Within the last decade, technology advances have made it possible to unlock more oil from old fields, and, at the same time, higher oil prices have made it economical for companies to go after reserves that are harder to reach. With plenty of oil still left in familiar locations, forecasts that the world’s reserves are drying out have given way to predictions that more oil can be found than ever before.
“It’s the fifth time to my count that we’ve gone through a period when it seemed the end of oil was near and people were talking about the exhaustion of resources,” said Daniel Yergin, the chairman of Cambridge Energy and author of a Pulitzer Prize-winning history of oil, who cited similar concerns in the 1880s, after both world wars and in the 1970s. “Back then we were going to fly off the oil mountain. Instead we had a boom and oil went to $10 instead of $100.”
You have to generate energy to both make the steam and pump it underground. The Norwegians gave up on this technology for oil because it requires vast amounts of energy to do both, enough to cancel out any benefit. They do use it to sink CO^2 under natural gas.
True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler
Are you sure it's caloric limits and not merely financial limits that have made such technologies not worthwhile? My understanding is that the financial considerations are primary, and prices at and above the peaks we have seen in recent years make these more intensive techniques worthwhile.
In other words, we are seeing the end of cheap oil, not the end of yield.
There have been some disturbing results recently on tests related to pumping CO2 underground. Apparently CO2 acidifies rocks just like it acidifies rain and seawater, so it can cause fissures and cracks and escape back to the surface. Potentially it could cause collapses ranging from minor annoyances like sinkholes to catastrophic breaches.
I can agree that financial constraints are globally synonymous with caloric constraints, but you must admit that a net calorie gain is preferable to a net loss. Most energy sources are net gains. Ethanol, not so much.
If the U.S. were desperate, converting coal to ethanol might be worthwhile, but ultimately, if extracting a calorie of energy takes more than a calorie of work, you should look for a Plan B.
some geologies would be more prone to it than others
No doubt, and it would be lovely if someone could find a geology that can hold CO2 for a long time. In terms of scale and catastrophe, it's a complicated matter, but the bottom line is commercial-scale efforts will fail catastrophically within decades. Dams and nuclear waste repositories will probably last longer than subsurface CO2 sequestration, or so the early returns suggest.
Submitted by Les Jones on Wed, 2007/03/14 - 8:14am.
Not my thing, and anyway short positions are crazy risky. The market can be overly exuberant for a long time.
Netscape co-founder Marc Andreessen lost everything he made at Netscape shorting Internet stocks. He was right - those stocks really were overvalued - and the tech market did eventually crash, but not before his short positions were called.
The world/this nation will not be improved one whit by the discovery of more fossil fuel to burn. Our air will not be made cleaner. Our roads will get no safer and no less congested. Our health will not improve. More oil is only an answer to the most shortsighted and narrowly framed of questions.
The smart money would be on finding another way. One that does not involve oil or coal in significant amounts. Isn't that obvious to everyone here?
And maybe no one does right now. It probably will not be easy to find and the changeover will likely not be pleasant. Neither of those are, in my not so humble opinion, sufficient reason for us to continue the slow suicide that is the result of burning fossil fuels. But then, I'm really picky about my methods of suicide.
Ah, but what's the caloric ratio of extraction vs yield?
True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler
The steam or CO2 represent additional inputs. The fact that they're using existing fields probably somewhat offsets that, but perhaps not entirely.
Still, the total estimated oil reserve has risen so dramatically that I'm pretty confident we're talking about an increase in net yield.
www.lesjones.com
You have to generate energy to both make the steam and pump it underground. The Norwegians gave up on this technology for oil because it requires vast amounts of energy to do both, enough to cancel out any benefit. They do use it to sink CO^2 under natural gas.
True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler
Are you sure it's caloric limits and not merely financial limits that have made such technologies not worthwhile? My understanding is that the financial considerations are primary, and prices at and above the peaks we have seen in recent years make these more intensive techniques worthwhile.
In other words, we are seeing the end of cheap oil, not the end of yield.
There have been some disturbing results recently on tests related to pumping CO2 underground. Apparently CO2 acidifies rocks just like it acidifies rain and seawater, so it can cause fissures and cracks and escape back to the surface. Potentially it could cause collapses ranging from minor annoyances like sinkholes to catastrophic breaches.
Carbon = economy. I think they are one in the same if you push back what the financial constraints really mean.
As for acidification of rock, some geologies would be more prone to it than others. I wonder what you mean by catastrophic in this case? What scale?
True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler
I can agree that financial constraints are globally synonymous with caloric constraints, but you must admit that a net calorie gain is preferable to a net loss. Most energy sources are net gains. Ethanol, not so much.
If the U.S. were desperate, converting coal to ethanol might be worthwhile, but ultimately, if extracting a calorie of energy takes more than a calorie of work, you should look for a Plan B.
some geologies would be more prone to it than others
No doubt, and it would be lovely if someone could find a geology that can hold CO2 for a long time. In terms of scale and catastrophe, it's a complicated matter, but the bottom line is commercial-scale efforts will fail catastrophically within decades. Dams and nuclear waste repositories will probably last longer than subsurface CO2 sequestration, or so the early returns suggest.
So, Les, I assume you've taken a big short position on oil futures.
Liberty and justice for all.
Not my thing, and anyway short positions are crazy risky. The market can be overly exuberant for a long time.
Netscape co-founder Marc Andreessen lost everything he made at Netscape shorting Internet stocks. He was right - those stocks really were overvalued - and the tech market did eventually crash, but not before his short positions were called.
www.lesjones.com
Which I shall point out regardless.
The world/this nation will not be improved one whit by the discovery of more fossil fuel to burn. Our air will not be made cleaner. Our roads will get no safer and no less congested. Our health will not improve. More oil is only an answer to the most shortsighted and narrowly framed of questions.
The smart money would be on finding another way. One that does not involve oil or coal in significant amounts. Isn't that obvious to everyone here?
CAFKIA
-----------------------------------------------------------
It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.
- William G. McAdoo
to open our eyes and unstop our ears...others of us? not so much.
_________________________________________________________
"You can't fix stupid..." ~ Ron White"
"I never said I wasn't a brat..." ~ Talidapali
-----------------------------------------------------------
It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.
- William G. McAdoo
I'm all in favor of a new energy source, but what's it going to be?
www.lesjones.com
I'm all in favor of a new energy source, but what's it going to be?
A mixture of large scale solar, coal gasification, pebble based nukes, and wind. All have problems with social acceptance and high costs.
Both the .gov and the people have some serious issues to settle. On the current path, there will be no new energy sources.
And maybe no one does right now. It probably will not be easy to find and the changeover will likely not be pleasant. Neither of those are, in my not so humble opinion, sufficient reason for us to continue the slow suicide that is the result of burning fossil fuels. But then, I'm really picky about my methods of suicide.
CAFKIA
-----------------------------------------------------------
It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.
- William G. McAdoo
Post new comment