4 ms·

> This energy is currently supplied entirely by fossil fuels, and is probably not substitutable in the near future [citation needed], and [citation needed]. Th

by jsn 15y ago

> This energy is currently supplied entirely by fossil fuels, and is probably not substitutable in the near future [citation needed], and [citation needed]. There are electric drilling rigs out there, pumping the oil out is often performed by electric pumps, and pumping water / gas in doesn't, AFAICS, require specifically fossil fuel power. I don't see anything than couldn't be done with electricity, coal, natural gas or whatever else.

nate_meurer 15y ago
So where do you think an oil platform gets its electric power? Solar panels? Or do you think they string a power line from the shore? Where do you think Saudi Arabia gets the gigawatts needed to run its oil fields? How much of their electricity comes from oil and nat gas? I'll give you a hint; it rhymes with "all of it". How do you think Suncor extracts oil from oil sands? Lots of squeezing? Where do you think Pemex gets the electricity for the giant pumps that pressurize their gulf fields (and the nitrogen that they pump)? Observe that natural gas is subject to the same economics as oil. Where the two are substitutable, low project EROEI can be flirted with. However, also observe that extraction of nat gas is largely coincident with that of oil, both geographically and industrially. They usually come from the same fields, often the same wells. >"I don't see anything than couldn't be done with electricity, coal, natural gas or whatever else." There is a difference between possibility and feasibility. Ask Transocean when they'll start selling coal-powered semi-subs.
- jsn 15y ago
  Your Saudi example is especially unconvincing. Of course they get their electricity from oil now; why wouldn't they, when oil is so cheap and abundant there? Duh. Oil costs them, what, $10 to extract a barrel now? They would be fools to use anything more expensive to produce electricity. That doesn't mean they won't get their electricity elsewhere when it's economically unfeasible to use oil for that. More or less the same applies to other examples, actually. > Ask Transocean when they'll start selling coal-powered semi-subs Whoa, where did that come from? Shelf drilling is a capital expense, it's not recurring costs. Whatever logic is there in EROEI argument, it doesn't apply here. Ask Transocean what share of their operating costs is fuel, and if they give a damn about fuel costs rising ten-fold.
  - nate_meurer 15y ago
    >"That doesn't mean they won't get their electricity elsewhere when it's economically infeasible to use oil for that." Again, possibility vs. feasibility. You talk about capital costs... what do you imagine it will cost to convert a significant share of Saudi Arabia's generating capacity to nuclear, for example. How likely is that to happen politically? And if the day comes that oil is so expensive that an Arab nation is actually considering going nuclear, how financially feasible will a nuclear program be? Remember, big construction projects drink a lot of diesel. >"Shelf drilling is a capital expense, it's not recurring costs." It's more accurate to say that platform drilling incurs massive up-front capital investment, as well as intense ongoing maintenance. Remember, we're not just talking about running the platform; we're talking about operating pipelines, refineries, etc. The large capital cost is part of the problem -- see my earlier comment about large integrated projects. But really, for EROEI purposes it doesn't matter when the money is spent; over its lifetime, an oil extraction project will consume a given amount of energy. That energy input comes overwhelmingly from oil and nat gas, and will continue to do so until the day we start seeing solar/nuclear/coal-powered rigs appear.
    - nate_meurer 15y ago
      Turns out, Saudi Arabia actually is considering going nuclear, so we'll see my thoughts about feasibility tested for real.

by jsn 15y ago

nate_meurer 15y ago

So where do you think an oil platform gets its electric power? Solar panels? Or do you think they string a power line from the shore? Where do you think Saudi Arabia gets the gigawatts needed to run its oil fields? How much of their electricity comes from oil and nat gas? I'll give you a hint; it rhymes with "all of it". How do you think Suncor extracts oil from oil sands? Lots of squeezing? Where do you think Pemex gets the electricity for the giant pumps that pressurize their gulf fields (and the nitrogen that they pump)? Observe that natural gas is subject to the same economics as oil. Where the two are substitutable, low project EROEI can be flirted with. However, also observe that extraction of nat gas is largely coincident with that of oil, both geographically and industrially. They usually come from the same fields, often the same wells. >"I don't see anything than couldn't be done with electricity, coal, natural gas or whatever else." There is a difference between possibility and feasibility. Ask Transocean when they'll start selling coal-powered semi-subs.

jsn 15y ago
Your Saudi example is especially unconvincing. Of course they get their electricity from oil now; why wouldn't they, when oil is so cheap and abundant there? Duh. Oil costs them, what, $10 to extract a barrel now? They would be fools to use anything more expensive to produce electricity. That doesn't mean they won't get their electricity elsewhere when it's economically unfeasible to use oil for that. More or less the same applies to other examples, actually. > Ask Transocean when they'll start selling coal-powered semi-subs Whoa, where did that come from? Shelf drilling is a capital expense, it's not recurring costs. Whatever logic is there in EROEI argument, it doesn't apply here. Ask Transocean what share of their operating costs is fuel, and if they give a damn about fuel costs rising ten-fold.
- nate_meurer 15y ago
  >"That doesn't mean they won't get their electricity elsewhere when it's economically infeasible to use oil for that." Again, possibility vs. feasibility. You talk about capital costs... what do you imagine it will cost to convert a significant share of Saudi Arabia's generating capacity to nuclear, for example. How likely is that to happen politically? And if the day comes that oil is so expensive that an Arab nation is actually considering going nuclear, how financially feasible will a nuclear program be? Remember, big construction projects drink a lot of diesel. >"Shelf drilling is a capital expense, it's not recurring costs." It's more accurate to say that platform drilling incurs massive up-front capital investment, as well as intense ongoing maintenance. Remember, we're not just talking about running the platform; we're talking about operating pipelines, refineries, etc. The large capital cost is part of the problem -- see my earlier comment about large integrated projects. But really, for EROEI purposes it doesn't matter when the money is spent; over its lifetime, an oil extraction project will consume a given amount of energy. That energy input comes overwhelmingly from oil and nat gas, and will continue to do so until the day we start seeing solar/nuclear/coal-powered rigs appear.
  - nate_meurer 15y ago
    Turns out, Saudi Arabia actually is considering going nuclear, so we'll see my thoughts about feasibility tested for real.