R & D (Research and Duplicate) - Why don't we do it?

[niky]

Yep, hydrocarbons are here to stay for a loooooong time. It really just depends on our willingness to recognize the impact this has to our environment, the long term costs vs the short term gains.

The strange thing about some uneconomic wells are that they are strangely replenishing themselves. This lends a bit of credence to the abiotic theories for oil. But it is interesting to note that ultra-deep well drilling in Vietnam and the likes have yielded ridiculous amounts of oil well below the fossil layer. Fodder for conspiracy theorists I'm sure.

For larger scale power generation I'm betting on nuclear. If laws allow it, factories could invest in a micro-nuke plant that will last for 30 years. Thing is the size of a railroad cart and can be chained together for increased output. Relatively low maintenance for their operational lifetimes.

Not really replenishing themselves. It's just that the level of production made them uneconomical before. If you look at press releases and studies by companies reopening these "dry" wells, you'll see that the oil levels are the same as when they left them. It's just that they couldn't make a business case for pumping just a few barrels a day out of the well when oil was cheaper... but now they can. Case in point: "Dry" wells in the US are now being reopened, but some of those wells can only output 10 barrels a day. Just enough to give a small margin over the cost of extraction.

No well ever runs completely dry. They just reach the point wherein you're pumping out more water than oil. When the fractions reach a critical point, it becomes economically unviable. The well might "restore" itself by oil seeping in from nearby undeground reservoirs when the water starts seeping out, but once those nearby untapped reservoirs themselves run dry, you're still in the same boat. All tapped out.

Once we've tapped all the tappable reserves, do we wait around a few years for tall of them to replenish themselves from nearby reservoirs or deep, theorized abiotic sources? All the while with no oil to actually use?

-

Nuclear? Let's not get started on "peak nuclear". Without breeder reactors, estimates put our natural nuclear fuel reserves at around fifty to one hundred years' worth of supply. Too bad there are so many political issues with nuclear, as it is a viable alternative to coal... and less polluting... as coal produces more radioactive emissions than nuclear does...

[ghosthunter]

The strange thing about some uneconomic wells are that they are strangely replenishing themselves. This lends a bit of credence to the abiotic theories for oil. But it is interesting to note that ultra-deep well drilling in Vietnam and the likes have yielded ridiculous amounts of oil well below the fossil layer. Fodder for conspiracy theorists I'm sure.

You mis-understood the situation.

Old uneconomic oil wells are closed because it will cost more per barrel of oil to operate. Example, normal oil well, it costs $30 to extract a barrel of oil. In older wells, it might cost $60 per barrel. If the world oil price is at $50, then it does not make sense to keep the old well going, so it is closed and capped. But when the world oil price has gone up to $90/barrel, then the old well can again make money at $60/barrel.

The same goes for hard to reach oil reserves... it might be originally too expensive to economically drill and extract the oil in that part of the world. But with a higher world oil price, it can now be drilled and extracted at an economical price.

Old oil wells are never really dry, it just costs more to get out the remaining amounts of oil out of the ground.

[dfopiso]

hi ka-tsikot, how will the economics be affected if developed countries started charging/taxing/levying carbon emission (if ever)?

- - - Updated - - -

hi ka-tsikot, how will the economics be affected if developed countries started charging/taxing/levying carbon emission (if ever)?

[Ry_Tower]

just follow the money

where is the big money going?

oil and gas exploration and extraction parin

coal mining parin

solar, hydrogen... just side projects

Pang-PR. Corporate social repsonsibility et al.

Hydrogen as fuel is ideal, so far, in space where it is abundant and the efficiency of harnessing its power is not negative but most probably (still not very popular) not yet for commercial use.

*yapoy86: I get your point but hopefully you get also the point of people here that whats readily available and easier to implement will alwyas win in the initial stages vs. a expensive proposal/dream.


Parang LED at CFL bulbs din yan. CFL lang muna tayo unless 10 hours or more gamit mo sa light, then LED babagay sa'yo. Bottomline, ROI.

[niky]

hi ka-tsikot, how will the economics be affected if developed countries started charging/taxing/levying carbon emission (if ever)?

- - - Updated - - -

hi ka-tsikot, how will the economics be affected if developed countries started charging/taxing/levying carbon emission (if ever)?

They already do.

You're already seeing the effects. Cars are getting more expensive to develop. Smaller car companies are dying. New ones have a hard time competing, except in third world markets. Car companies start making "Third World Only" models.

In the meantime, there is discrimination against products from Third World countries and China which have higher environmental impact... but that doesn't matter much, because the emerging consumer markets are all over here.

In other words, they're hurting themselves, and the rest of us are reaping the rewards. Carbon tax doesn't work unless everyone does it. This is the same reason we can't drop oil and coal. If your entire economy switches to renewables and your electricity and transport costs go up, you become less competitive compared to oil-guzzling. coal-burning nations. That's happening now, too.

