp. 65–68. OSTI 524871. DOE/NV-388; DNA-TR-95-74; DE98000017.
  33. Beck, Colleen M.; Edwards, Susan R.; King, Maureen L. (September 1, 2011). "Project Travois". The Off-Site Plowshare and Vela Uniform Programs: Assessing Potential Environmental Liabilities through an Examination of Proposed Nuclear Projects,High Explosive Experiments, and High Explosive Construction Activities (Report). Vol. 1. pp. 3–259. doi:10.2172/1046575.
  34. Yoman, John (May 1970). "Summary of Nuclear-Excavation Applications". Symposium on Engineering with Nuclear Explosives (PDF) (Report). pp. 267–268.

Further reading

External links

Nuclear weapons tests conducted by the United States
Operations
Test
areas
New Mexico
Nevada
Mississippi
Alaska
Colorado
Other
Related
topics
Categories: