Perhaps we need an open thread?

(Grin) For those not coal-inclined, (or perhaps now the MMS) you might want to note that the January figures from a different source are showing an OPEC drop of about 460,000 bd.

And for those interested in natural gas, drilling in the Barnett Shale continues, giving you a sense of how progress on a well occurs. As for the rest, herewith enjoy this open thread...

[editor's note, by Prof. Goose]Thanks to TF for bringing this piece to our attention, a prominent news source (Boston Globe) with a laissez-faire attitude (after playing he said/she said). Quality reporting there folks, way to help with the public debate, eh?

Nitrogen Fertilizer Tool Part of USDA Energy Strategy

Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns Friday announced the release of USDA's Energy Estimator for Nitrogen, a web-based awareness tool that farmers and ranchers can use to identify potential nitrogen cost savings associated with major crops and commercial nitrogen fertilizer applications.

...Nitrogen fertilizer is one of the largest indirect uses of energy on an agricultural operation. Fertilizer accounts for 29 percent of agriculture's energy use, according to USDA research data.

Interesting article in Harper's Magazine "The Oil We Eat"

Quote:

The journalist's rule says: follow the money. This rule, however, is not really axiomatic but derivative, in that money, as even our vice president will tell you, is really a way of tracking energy. We'll follow the energy.
.
.
.
If you follow the energy, eventually you will end up in a field somewhere. Humans engage in a dizzying array of artifice and industry. Nonetheless, more than two thirds of humanity's cut of primary productivity results from agriculture, two thirds of which in turn consists of three plants: rice, wheat, and corn. In the 10,000 years since humans domesticated these grains, their status has remained undiminished, most likely because they are able to store solar energy in uniquely dense, transportable bundles of carbohydrates. They are to the plant world what a barrel of refined oil is to the hydrocarbon world. Indeed, aside from hydrocarbons they are the most concentrated form of true wealth--sun energy--to be found on the planet.

Yes, he's grasped an important truth: for agriculture to become viable over hunter-gatherer lifestyle it has to provide food in winter (or whatever the off season is). Grain is a pain to harvest and process (even in the simple sense of de-husking, then there is milling if you want flour). There must be some advantage to make this worthwhile and that is its storage ability and ease of transport relative to food value.

Ultimately the carrying capacity is determined by its weakest link; for many societies that is probably its winter / drought food availability.

HO: in your Iran comment it said that exports were cut 260,000 b/d for the month in order to "build stocks in order to blend different crudes so as to make a more marketable grade." This one makes no sense to me. Seems like they could blend the grades as a matter of course before shipping them out. Do you have a clue as to what is going on here??
Well they are coming from different fields, that may be producing at different rates, so they may be just filling the stock tanks while they wait for enough from the slow producer to blend into the tankers, or the pipelines, but that is just a guess.
I would suspect that they have an overstock of relatively heavy oil that is not suitable by itself for the usual refineries they ship to, so they can't ship it alone.  When they are not receiving lighter oils from certain fields to blend the light with the heavy, due to pipeline shutdowns or terrorist damage, whatever reason, they must wait until that light stream resumes before they can continue blending it with the heavy and resume shipments of the blend to the usual refineries.  This is a guess. I would have to know the API gravities of the streams, before I could really confirm that.
As oil supplies are tightening everywhere, does this mean that an additional part of "standard logistics" will become waiting on (decreasingly available)lighter crude to mix in with heavier crude for refining (so, higher stocks in general)? Or sending heavier crude longer distances to specialist heavy crude refineries?
Actually it is already standard practice. Yes, it must increase as heavier supplies are substituted for any present lighter feedstocks.  Refineries with only light processing capability must be modified, or new refineries capable of working with heavier feed blends must be built.

I designed 2 adjacent pipelines in Venezuela.  One from a marine terminal for light oil, delivered from the good quality Mesa fields, and take it 140 km inland to the heavy oil Zuata Field.  The light was blended with the heavy (APIº9.6   bitumin) at the production facilities in Zuata.   It was then heated to min 175ºF to decrease the blends viscosity to levels capable of being pumped via another pipeline back to the marine terminal.  This process was changed later to use naphtha in place of the Mesa crude.  An adjacent separating plant was started up to separate the naphtha and recycle it back to the Zuata field, where it is blended again.

My gist of events is that we have a low level of international turmoil that has reduced the all out production of oil down a notch (or two depending on what country your talking about). It looks like some sort of compromise is being worked out over Iran. The USA has extra natural gas and oil, and Europe has some extra oil going into the spring and summer. And the oil industry is gearing up test wells that will mean an upsurge in production (certainly minor) in 3-6 years out, say 2009-2012.

