RE: Energy and Jan. Atlantic

From: Glenn Morton (glenn.morton@btinternet.com)
Date: Mon Jan 22 2001 - 15:59:20 EST

  • Next message: Glenn Morton: "RE: Energy and Jan. Atlantic"

    1/22/01

    Kenneth writes:

    >-----Original Message-----
    >From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
    >Behalf Of Kenneth Piers
    >Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 4:40 PM
    >To: asa@calvin.edu
    >Subject: RE: Energy and Jan. Atlantic
    >
    >
    >Speaking of depleting petroleum resources, the Jan 2001 Atlantic Monthly
    >has an essay by Jonathan Rauch (The New Old Economy: Oil, Computers, and
    >Reinventing the Earth) in which he claims that we are not in danger of
    >running out of oil. Through adoption of new economy technology
    >(3Dseismic imaging, Directional drilling, "smart" drill bits, computers,
    >etc.) we are now finding oil more successfully, at a higher rate and
    >more cheaply than we were 20 years ago. Knowledge, not oil, limits the
    >amount of oil we find. So, he says, by the time we move to a new energy
    >economy (hydrogen, fuel cell, photovoltaic, whatever...) there is still
    >likely to be large amounts of oil left in the ground unused.
    >Paradoxically, the more oil we remove from the ground the more oil we
    >find, says Rauch. This sounds very much like the cornucopian worldviews
    >propounded by the likes of Julian Simon, Herman Kahn, and Calvin Beisner
    >. Is there any legitimacy to these arguments?

    There will always be oil in the ground. There is many times more oil in the
    ground than we have burned. The problem is that it is too dispersed to be
    extractable economically. No one is going to spend $10 to get $9 of oil.
    Occasionally we do that in the oil industry, but I assure you that heads
    roll at those times. What limits the amount of oil we find is economics and
    the laws of physics. An example, I once had an override on a well we were
    drilling in Fayette Co. Texas. An override means that I owned a few
    percentage points of the well and didn't have to pay for the drilling of the
    well. I was licking my chops at the prospect of getting rich. What fun I
    could have with the money. We were drilling right next to an old well which
    had 35 feet of oil pay that no one had recognized when they drilled it
    several years earlier. They had abandoned the well and poured cement down
    it. We drilled 120 feet away from that other well, drilled up dip hoping to
    get more than 35 feet of pay. What we found was 8 feet of pay on a different
    water level. (the fact that the oil floated on water at a different depth
    meant that we were not in the same reservoir and that there was no
    connection to the 35 feet of oil just 120 feet to the south.) Instead of
    getting rich, which I thought I was about to do, we plugged our well and
    walked away. Why? It would have taken about 50 dollars to get 5 dollars of
    oil. Who wants to do that? If you do, please send me your money and I will
    find you lots and lots of oil. Better yet, tell that author to send me his
    money.

    The oil left in the ground unused can not be moved. Oil is often found in
    sandstones. It is actually found in the pores spaces between the sand
    grains. Thus the sand is kinda like a sponge. We can measure the oil
    saturation and the water saturation of a sandstone reservoir. However, when
    we pump oil out of the ground, there is an irreducible saturation beyond
    which the oil won't move. So, your correspondent is correct there will be
    lots of oil left unused in the ground, but it won't come out of the ground
    so what use is it?

    As to finding more oil the more we find, that is pure fantasy. In the 1960s,
    people working the North Sea found fields of 1-2 billion barrels each. Today
    the average field size is around 30 million barrels--almost a 100 fold
    reduction. (In the Frio trend of Texas 80 years ago, they found billion
    barrel fields--in the 1990s the average field size found was 4 million
    barrels). Now, if that 30 million barrel field is far from infrastructure
    (pipelines), it takes almost as big a platform to produce the 30 million as
    it does to produce a billion barrel field. Lets say that a platform costs
    $500 million, which isn't far from the truth in some fields. For a billion
    barrel field that is fifty cents per barrel cost. For a 30 million barrel
    field it is $16 dollars per barrel. and that is just for the cost of the
    platform. That doesn't count the cost of running the platform, paying the
    salaries (my salary), paying the refinery costs, the pipeline costs, the
    wellhead processing costs, and don't forget royalties (about 1/6 of all the
    oil which goes to the government) and taxes on top of that & etc. No one can
    make money off of operating costs of $16+ / barrel.

    Now, as to the hydrogen economy, I wish someone would tell me where the
    hydrogen mine was. To manufacture hydrogen requires energy--which is exactly
    what we won't have without oil. If there is a significant increase in
    photovoltaic efficiency, it will go a long way towards solving the problem.

    glenn

    see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htm
    for lots of creation/evolution information
    anthropology/geology/paleontology/theology\
    personal stories of struggle

    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 22 2001 - 15:56:14 EST