[N_Fiddledog]

I just stumbled onto this when I was looking for something else entirely. I'd never heard of it. I thought it was a neat concept, so I figured what the Hell why not share the info. It creates some interesting speculation if they actually are secretly thinking of going ahead with this.

What I'm thinking is with these things, maybe it doesn't matter if the ice melts, or not. They can still drill.

Quote:

The Russian program for oil production in Arctic includes plans on using a nuclear-powered drilling submarine.



This appears in a report written by the Russian oceanographer and expert on Russian energy safety Vladislav Lavin on behalf of the Environmental Foundation Bellona. Mr. Lavin emphasizes that this information is open, and has been presented at a conference on nuclear power in Russia organized by the Ministry of Atomic Energy.

According to the report, the plan for development of the Leningradskoye Field in the Kara Sea includes use of a manned, nuclear-powered submarine that can move between one well to another, attached to a fixed frame on the sea bottom. When the drilling is finished, underwater installations for production can be attached.

The submarine in the plan is 99 meters long, 31 meters wide and 33 meters high. The design is based on post-soviet rejected plans to reconstruct navy submarines into underwater container ships.

The benefits of being under water during drilling is that one can escape weather and ice, which make a big challenge to everyone planning oil and gas exploration in the Arctic. But Bellona believes the disadvantages of using nuclear power exceed the benefits.

- It is neither profitable, smart or environmentally justifiable, Vladislav Lavin says and adds that it is up to Gazprom’s international partners to refuse this practice.

Source

[Scape]

In the same way we don't bury phone/power cables we don't use subs to drill. The cost to do it and to repair it should anything break (and it will) would make the cost far in excess of the worth.

[N_Fiddledog]

And you base that on what exactly?

I'm not trying to be smart ass. I really want to know.

I used to hear that too expensive argument made against tar sands oil. I just believed them blindly that time, because they seemed so confident. This time I'd really like to read the literature which makes you so sure.

Somebody went to the trouble of designing this oil drilling sub on rails. He seems to think it might be viable.

The only thing I know for sure at this time is they think the oil is there, and they want to get at it. The last I heard Russian scientists were skeptical of the permanent melt idea, so why do they think they can get at that energy beneath the ice?

[Scape]

Drilling is expensive. Drilling at sea more so nevermind doing that in the middle of an ice pack above or below the waves. The closest large scale drilling is the North Sea that Norway has and is dwildling. Doing this underwater may seem safer and possibly cheaper then a rig but the ice is still a threat above or below the waves and distance to a secure port and pipeline is far more then current feilds. It might be worth it if the market demands higher prices for a sustained period but such a project would be decades and billions in investment that would be high risk to an adverse situation that would be very hard on both man and machine.

[N_Fiddledog]

No doubt about it. Any kind of offshore drilling is expensive, and your opinion is noted. Still they do do it, and I can't help thinking there's more to this recent interest in what's below the arctic ice than the hope the ice will one day melt for more than a couple of weeks in some years, in some places like the Northwest, or Northeast passage.

This railed sub idea might just be one of many possible, projected technologies for all I know. There was a time I didn't hear about any kind of offshore drilling. Then I did.

[Scape]

The same with this. It's a good idea just not ripe for execution.