I just wanted to mention another useful technology that might be applied to the OIl and Gas industry. That is "Wet Combustion". It is a technology that has been around in one form of another for 60 years or so (one high performance WW2 fighter used water injection to cool their engines during climbs, the pilots found that it increased the power). The B-52 bomber uses wet combustion to increase their power during take-off. Of course, aircraft cannot carry a lot of water to use this technology extensively. Above-ground extraction of oil (tertiary extraction) is another matter. Many of the new resources that are being exploited (oil sands, heavy oil, "old oil") need heat to mobilize the heavy hydrocarbons. That is where wet combustion comes in.

Wet combustion, when done gradually (after flame ignition with small amounts of water being injected over the whole volume of the flame) can reach water to fuel ratios of over 10:1. Now why would anyone want to use water for this purpose? Well it is steam that mobilizes bitumen (water and and heat force movement of even the heaviest hydrocarbons) which allows them to be pumped out relatively easily. When high water to fuel ratios are used the nature of combustion changes. First off, the temperature gradients within the flame decline dramatically. A typically "Dry combustion" gas turbine (very high temperature combustion) can easily have 600 deg. C temperature differential between the wall of the combustor and the center line. Using high water to fuel ratios can decrease those differentials to as low as 50 degrees. High temperature differential mean that NOx formation is likely at the high temperature zone and incomplete combustion ("Coking") is likely in the low temperature zone. High water ratios avoid that. Also, since there is a maximum temperature that combustion can be conducted at (material failure limits) and it is the MAX temperature (at any time) that determines the maximum combustion density, dry combustion is very limited in its maximum temperature. A wet combustion flame can often to run at 200 deg C hotter (more efficient combustion) AVERAGE temperature.

Another very important factor about wet combustion is that the energy density of the combustor can be as much as 20X greater. This means that a combustor that is 20X smaller can deliver the same amount of heat. This means low capital cost, portable combustors become practical. Also, enhanced oxygen combustion can deliver very high combustion efficiencies.

The key advantage though, is that wet combustion gases can be injected DIRECTLY into a well (the standard today is to use a separate boiler to inject high pressure steam). This has MANY advantages. First, it is more thermally efficient (less loss of heat up the smoke stack). SEcond, the combustion gases include Carbon Dioxide. Carbon dioxide is an excellent solvent for hydrocarbons. It is known to enhance extraction efficiencies. SO, instead of venting heat and water and CO2 up the smoke-stack, the gases can be used directly as an injection into a hydrocarbon formation. It is more efficient for many reasons including:

1) CO2 enhances extraction
2) Very little heat loss (no exhaust)
3) Water from burning fuels is trapped in the target formation further enhancing efficiency and saving water

Simulations have shown increases as much as 30-50% in the amount of hydrocarbon extraction for a given amount of fuel being burned. There is ANOTHER very substantial advantage. Water breaks down into hydrogen and hydroxyl radical when exposed to high temperature combustion. Hydroxyl radicals are MUCH better at destroying large hydrocarbon molecules than molecular oxygen. That means that very poor fuels (high molecular weight) can be burned effectively because of the presence of these hydroxyls.

So the bottom line is that this technology would increase extraction of existing fields and allow extraction of resources that would otherwise not be economical (with a very low capital cost for the combustion units ===> much smaller for the same heat output). The bad news is that this technology would require significant development costs and those are just not likely in the current financial environment. So a promising technology will probably not be exploited because the companies are risk adverse to begin with and now they are all scared by the financial crisis.

Of such disappointment is life made.

Ian