<DrumBeat: November 28, 2008 The Oil Drum DrumBeat: November 29, 2008>

58 comments on General Jones and the Chamber of Commerce Energy Plan

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

geolog on November 28, 2008 - 7:59pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

5. Significantly Expand Domestic Oil and Gas Exploration and Production.

I think the goal is relevant if exploration technology will change.
Conventional exploration technology is based on sisemic data only. Today, as it was decades before, oil companies drill mostly dry exploration wells. Drilling success rate doesn’t overcome 25% on average. It means that three dry wells go to waste from each four drilled. It means also that discovery occurs too slowly today, but there is a highly productive exploration technology (Seismo-electromagnetic - SEM) for detection of hydrocarbon deposits. It provides a success rate close to 75%. In other words, three productive wells for each dry holes. Obviously with the technology like this US oil industry could make threefold more oil discoveries then using conventional technology, and this technology won't need more investment,time-frame and so on compare to a conventional one. It would significantly mitigate US energy problems.

---------Seismics---Prospects---Drilling---Discoveries: one in four
Funding --------project time-----------------------------------------
---------SEM--------Prospects---Drilling---Discoveries: three in four
www.binaryseismoem.weebly.com

Comparison of conventional and new technologies for US OCS shows that SEM technology requires the same number of drill ships as well as investments; almost in two times less time to detect all prospects on OCS. Threefold more oil/gas discoveries will be detected. Beside of that more than 150 dry holes never will be drilled that improves environmental situation and so on.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jwr3 on November 28, 2008 - 11:20pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

geolog,

I am a PhD geophysicist that teaches at a famous university. I am well versed with all geophysical technology. I am also quite well-known in the oil and gas geophysical community. I can confidently state that SEM technolgy is unsupported in the technical community. If you would like to show us peer-reviewed work that supports your claims, I would love to see it.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
enemy of state on November 29, 2008 - 12:01am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I am a PhD geophysicist that teaches at a famous university.

I am NOT a geophysicist (although I have an All-But-Doctorate) in the subject. I can recall helping a Shell geologist with software for analysis of electromagnetic exploration data twenty or so years ago. I doubt this stuff is all that new. My guess, it that it provides a bit of additional information about what might be underground, but probably not ebough to be a revolutionary design.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
geolog on November 29, 2008 - 8:40pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

enemy of state,

We are not talking about classical electromagnetic exploration, which really “provides a bit of additional information”. Response in this case is insignificant.
We are talking about different kind of signal, coming from oil or gas deposit as a result of combined seismo- and electromagnetic waves acting simultaneously.
If you have specific questions, I am more then willing to answer them.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
geolog on November 29, 2008 - 8:35pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

jwr3,
I appreciate your deep knowledge in contemporary geophysical technology and I know, that real scientist always has a place for doubt, so I completely understand your position.
As we know, common contemporary technologies don’t get electromagnetic response from hydrocarbon deposit using seismo- and electromagnetic waves simultaneously, so I think that a lot of people from technical community are not really familiar with SEM technology, which uses interaction between mechanical vibration and electromagnetic field.
In my site I just briefly described, how SEM technology works, and of course there are much more to it. This technology was patented in the USA and I have examples of field records , as the technology was successfully tested in the Barents and the Black Seas as well as in the Gulf of Mexico. Cumulative length of observation lines is about 2,000 miles.
If you have any specific questions about it, I will gladly answer them.
You mentioned, that some people are not happy about SEM technology, but, as Upton Sinclair said, “ It's difficult to get a man to understand something if his salary depends on him not understanding it.”
If you explain me, what exactly I have to do in order to dispel your doubts, I will do it.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jwr3 on November 29, 2008 - 11:24pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Thanks--i do not dismiss these ideas out of hand, but I think it is important that a technology is 'guilty' until PROVEN innocent. If you can rule out any other explanations rigorously, and you still have an 'anolmaly', then you may have something.

1) where is this published? Patents are not peer reviewed and I dont hold much stock in these (tho I have many). Has Art Thompson (former XOM) examined this?

2) The conversion between EM and seismic waves is not new. The work of Steve Pride, among others, has given a theoretical basis for the coupling between NS and wave equations. Why not acknowledge these scientists?

3) Have you run simulations? If so, why not show these? Real data can be misleading. My experiece with some geophysicists is that they sometimes have a tendency to reach a conclusion and then find data to support the conclusion--kind of the opposite of the scientific method.

4) If you really want to sell the technology, get it published in Geophysics. If you cant, then you most likely dont have anything to sell other than dreams.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Will Stewart on November 30, 2008 - 5:41am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Thanks for comments, jwr3; we look forward to more of your insights.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
geolog on November 30, 2008 - 5:40pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Thanks ,
1) I couldn’t publish or examined anything before my latest patents were published (2008). In addition I had my personal reasons for not doing it.

2) I don’t use convertion beween EM and seismic wave for producing EM response. In my technology interaction of combined seismic wave and EM field together (simalteneously) produces EM response, and only from oil-and-gas bearing formations (see www.binaryseismoem.weebly.com, Figs. 1-4).
This idea creates a foundation for this technology and this concept helps to understand the rest of it. I will be grateful for the information, if you give me examples of similar ideas.

3) Sure, I have a lot of simulation data ( as an example see Fig.5), but I think it will be more interesting, if you send me geological situation with hydrocarbon layers and I will return you simulation data. About “tendency to find data to prove a conclusion”: effect on which the technology is based was encountered when I was working in the Black Sea. We received data from the deposits, which didn’t comply with classical EM theory. We found, that transient EM prosess was longer over high resistivity deposits, than it was outside the field, which contradicts the theory. That event gave me a chance to study this effect.
4) Thank you for the idea to go to Geophisics.
As for the rest of it - I do not know who will be interested in the technology… Big Oil Co.? OPEC ? No, they dream for oil price to go back to $100 and more. OPEC cut down oil production and does not want to increase discoveries worldwide. Bureaucracy in geophysics or geology? No, they do not want any changes in conventional exploration technology to increase discoveries and production. May be TOD and US government and people?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
elwoodelmore on November 29, 2008 - 4:08am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

"It provides a success rate close to 75%."

how large a data base is that taken from ?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
geolog on November 29, 2008 - 8:44pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

elwoodelmore,
Commulative length of observation line is about 2,000 miles (Black and Barents Seas and Gulf of Mexico).

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

58 comments on General Jones and the Chamber of Commerce Energy Plan

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version