2006-09-06 16:03:02 · 12 answers · asked by Pseudo Obscure 6 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Earth Sciences & Geology
No!
2006-09-06 17:38:39 · answer #1 · answered by Chug-a-Lug 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Back in about 1962 there was a underground nuclear test just outside of Carlsbad, New Mexico. The seismic exploration crews in New Mexico and Texas were requested to stop their normal operations and record the test. The purpose was to get new data on the acoustic velocity of the rocks as deep below the surface as possible. The crews recorded the data and sent it to an address provided by the government.
You might say that this was to gather information about the subsurface that could possibly enhance oil exploration, but that is a real stretch. It is more likely that we just didn't know what to expect so we did what we knew might give some data.
2006-09-06 18:22:03 · answer #2 · answered by Papucho 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, any nuclear scientist, geophysisist, and geologist would have debunked any attempt to do so, because of the fact that all the atom smashing and splitting in the world wouldn't create any signifigant changes in the total oil/patrolium content of the planet, truth is testing of nuclear bombs underground started when they found out the the effects of the above ground tests were wider spread than origionally expected, and the fact that bigger bombs would have even more advers effects on a larger area, it also made it harder for orbiting spy sattilites to determin the strength of the bombs we were testing.
2006-09-06 16:10:19 · answer #3 · answered by Mark G 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If it doesn't paintings, will the oil deliver the radioactive waste to the floor? Is radioactive crude going to hit the wetlands and seashores? i do not understand adequate about it to furnish you an intellegent answer yet i understand they could decrease the dimensions of the bomb through making use of a lot less radio lively cloth. that that they had more beneficial positive evaluate ALL angles earlier they move ahead on a plan like the only you're speaking about! EDIT I merely watched the video Champs C appropriate to. curiously, no man or woman knows something about what would ensue. The visitor "specialist" stated it will be like the three Stooges with a nuke. even as itemizing each and every thing that opt to ensue yet have under no circumstances been tried earlier and each and every of the flair unintentional outcomes, even he forgot to prepare the extra issues of doing something at 5000 feet less than sea aspect, interior the chilly, interior the darkish and fewer than tremendous stress.
2016-10-15 23:21:38 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. All the underground nuclear tests were done to prove the technology. None were done in Texas.
2006-09-06 16:15:55 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
There were probably plans for it. They couldn't get enough of atom bombs back then.
The biggest "civil engineering" done using nukes was in Semipalatinsk, Kazakhstan. They built a lake there wth something like 10 simultaneous H-bombs. (Who wants to go for a swim? Me neither.)
2006-09-06 16:06:10 · answer #6 · answered by poorcocoboiboi 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, that's silly. How would a nuclear bomb improve oil production?
2006-09-06 16:08:14 · answer #7 · answered by wizard8100@sbcglobal.net 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Where did you hear such garbage It would have vaporized the oil...no profit in that.
2006-09-06 16:07:35 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nope.
2006-09-06 16:22:09 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No
2006-09-06 16:05:05 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