But the background to this is greenhouse gases continuing and increasing at a high rate and 850 coal power plants (at least most will have cleaner coal technology) planned or coming on line combined in the USA, China, and India in the next few years.

I think it will take ski runs being closed down in Colorado and the Alps for people to get serious. Until then, business as usual will continue with some renewable energy getting a larger, but not massive, slice of the energy pie.

Ken Deffeyes interviewed in my local paper (On the front page of the business section!)

The Straight Dope has a short piece on Peak Oil this week. In response to a question asking if peak oil production is going to hit in the next 40-60 years:

Sit down, Scott. What you're describing isn't the worst case; arguably it's the best case. While it's not clear when oil production will peak, or whether the peak is already past, no one doubts oil production is bound to decline--the only questions are how soon and how fast. Opinions vary (boy, do they), but my feeling is, 40 to 60 years? We should be so lucky.

Word is getting out indeed.


There is a "debate" in the forums associated with Cecil's columns:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=2b37a0add2a1835184872ef610c33f9f&t=360276

Not a very good debate - just lots of pointless arguing, really.

Cecil Adams' answer isn't bad, but he does overlook something very important. He writes:
But Cecil, you object, how is this thought supposed to be comforting? Today we don't have any comparable alternative fuel waiting in the wings. Sure we do. What's more, it was waiting in Hubbert's day. The title of his 1956 paper was "Nuclear Energy and the Fossil Fuels." His purpose in writing had been to point out that, in contrast to oil, the U.S. had sufficient reserves of fissionable fuels, chiefly uranium, to last hundreds and likely thousands of years.

He neglects to mention that nuclear energy isn't going to affect the transportation issue, which is arguably where the most important breakdowns will occur. But maybe Adams was too reluctant to claim that hydrogen or electric cars are going to save us.
That assessment of "hundreds to thousands" of years of course takes inventing breeder nukes. Since the natural fissionable uranium is 235 at .7 of a percent, we need to efficiently make the U-238 into Pu-239 to use. Also, with breeders, we can use thorium by making it into U-233, an artificial fissionable. You need to isolate U-235 (already done) to get the ball rolling once you invent a breeder.

Of course, you don't want idiots to get any of the fissionables, as they can get a bang out of them. This is the biggest problem of nukes in general. Breeders mean that you can recycle waste most-way. Spent fuel is mostly U-238 with some Pu-239 added for flavour from normal reactors. The Pu-239 comes from neutron bombardment of U-238 during use. A "perfect" breeder would end up making waste made of fission byproduct elements about half the atomic weight of the fissionable.

As above, fission has its problems, but nothing is problem-free. I'd rather risk an occasional Chernobyl vs. the certainty of global warming with using up the coal. With fusion, all bets are off. It could take centuries to figure it out - assuming we keep civilisation up and running! (and that's a dangerous assumption!)

Of course, you don't want idiots to get any of the fissionables, as they can get a bang out of them

Of course, many would argue that many of the world's leading idiots already have fissionables.

Unfortunately, ONE idiot does have fissionables, in the form of the remote to use the fissionables. That is guarenteed, until 1/20/2009. (at 11:59:59AM DC time) Barring the possibility of this idiot seizing power in a coup-like action.
One alternative is a slightly improved CANDU reactor (using heavy water) with a lot of thorium mixed in between the convential fuel.  1:1 breeding (no extra fuel for other reactors like French Phoenix, etc.) but no real depletion either.

From my Physics background (decades ago), U-233 is not an ideal bomb ingredient but can be made to work with an effort.

Bush has decided to push MOX recycling (do not seperate all of the relatively short lived and intensely radioactive elements above Pu).  These elements have some fuel potential as well.  The heat and radiation from these make fabrication from stolen fuel "problematic".

Estimates of fuel reserves are with current technology & prices.  Uranium has been prospected for and mined for only a few decades; much less than most other minerals.  No interest in new sources for two decades or so.

Fission reactors have considerable prospects for that "New Technology Silver Bullet", unlike oil.

BTW: Used fuel may become a good source of platinum group elements (when U atoms split, they do so in a variety of ways).

He neglects to mention that nuclear energy isn't going to affect the transportation issue...
Not by itself, no.  But there are so many Li-ion battery technologies either already in production or just about to hit, plus supercapacitors, plus the Firefly revision of the venerable Planté cell, that this problem should not be regarded as a roadblock.  Sure, any one of these technologies could have something which prevents it from becoming cheap enough... but all of them?
At least Li is a fairly common element. What would be good as far as common-elements concerns, would be a "Sodium-ion" battery. Might be heavier, but may pack a decent punch like the Li-ion cousin. But that may be a wish, as Li is liable to get scarce or expensive, while Na is "dirt cheap".

