Nuclear-Explosion Petroleum-Stimulation United States and USSR’ Abstract Both the United States and the USSR have conducted experimental programs in the application of underground nuclear explosions to peacetul uses, particularly as related to the petroleum industry. Bot Raations recognize that the explosive creation of 27 ‘extensive pattern of fractures in a reservoir will in ‘crease current production and ultimate recovery per: centages. Both nations also appear fully aware of and able to control radiologic and seismic hazards. How: fever, in the United States at least, the cost of the nuclear device deters wider use. ‘A comparative review of the published data from both countries on the geologic environments chosen for these nuclear-explosion programs clearly indicates significant differences in approach and objectives. The two American projects, Gasbuggy and Rulison, involve the detonation of single devices at moderate depth within expansion-drive natural gas, reservoirs consisting of stratigraphic traps in thick, low-perme ability clastic rocks of Cretaceous age; the resultant stimulation hopefully will raise submarginal deposits to commercial levels. The USSR projects involve the detonation of multiple nuclear devices at moderate depths within or below depletion: or water-drive oil or {gas reservoirs consisting of structural or stratigraphic ‘traps. in thick, moderately permeable carbonates of late Paleozoic age; the resultant intensification hope- fully will increase’ production and ultimate recovery and thus decrease exploitation costs in currently com- mercial deposits. Intropuction The United States Plowshare program for the peaceful application of nuclear explosives was established formally by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) in 1957. Engineering uses for such explosions were proposed and discussed in the late 1950s, mostly by personnel of the Law- tence Radiation Laboratory (since 1971 the Law- rence Livermore Laboratory) under contract to the AEC, and several projects were studied in detail during the nuclear-weapons-test morato- rium extending from the fall of 1958 to the fall of 1961. The first Plowshare experiment, Project Gnome, was detonated on December 10, 1961. Since then, phenomenologic data have been ob tained in many media, including alluvium, tuff, shale, dolomite, salt, basalt, and granite, by means of explosions at depths ranging from ‘near the surface to about 2,500 m. After negotiation between the El Paso Natural Gas Company and the AEC, the first joint industry-government Plowshare experiment, Project Gasbuggy, was detonated on December 10, 1967. The second 990 ‘ehewian sine Ftc ey, 1.9. NS (oe TO. OE 25. ge Projects, MAURICE J. TERMAN: Washington, D. C. 20242 eriment, Project Rulison, was conducted ae eember 10, 1969, under the sponsorship of ‘Austral Oil Company, Inc. the AEC, and the US. Department of the Interior. These two ex. ‘iments in the United States emphasized the current interest in the potential application of ‘underground nuclear explosions to the petroleum industry, especially for gas stimulation in sizable regions of large-scale, low-productivity, generally undeveloped resources. Petroleum as used in this report refers to both gas and oil resources. "The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has evinced considerable interest in the nonmilitary applications of nuclear energy, but their research and experimentation largely have been unpubli- cized. The true extent of their progress has been indicated at the Soviet-American technical talks on the use of nuclear explosions for peaceful purposes which were held in Vienna during April 1969 and in Moscow during February 1970; an additional project was outlined at the 8th World Petroleum Congress in 1971. The Soviet scientists identified cratering and underground projects in materials that included clay, shale, sandstone, limestone, salt, and granite; they used explosions at depths ranging from near the surface to about 1,500 m. All the identified underground projects have had industrial applications, as follows: (1) a series of three explosions in one experimental oil field and two explosions in another as secondary- © 1973. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists. All right "Manuscript received, May 7, 1972; revised and accepted, November 30,1972 Pblcaton aubonzed by the Diet United States Geological Survey. 