Wysiwyg
Everyone wants money
- Joined
- 8 August 2006
- Posts
- 8,428
- Reactions
- 284
A method I just learned of is a snake well ...
While Shell Brunei have a well 8 km long. Deeper and deeper with Smart Technology they go.
They are bringing on line new MEGA fields but are deeper and harder to extract, as will probably be the case everywhere else in the world.
Snake wells
A snake well criss-crosses a reservoir. Combined with Smart Fields ® technology, a snake well can access multiple pockets of oil to produce the equivalent to several individual wells. It reduces the chance of oil being left behind and it lowers cost.
Recent Champion West campaign
The most recently completed phases ended in June 2007 with five new snake oil wells and three gas wells on stream. A new unmanned Smart drilling platform with remote well-testing operations via a multi-phase flow meter was installed in 2005 to allow oil and gas export via two new pipelines to the Champion complex some 6 miles (10 km) away.
The Champion West team delivered some of the longest wells in BSP history ”” up to 5 miles (8 km) along hole ”” each with up to four producing zones with full-flow control, pressure and temperature monitoring. The project also implemented a world first of integral running of Smart cables through swellable packers. The snake wells campaign was completed in 343 days, 49 days earlier than planned, and with around 21 miles (34 km) of hole drilled.
Re: Peak Oil
Funny how long it's been going on
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/we...pendent-future
Comon folks we all need a bit of history and levity on this topic. This is really worth 7 minutes of your life. Jon Stewart is just so droll and on the ball.
_____________________________________________________
PS It's far more entertaining than the latest tome of just why we going down the toilet with Peak Oil.
http://www.energybulletin.net/stori...pse-global-civilization-current-peak-oil-cris
I wonder if reduction of this planet's mass by turning crude into gas will effect inter star/moon gravitational pull. If the balance between sun and earth or moon and earth is delicate then earth could move further from the sun with less mass to maintain the present distance. Tidal influence from the moon could change with a change of distance.
Burning liquids or solids (petrol or coal) changes the molecular compositions, but not the mass. Even if you consider the volatility of the resultant gaseous compounds, which may lead to a small amount of evaporation into Space, there won't be any "reduction of this planet's mass" to speak of. Atmosphere has been bleeding into Space since Day Dot; compared to the total mass, that's such a tiny fraction that the change of distance from the Sun will amount to centimetres.
If anything, it's the effect of Global Warming that can lead to increased atmospheric bleeding. But even if Earth were to lose half its atmosphere, it would amount to nothing compared to the combined mass of Sun and Earth. Remember that it's the product of both masses that determines the relative orbits of the two.
(see: http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-4/Kepler-s-Three-Laws )
I never studied biology, but I assume that there is also an increase in mass of the earth due to the Sun's effect on plants. When a plant grows and becomes heavier, the increase in weight must come from the nutrients and other chemicals absorbed into the plant during the growth process. Since the Sun's energy drives all this, presumably the energy consumed by this process and not left off as heat or light must be converted into mass by the E=MC^2 law. Probably an extremely negligible amount, but somewhat counteracting what bleeds into space nevertheless.
probably compensated if not overwhelmed by the constant meteorite shower the earth is subject to..."Probably an extremely negligible amount" indeed. The reduction of atmospheric CO2 into plant carbon consumes energy, which adds mass to the tune of roughly a factor 0.3 * 10 ^ -9.
That same factor (minus an insignificant loss due to entropy) applies in reverse when coal is burned back into CO2, which contains less energy, hence less mass.
Overall, the effect of plants consuming CO2 and animals producing it, is therefore a zero-sum game. Only the anthropogenic increase in atmospheric CO2 - by unfettered burning of fossil fuels - contributes to a tiny loss of planetary mass at a rate of about 300g per Megaton of additional CO2.
Thank you very much Pixel. I can see the result of evaporation (rain) but that is a "physical change" and solid changes like a melted iceberg will only take the place of the water it displaced when it was ice and not raise the sea level. I found this line below for others that may be interested which explains the chemical reaction of a liquid hydrocarbon.Burning liquids or solids (petrol or coal) changes the molecular compositions, but not the mass. Even if you consider the volatility of the resultant gaseous compounds, which may lead to a small amount of evaporation into Space, there won't be any "reduction of this planet's mass" to speak of.
Sometimes the reactants (starting materials) and products (end materials) may be difficult to see especially if they are gases For example when petrol (a liquid hydrocarbon made up of carbon and hydrogen) burns it reacts with oxygen gas (from the air) to produce water (vapour/ liquid) and carbon dioxide(gas). So within this reaction there are two reactants and two product and two of these are colourless gases (oxygen and carbon dioxide) and the water formed as a result of the burning may be formed as steam and be difficult to see. Consequently all that would be observed apart from the flame is that the petrol is disappearing.
The rate of chemical changes varies enormously from those which are very slow (such as rusting) to those which happen instantaneously (such as fireworks exploding).
In chemical changes the amount of particular substances may change but the total amount of materials does not. In chemical changes as in physical changes matter cannot disappear nor appear from nowhere. It can only react to form something else. So if 16g of methane gas burns in oxygen (a total of 80g the resulting products will weigh 80g i.e.44g of carbon dioxide and 36g of water).
hum not strictly true;solid changes like a melted iceberg will only take the place of the water it displaced when it was ice and not raise the sea level.
I don’t disagree with the basic premise that the writing is well and truly on the wall for internal combustion engines in mainstream use.The story makes it clear that electric cars, trucks and all transport mediums are accelerating and will replace fossil fuel based transport very rapidly.
I don’t disagree with the basic premise that the writing is well and truly on the wall for internal combustion engines in mainstream use.
I do note however the issue of timeframe and that even a rapid transition would in practice still take quite some time given the time it takes to turn over the fleet.
Cars it’s roughly 20 years for the majority but not the lot. Bigger things that move it’s 25 - 30 years. Industrial plant that doesn’t move it’s 25 years minimum. Etc.
Oil demand may have peaked but it will take quite some time to drop to minimal levels. Time to ramp up production of electric etc vehicles and stop building petrol or diesel ones then time to turn over the fleet is considerable.
Agreed.Absolutely. If you check out the story it's quite clear that the changeover will takes decades. But 30-40-50 years is a blink of an eye in terms of big changes.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?