Lithium is fairly expensive. A lot of the cost is processing raw material to get it. Making sodium and aluminium has the same problem. Electrolisis is a major cost.

How nukes can serve transportation is to have electrified mass transit. Buses and trains, both passenger and freight. No fun, but a commute is possible. Battery cars (any battery) may be rich peoples' toys in the long run. One good thing about extensive mass transit is that drunk driving will no longer exist.

One good thing about extensive mass transit is that drunk driving will no longer exist.
Don't be so sure; running buses and trains is a very boring job, and the personnel have been known to use substances to make their time more bearable.
OK, you got me. :) What I meant, of course, was that it would cease to be a major problem becuse commoners wouldn't be driving. With a vastly smaller pool of drivers, it would almost stop being a problem. In a virtually car-free future, drunk driving will be as rare as that other type of drunk bus driver, the drunk airline pilot. Laws could be zero tolerance. A bus, train, or aircraft operator gets caught, and they lose all vehicle operator priviledges forever. Attrition will reduce it nicely. Want to drink? Don't drive!
Australia's oil production is quite small, but a national government agency reported that (page 655):
"Australian crude oil and condensate production
has been declining since the early 2000s,
mainly as a result of lower production from a
number of mature fields. For example, production
from the Gippsland Basin, which previously
accounted for a significant proportion of
total Australian production, has declined at an
annual average rate of around 17 per cent since
1999-2000."
http://www.abareconomics.com/AC_Mini_Site/pdf/AC_Dec05_Energy_[0323].pdf
This 17% decline in our main oil basin means we will only be about 50% self-sufficient in about 5 years (down from about 65% at the moment). Oil imports now make-up the second largest factor of very large monthly current account balances. ASPO Australia has helped set up a Senate Inquiry into this situation:
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/rrat_ctte/oil_supply/submissions/sublist.htm
Overall, australia is an energy exporter, exporting large volumes of coal and ng. Either could be converted to liquid fuels, seems very odd that they aren't already doing this...
Well, that's because the americans aren't doing it yet.

Here in australia we don't do anything without Uncle Sam's say-so.

(I'm only half kidding - it's partly a cultural inferiority complex that stops us from adopting ideas that have not been tested "overseas")

At present it is far cheaper and non-polluting (at least locally) to sell the coal to China, or whatever, and import the oil we need. It is also politically easier as it doesn't involve a fight with the local Greens.

Even before Australia's oil peaked, when we produced what we consumed, we still exported most of our oil, as it was very valuable light fractions, and imported slightly heavier and cheaper oil for processing and because the local oil is no good for diesel.    

Macarthur Coal, one of our local coal mining companies, just announced a 240% increase in profits, so we can afford $70 a barrel oil imports for now

I futher we may need a coal to oil plant but Australia has no need to do it at the moment.

Of course in there is war with Iran we may need one very quickly..  

From today's McPaper:

The West takes lead on climate change


DENVER -- Half a dozen Western governors impatient for more federal action on global warming are mounting state campaigns to deal with climate change on their own.

Driving their efforts are signs that harmful effects may be occurring in the West: record dry spells, millions of acres of dead forests, warmer winters, dwindling water and catastrophic wildfires.

"Under the Bush administration, the United States is ignoring the world's best scientists on climate change," says New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a Democrat named in polls as a possible presidential candidate. "The real action ... is at the state and local level."

Also:

Parched New Mexico gets a taste of climate change

New Mexico got a stark glimpse this year of what the future could be if steps aren't taken to curb climate change.

A state report last month predicted a possible rise of 8-12 degrees in New Mexico's average temperature by the end of this century. That would bring hotter summers and shorter, warmer winters with less snow, the 47-page study said.

New Mexico's chief environmental official says the forecast describes the state's plight already.

"In New Mexico this year, we have no ski areas operating on natural snow," says Ron Curry, secretary of the state's Environment Department. He notes the huge loss last year of pinyon pines -- the state tree -- because of a beetle infestation that was worsened by drought and warmth. "This just adds to the argument of what global warming is doing to the climate."

Thanks!  Too many tabs open at once...
Leanan: 'A state report last month predicted a
possible rise of 8-12 degrees in New Mexico's
average temperature by the end of this century.'

Is that Celcius or Fahrenheit?

Either way it is probably a substantial under-
estimate, since anything that came out a month
ago would not have taken into account the
latest data and thoughts on positive feed-backs.

More likely, N M will be largely uninhabitable
within 50 years.

Anyway, it won't be the lack of snow on ski
fields that will bring the climate change debate
to a head, it will be the widespread fuel and
gas shortages that result from a series of GOM
hurricanes worse than experienced in '05.

"Is that Celsius or Fahrenheit?"