2USS. Geological Survey. This manuscript was originally prepared under a US. Goo logical Survey contract from Advanced Research Projects Qe:Re7 in mic-1970 (Terman, 1970). That report ison Bl # « Defense Documentation Center (AD-730510), pratt work has been sponsored by the Advanced Resear Proeets Agency and monitored by Verne C. Fryklund, at appreciation is expressed for the considerable help in research and preparation of the final report that bas Dt ffered by my associates inthe U.S. Geologial Suvey: 8) 5 Wade Watkins and personnel of the Division of Petroleum 194 Datural Gas, US. Bureau of Mines; and by Richard Ham SpyBEr and peronnel of the U.S. Atomic Energy Comss from Toh uSe%Pt also has been improved by comzne UH ‘ Ne morse, Howard and his anor at Lewesetr lation proj. a poricularly detailing the environments ot go sites: son Pernouzum SiMviarion 3 peleum industry bas investigated man niques for applying energy to reservoir r empts to stimulate production and to 5 - the percentage of recovery. The rate of fovof fluid to a wel is directly proportional to the reservoir permeability and thickness, fluid sty, and the difference in the static reservoir sre and flowing wellbore pressure. The rate 's inversely proportional to fluid viscosity and compressibility, reservoir temperature, and the ithm of the ratio of the drainage radius to selbore radius. Therefore, an increase in rate of fow can be achieved by introduction of addi- tonal iuids (flooding) to increase reservoir pres- sacadntent Este, by treatment of the reservoir rocks to in- Wifes | ste Permeability and the effective radius of Fl TeSveces | yelhore, or by heating the petroleum to lower its 4 udepratpes2 | viscosity. Treatments traditionally range from ac- idzation of reservoirs in carbonate rocks to frac- tue of reservoirs in clastic rocks. Fracturing orig- itally was accomplished by shooting with solidi- fed nitroglycerin; more recently, water and sand bave been pumped into the reservoir under pres- Sure suficient to produce a fracture that is then held open by the injected sand grains (hydraulic turing). Maximum initial increase in produc- lion after treatment is highly variable, but has cited (El Paso Natural Gas Co., 1965) as ‘veraging approximately fivefold by shooting and ‘aold by hydraulic fracturing, although experi- ‘=e has shown that these rates subsequently tedine. The petroleum industry throughout the Nord is becoming more aware of the potential o Ntlerground nuclear explosions as local energy ES for possible stimulation of production ‘OT increasing ultimate recovery. zm States Pernoteum-STIMULATION Under ‘ ymenol- round nuclear explosion pheno! 2 bas been documented From the more ee ‘ests (U.S Atomic Energy Comm., Nev -Stimulatioy : Nn Proj ce projets: 2) single explosions ay , ects, US and ussR 991 e%Greonttol wild ga wells; (3) single eqn OPEations Office. s@ Se wo sites in one salt structure tg eas the 1.7-kt (kilotos) 969a) since the detonation of se Meavties: and (4) an unevaluaied gagseat® PEF 1957, Sequar.Rtitir explosion in Septem sen ps also emp Phenomenology, based or cig8rams of this oi experiments 180 mPhase he primary PUBEY Project are shone eae Tm the Gas spaterest inthe potential application gf yo. SFY and emplacement nog eure: The explo. od nuclear explosions to the Petroleum explosion which creates ee with a aporizing the enc ical cavity by ind) oer brings together widely temperatures and prose cock &¢ exttemely high id Ts Fe known petroleum-stimulaises degrees and T wifes ore than 10 milion lion atmosph ates ext heres), and gener- Cg. i tong compressional shock Som SUTE, cogal cavity expands until the gas pres- mately dap pS sithostatie. pressure (approxi- tho 8/sq om for each meter of depth) as Poa ie conta transmit energy into the rs initiating within it an and inicate network of facture (ig, I Within the cavity, the rock vapor condenses and the melt runs down the sides to collect in a pud- dle on the floor (Fig. 1c). A few seconds to min- utes, rarely hours or days, after the explosion, the cavity pressure falls below a critical value and the fractured roof = normally starts to collapse into the cavity, and, within a few seconds, a large generally cylindrical chimney of ‘broken oe forms upward toward the surface until the rounded roof rock becomes strong enough to support itself or until bulky broken rock fills the void and supports the roof (Fig. 14). In view of this phenomenology, the physical effects that need to be considered in relation to petroleum- stimulation projects are fracturing, heating, ra- dioactivity, and seismicity. The American philosophic position and te. bni- cal criteria applicable to acne wee invest ted and defined by Atkinson and Johansen (1964). They concluded that production increases caused by the fracturing of thick, low-permeabil- ity natural gas reservoirs at moderate depths ap- pear to be technically and economically feasible and potentially capable of raising submarginal resources 10 commercial levels, whereas produc- tion increases caused by the heating of oil reser- voirs appear to be disappointingly small and un- promising, Subsequent empirical data and several Sngoing and proposed Plowshare projects all tend to substantiate these conclusions. The envi- ronmental data for these United States projects rized in Table 1. The current state of ari i inowiedge suggests the following discussion of the specific effects of underground nuclear explo- Sion as related to gas-stimolation projects. Fracturing i ed jal relations of broken and displac Th al nt rowed by Boardman (1970); his data, involy-