[dfopiso]

i see. sa equipment pala ang impact ng carbon tax not on carbon fuel

[EVO-V]

You mis-understood the situation.

Old uneconomic oil wells are closed because it will cost more per barrel of oil to operate. Example, normal oil well, it costs $30 to extract a barrel of oil. In older wells, it might cost $60 per barrel. If the world oil price is at $50, then it does not make sense to keep the old well going, so it is closed and capped. But when the world oil price has gone up to $90/barrel, then the old well can again make money at $60/barrel.

The same goes for hard to reach oil reserves... it might be originally too expensive to economically drill and extract the oil in that part of the world. But with a higher world oil price, it can now be drilled and extracted at an economical price.

Old oil wells are never really dry, it just costs more to get out the remaining amounts of oil out of the ground.

I understood it fine. Just mentioned that there are instances wherein older wells that have been rendered too expensive to pump from have been found to have more oil available for extraction than when they were left idle.

Tar sands have an economic extraction cost of something like $25 per barrel. Its enticing to know that the process of filtering out the oil actually separates a significant amount of sulfur. They have pyramids of the yellow stuff up in Fort McMurray, Alberta.

This hopefully gets more north American diesel engine manufacturers to introduce forced induction (turbo) into more of their engines.

Carbon trading is still a funny concept. There are instances wherein I think its all hooey. Its like artificial sources of carbon are propped up by even more artificial values that intermediary companies just buy and eventually trade. Hippy economics at work.

The science behind climate change has far too much hype behind it before it can be taken objectively. Most of the studies presented by the UN hurriedly dismisses the minority reports.

That said, policies affect the economic viability of energy mixes. China's ascension to economic prosperity is coming at a huge cost to its environment and the health of its people. The number of times air quality has been declared "dangerous" in Shanghai or Beijing this year alone should be proof of that.

[niky]

$25 only for an existing facility. For a new facility, it's $60-80 to offset sunk costs.

Climate change definitely does exist. The big issues are that the tipping points are not well understood and different sides downplay factors and data that don't support their position. We should be doing something, yes, but since it has become very politicized... like hydrogen... decisions are being made based on political goals and ideals instead of sober scientific fact.

[EVO-V]

$25 only for an existing facility. For a new facility, it's $60-80 to offset sunk costs.

Climate change definitely does exist. The big issues are that the tipping points are not well understood and different sides downplay factors and data that don't support their position. We should be doing something, yes, but since it has become very politicized... like hydrogen... decisions are being made based on political goals and ideals instead of sober scientific fact.

Climate changes -period. However human civilization impacts it is another thing. All the data so far is tenuously co-relational as it is alarmist and actual scientific criticism is treated as if it were heresy. Consuming less, doing more with less, and polluting less is simply good practice.

The Norwegians are betting on Hydrogen, no matter how unique their juxtaposition is given they produce oil. I don't know how one figure hydrogen to be a political issue when as with anything related to pure sciences, its a wager on the future.

Likewise the Swedes are already vying for contracts to build the first lunar stations. It was amusing for a moment thinking how fantastic these things were, but when conjecture meets a bit of physics, mining Helium-3 rich moon minerals may actually be the next big thing.

Again, these things are triggered by milestones and factors for viability. Would be lovely to be able to tap all that heavy water from the Philippine Deep for fusion reactors by then.

Rigid shortsightedness is rarely tempered by imagination.

[niky]

I say political because hydrogen is a good carrot to dangle in front of governments and voters. Hey, look... hydrogen is abundant. Hydrogen is non-polluting! Hydrogen allows you to enjoy all the things you previously enjoyed from your cars with none of the drawbacks.

While there may be a future for hydrogen in some part, it, like battery-electric, is not going to completely replace our car fleets. At this point, that's impossible.

What needs to be done is to slap people in the face with the cold hard reality that they need to, on a personal level, start doing more with less, if they want to enjoy a lifestyle akin to what they enjoy now.

As you say: "Consuming less, doing more with less, and polluting less is simply good practice."

And yet every year, people are treated to the same old feel-good "we can do it!" rhetoric. Making them hopeful that there's a miracle around the corner.

Act as if there's no miracle. Save. Conserve. Scale back what's not needed. And whether it occurs or not, you'll be in a better position than those who didn't.

-

Actually, thinking about it, the one big advantage for hydrogen over some of the others is that you can store it long-term. So it's a possible storage medium for solar facilities, foregoing the need for batteries (that leak out energy over time). Of course, this is where it makes the most sense, because a majority of hydrogen production is still via natural gas (which is where Norway gets its hydrogen)... and you can simply compress natural gas to burn in CNG motors.