Does it really matter? I think, under these circumstances, that it's simply the difference between "roasted" and "blackened."

If it was in a US paper, it's safe to assume they meant °F. Either way, it's a lot. And sad to me, since I grew up there. I used to think I might retire there, but ...
Rather blunt article in the UK Indepedent: Armed forces are put on standby to tackle threat of wars over water:
Across the world, they are coming: the water wars. From Israel to India, from Turkey to Botswana, arguments are going on over disputed water supplies that may soon burst into open conflict. Yesterday, Britain's Defence Secretary, John Reid, pointed to the factor hastening the violent collision between a rising world population and a shrinking world water resource: global warming ... these changes are not just of interest to the geographer or the demographer; they will make scarce resources, clean water, viable agricultural land even scarcer.  Mr Reid signalled Britain's armed forces would have to be prepared to tackle conflicts over dwindling resources.
Was it just yesterday I posted that Peak Water will come first and perhaps nobody will be around to care about dealing with PO?
Some mayors are giving the governors a head start, led by Mike Nickels of Seattle:

http://www.ci.seattle.wa.us/mayor/climate/default.htm#cities

This is a bottom-up initiative in the States, lacking federal leadership.

I am going to ask a question again:

can somebody tell us how well coal gasification could be performed underground? I ask this because recently an enormous coal resevoir has been located underneath the sea in Norway. Obviously there are quite a number of problems if one were to mine those layers, but would it be commercially attractive to gasify those layers underneath and extract the resulting gas via drilling?

Though I'm no expert on the matter, what I do know is that in situ coal gasification has been tried on land in a number of demonstration projects, and I think the results were reasonably favorable. I 'm not sure if there are any commercial in situ coal gasification operations in the US at this time.

As far as the vast deposits of coal under the seabed off the coast of Norway, I think that in situ gasification is the only approach that has any chance at all of being halfway technically and economically feasible (mining the stuff appears to be out of the question).  Still, there would be many daunting technical and possibly environmental challeges to doing in situ seabed gasification on a commercial scale.  However, it's feasibility is certainly worth exploring.

In situ gasification is currently planned as the subject of the next techie talk. (But it ain't written yet)
I read this too. Perhaps they are talking about Coal Bed Methane (CBM). Methane is adsorbed (correct word?)on the Carbon atoms. When you drill into it, the Methane Desorbs
(again, correct word?). Methane is then free to move.
I think you have to drill quite a few wells and fracture the coal layer. You can then get the methane to surface in the same way a conventional gas well would function.
Power generation using CBM is/was(?) common in some parts of the US. It was a hot topic in the UK during the 90's.
But it did not quite take off.  
From Kuwait:

Wait drags on for foreign access to Kuwait's oil

"The longer we wait, the more difficult it will be to achieve," Farouk al-Zanki, head of the Kuwait Oil Company, told Reuters. "There's a really positive indication that it's a priority."

"We need more help. We have an ambitious production plan. We want to meet our target. We can't do it on our own," he said.

But, realistically, he said a breakthrough was unlikely until late this year.

Better living through chemistry:

DuPont Looking to Displace Fossil Fuels as Building Blocks of Chemicals

E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, unlike most chemical companies, has moved the quest for bio-based raw materials off the wish list and onto the to-do agenda. The company has allocated nearly 10 percent of its $1.3 billion research budget to extracting ingredients from carbohydrates -- things that grow and can be infinitely replaced -- rather than from hydrocarbons, which are mined or drilled and readily depleted.

DuPont already makes 10 percent of its products from nonpetrochemical substances, and Charles O. Holliday Jr., DuPont's chief executive, expects to increase that to 25 percent by 2010. By then, he says, such products will yield the equivalent of $3 billion in revenue in current dollars. The way Mr. Holliday sees it, so-called industrial biotechnology can solve myriad problems. It can insulate DuPont from the relentless rise in gas and oil prices. It can win kudos from environmentalists and shareholders who worry about the harmful effect of extracting and burning oil. It can play well in Washington, particularly since a quest for alternate energy sources was a crucial point in President Bush's State of the Union message. But during a nearly two-hour conversation in his spacious office above the Hotel DuPont, Mr. Holliday stressed his real motive in pushing for bio-based materials: his belief that they yield better products. He notes, for example, that the corn-based propane diol, a product used in carpet fibers that DuPont will begin selling this spring, offers better dye absorption and stain resistance than the petrochemical version DuPont now sells.

"The company has allocated nearly 10 percent of its $1.3 billion research budget to extracting ingredients from carbohydrates -- things that grow and can be infinitely replaced -- rather than from hydrocarbons, which are mined or drilled and readily depleted."

Hopeful.

But once again, the Devil is probably in those darn petrochemical inputs and net energy loss.

We shall see.