A-Bombing for Oil

Can a good, solid nuclear explosion separate imprisoned oil from the tight clutch of tar sand? If it can, the world's oil reserves may soon be doubled. The geological proving ground is the 30,000 sq. mi. of tar sands underlying northern Alberta and Saskatchewan in the vicinity of Lake Athabaska. The company that thinks it can turn the trick is California's Richfield Oil Corp., which last week formally asked permission of the Canadian government to set off a nuclear charge just under the Athabaska sands.

Richfield's big atomic bet is based on a chemical peculiarity: the molecular structure of Athabaska oil is such that, once thinned by heat, it flows indefinitely, whereas many heavy crudes thicken again in cooling. The spot picked by Richfield for its experiment has rich tar sand down to a depth of 1,000 ft. Then the underlying rock begins. If the A-bomb experiment works, the first small-scale (two-kiloton) detonation will be set off in the rock strata 1,200 ft. below the ground. Engineers expect that the bomb will create a huge cavity, and heat the sand and oil. A little sand will glassify on the cavity's sides. Then they hope that the oil will be thin enough for piping to the surface. Experts claim that no radioactive hazards to man will result from the planned explosion. If the Athabaska sands yield their treasure, an estimated 300 billion bbl. of crude can be freed in that region alone.

When John Convey, a Canadian Department of Mines expert in the field, first heard of the nuclear scheme, he scoffed at it as "something of a Jules Verne story." Now he sees it as "a new type of mining." Indications last week were that the project is progressing. At the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission's Oak Ridge installation, tar sands were being tested to see whether the radioactivity will be held safely underground. The U.S. will probably agree to provide A-bombs for Canada to push the experiment.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.