<"Oil Shale Development Imminent"The Oil DrumDrumBeat: June 19, 2006>

73 comments on A Megaproject list from the Oil and Gas Journal

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

tom deplume on June 19, 2006 - 6:20pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
150 years ago a telegraph cable was strung across the North Atlantic connecting Europe and North America. After 150 years of technological improvements I question why a nat gas pipeline is out of the debate?
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Whitehall on June 19, 2006 - 7:10pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Answer:  flow resistance.

A gas pipeline loses pressure as the flow rate increases.  In fact, the flow is trans-sonic.  That means that to push gas through a long pipe, one has to start with a high pressure to get meaningful gas out the other end.  The longer the pipe for a given flow rate, the higher the pressure and the thicker the steel.

To keep wall thickness within economic bounds, land pipelines use booster pumps along the line to make up the pressure drop and keep the gas flowing.  Often a pipeline will be constructed and then uprated later with the addition of more booster pumping stations.

A 2,000 mile long pipeline without booster pumps would require extraordinary amounts of steel or else flow little gas.  Alternately, building booster pumps 20,000 feet underwater (and maintaining them) is as of yet an unmet challenge.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
ThatsItImout on June 19, 2006 - 7:24pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Tom,

I think people here at TOD will accuse me of being technically optimistic to a fault  (some would say a HUGE fault! :-), but I have to say, that yes, a Transatlantic pipeline is out of the debate.  Stringing a cable from a spool on the back of an ocean liner is small game compared to the construction and repeating the repressuring of the pipeline at regular interval....it would require repeating stations with compressors and power sources sitting on the bottom of the deep oceans...technically, we're good, but we just ain't that damm good!  (don't we wish though...)

What is interesting however is the variety of ideas that are in play to move natural gas....here's one that has actually been explored by the Defense Department as far back as the 1950's....

Suppose you built larger than Hindenburg size airships.....and fill the supporting bladder with natural gas.....it is lighter than air by enough to be bouyant, since it is mostly hydrogen....Then you simply tow a couple of the balloons  with one powered airship.....with the weather satellites and good communication, you could steer above and around really rough weather (it would be at least as safe as a deep offshore oil rig in a hurricane!) and move the gas without liquification. :-)  

The balloons would have to be VERY LARGE to move enough to make it worth it,but if the airship is well designed aerodynamically, for examle, as a "delta
 type shape, they would be very stable.....

The Russians once had an even more radical approach....they were going to fill "floater" balloons with natural gas, and release them into the high altitude....then whenever winds carried them somewhere that had a market for gas, or close enough to it, the customer would send a plane up to capture and retrieve the balloons!  With GPS and electronic I.D., the customer would then be billed for the balloon!

And people call me an optimist!  :-)

Roger Conner  known to you as ThatsItImout

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
wkwillis on June 19, 2006 - 7:32pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The Russians once had an even more radical approach....they were going to fill "floater" balloons with natural gas, and release them into the high altitude....then whenever winds carried them somewhere that had a market for gas, or close enough to it, the customer would send a plane up to capture and retrieve the balloons!  With GPS and electronic I.D., the customer would then be billed for the balloon!
Roger Conner  
****************
That's thinking outside the box!
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Jon Kutz on June 19, 2006 - 7:53pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
"I think people here at TOD will accuse me of being technically optimistic to a fault  (some would say a HUGE fault! :-), but I have to say, that yes, a Transatlantic pipeline is out of the debate.  Stringing a cable from a spool on the back of an ocean liner is small game compared to the construction and repeating the repressuring of the pipeline at regular interval....it would require repeating stations with compressors and power sources sitting on the bottom of the deep oceans...technically, we're good, but we just ain't that damm good!  (don't we wish though...)"

Just to try to think a bit outside the box, why not 'float' the cross ocean pipeline say about 30 to 50 meters below the surface. An electrical power cable running with the pipeline would power the booster pumps. All servicing would be at relatively easy to get at depths? Probably wouldn't take any more materials than building a bunch of tanker ships?

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
ThatsItImout on June 19, 2006 - 8:57pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

O.K., Jon, I hand over my optimists title belt to you, at least for now....:-), that's actually pretty good, in particular if the route was correctly chosen...(would a polar route make sense?)....interesting stuff!  I am sure we could sign the Brits up for a station on the line!  :-)

Roger Conner  known to you as ThatsItImout

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Donal on June 20, 2006 - 3:54pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Where I usually swim, there is a loose lane line. It doesn't take much wave action to send it halfway into my lane.  Thinking of that, I'm wondering how you will keep the ocean currents, which do affect water below the surface, from distending your transAtlantic gas duct for miles north and south. Not to mention storms.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
nth on July 11, 2006 - 2:42pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
What kind of flow rate you want these pipelines to be?
Would there be enough gas on either side to justify this?

I think if cost was not an issue then yes, technically, engineers will come up with a solution, but it will be damn expensive.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.