 | Four US Linearizations | The Oil Drum | in case you're too lazy to read...or if you want to point someone to a good review... |  |
3000 billion tons of coal off Norway's coastline
Posted by Stuart Staniford on January 6, 2006 - 6:15pm
Topic: Supply/Production
Tags: oil prices, peak oil [list all tags]
In case you missed this over at Energy Bulletin
This summer, students from Norwegian University of Science and Technology analyzed data from 600 wells drilled on the Norwegian Shelf of the North Sea. They calculated that there are 3000 billion tons of coal off the Norwegian coast. Most of the reserves are located at Haltenbanken. This compares to today's proven and recoverable world reserves of 900 billion tons of coal.If we suppose a CTL yield of about 3 barrels/ton (Miller, Coal Energy Systems, p274), the 3 trillion tons of coal under the North Sea corresponds to about 9gb of liquid fuels.
Update [2006-1-6 19:51:50 by Stuart Staniford]: Oops - I meant to say 9 trillion barrels of liquid fuels, not nine billion (ie around 4 times as much as linearization suggests is available in conventional liquid hydrocarbons globally).
Ok, that coal is a little hard to get at. Railway tunnels under the North Sea? Right now they're thinking smaller than that:
"By injecting oxygen, we can ignite the coal where it is. This will produce a mix of gas which we can recover and use for energy-production. The problem however, is that one of the components of this gas mix will be the greenhouse gas CO2. We have to research a lot before we can utilize the resource in a way that doesn't harm the environment."Still and all, it makes it clear that the 2050 problem is not having hydrocarbons to burn, it's what it's going to take to get them, what's going to happen to the economy in the meantime, and what it's going to do to the climate if we put that stuff out of our tailpipes.
==AC
Its the same thing as realising that there are vast ammounts of deep sea oil in the 1950:s when the technology needed for exploiting it is nearly science fiction.
It makes it very clear that peak oil will not solve the global warming problems and more likely make them even worse.
It gives another degree of freedom for technological development and investment in engineering work to solve our energy needs. We quickly need to discover ways that both are doable and good enough for our environment.
Cripes, this sounds to me like a terribly, terribly desperate way to harvest energy.
http://www.driveupusa.com/
from the website:
"Why aren't the ingredients of your products listed on the label?
A. Since all of our ingredients are non-toxic, it is not required. The revolutionary formulas for Drive Up and Revive A Drive are protected under the Trade Secrecy Act."
well, if it's all the same to you, i won't be splashing it anywhere near lifeforms.
Has this ever been tried on a pilot scale? How deep are these coal deposits? How do you go about doing gasification from an off-shore rig?
I'm sure that some of the anti-peak oil people will cite this finding as proof that we have nothing to worry about, so what I'd like to know is what is the state of the are regarding offshore coal gasification?
Anybody out there who can make me smart on this subject?
According to one of the scientists it will be quite a challenge to harvest this coal, if ever.
Yes, every oil drummer knows that 1 barrel has been, is and will hopefully remain 159 liters.
What will be the effects from € 1000 a barrel of oil, and how far into the future are we talking here?
"... taking a taxi today in Germany is more expensive than driving a Twingo after the big enchilada."
3 trillion tons of coal equals 9 billion barrels of oil equivalent. Did you misplace a few zeroes? Sounds more like 9 trillion barrels to me.
No doubt that the tunells would be running 10's or perhaps 100's of kilometers.
Then you have to circulate huge amounts of air, pumping out massive amounts of water as it should be expected a continuous flow from the ocean above.
How many tunells would be needed to move coal that could satisfy a CTL plant of say 10 mb/d?
Where should the solid residuals be deposited? Someone in a Norwegian blogg proposed that one of the largest valleys in Norway, Gudbrandsdalen, could be used to dispose of the solids.
On the other hand the potential of 9 Tb of liquid fuels in a future with expected huge liquid deficits and thus spiralling prices could make many, and not only investors interested.
It could be an interesting exercise to try to estimate the EROEI for such a project.
Thanks for bringing some common sense to this thread. Theoretically anything is possible, but many things are not commercially practical. This seems to be one of them. It takes someone with engineering expertise to point out what the critical hurdles would be. It is the same real world issue as getting oil out of tar sands, or methane from deep sea. People can imagine how to do it, and maybe even prove the concept but doing it as a business, with positive economic and energy return 24/7 is a stretch for me.
What puzzles me is why we spend so much energy and technology trying to making deep sea coal work. Why not spend the energy, human capital and time capturing sunlight, wind, waste energy, etc. Maximize energy efficiency, building design, transportation, etc. so they need less energy. All those areas are under funded, have great potential and are ultimately more sustainable.
To use nukes could probably result in fuels suitable for not still invented hybrid nuclear/coal power plants. :-)
Does anyone remember the fresh water solution proposed about 20 years ago for NYC? Something about towing an iceberg south...
"Many problems arise when digging so deep into the Earth. The most obvious is the heat. For example, at 5 km the temperature reaches 70 degrees Celsius(158 degrees Fahrenheit) and therefore massive cooling equipment is needed to allow workers to survive at such depths. Another problem is the weight of the rock. For example, at 3.5 km the pressure of rocks above you is 9,500 tones per meter squared, or about 920 times normal atmospheric pressure. When rock is removed through mining this pressure triples in the surrounding rock. This effect coupled with the cooling of the rock causes a phenomenon known as rock bursts, which accounts for many of the 250 deaths in South African mines every year."
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/YefimCavalier.shtml
"3580 meters = ~2.2 miles"
http://convert.french-property.co.uk/
I doubt we will see this project starting before 2030, if ever. But still nice to know there is something which we could draw on in the future. Maybe put it to more constructive use than we do now.
The reason for this is that while the substance we are addicted to is finite, there many different substitutes available, ever more highly priced and with ever worse side effects. If there were only oil, and all knew that when it is gone it is gone, it would be easier.
I am an expert in this area. It's why I keep my refrigerator empty at night, why there is no food in the pantry, why my wife doesn't bother even trying to hide food---she knows I will find it. We are doomed.
It almost sounds easier to go and fetch methane from Triton.
Never say never though. I fear that people will figure out a way to build offshore platforms to exploit this.
few months and was just
inspired to create an
account.
In addition to tunneling, or
trying to change the state
of the coal, there might be
another alternative.
Couldn't they consult with
the Duch on constructing a
circular dyke on the area
they want to mine?
I suppose the water might be
too deep but this seems like
it might be an atractive
idea. If they can adjust
the buoyancy of the dyke
they could potentially move
it around to new sites.
Crazy or so crazy it just
might work?
And you are correct: the water is too deep. Cofferdams are not feasible at the depths we're talking about here.