backtop

Print 40 comment(s) - last by Snow01.. on Aug 3 at 2:27 AM
Modest improvements in how much oil can be extracted from oil fields can add 50 more years of oil

Research into alternative fuel sources is booming with companies looking for ways to power vehicles. The alternative fuels being investigated range from bio fuels to battery and solar power. One of the most interesting alternative fuels is a bio fuel being made out of lawn waste.

While research into alternative fuels is underway globally, oil companies are also spending lots of money on research to help them extract more oil out of the oil fields that we already have available. MSNBC reports that oil companies are traditionally only able to extract about one in three barrels of oil that is in the ground.

In a time when the demand for crude oil is up, it's getting more and more unacceptable to leave so much crude oil in the ground. If the oil companies can increase how much oil they can remove from their oil fields the amount of oil the world has left can be significantly increased.

The latest potential method to help extract more oil out of the ground involves injecting hundreds of millions of tiny carbon clusters deep into underground oil reservoirs. These carbon clusters would change their chemical makeup to signal what sort of material they come across. This would allow the carbon clusters to tell companies when they come across oil, water, or other substances.

The clusters are called nanoreporters and MSNBC reports they are 30,000 times smaller than the width of a human hair. These nanoreporters are able to relate the temperature, pressure and other factors to drillers to help produce more oil.

Even a relatively small increase in the amount of oil that can be extracted from current oil fields -- if the companies could get 50% of the oil out of the ground rather than the 35% -- would double the global oil reserves of 1.2 trillion barrels. Researchers point out that it could take a few decades to reach the 50% number, but even smaller increases will alter the oil debate. Aramco's head of reservoir management Nansen Saleri says that even upping the amount of oil taken from reservoirs by 10 to 15% will add an additional 50-year supply of oil at our current consumption rate.

The tiny nanoreporters would be pumped into the reservoir and would have bar codes that tell how long they have been in the ground. The molecular makeup would change to signal whether they came in contact with petroleum, hydrogen sulfide, and other substances. The bar codes are important because they will allow drillers to tell how deep oil is in a reservoir. If for instance nanoreporters underground for 3 months find nothing but water while those in the reservoir for 9 months find oil, drillers know the oil is deeper.

The big question at this time is if the nanoreporters can be used consistently. Finding the oil is only one part of the problem though, better extraction methods are needed as well. With as much as 80% of the global oil supply held by national, state-run companies, being able to extract more oil out of proven fields is imperative.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Affordable Telsa
By Venomman on 7/30/2009 1:07:57 PM , Rating: 2
What a shame, and I was hoping to see an affordable Tesla in my lifetime.




RE: Affordable Telsa
By FITCamaro on 7/30/09, Rating: 0
RE: Affordable Telsa
By augiem on 7/30/2009 1:45:29 PM , Rating: 3
Think about it. Venomman does make a point. Remember when gas was $5 a gallon? Everyone was screaming for alternative energy, SUV sales fell through the floor, even the politicians had to get in on the panic. Since the gas price drop, it's back to business as usual. Yes, there will always be those environmental crusaders, but as we all know, $$$ makes the world go round and this is never going to happen without a majority effort. There is no better incentive for companies to do the research than the lure of huge profits. That, plus the fact that having a hard deadline makes people work harder. I can hear the sigh of relief from the oil giants... 50 more years. PHEW!


RE: Affordable Telsa
By FITCamaro on 7/30/2009 1:59:08 PM , Rating: 4
Please. Oil "giants" know there is plenty of oil left for the foreseeable future. We have over 100 years of oil in America just in oil shale. We haven't even really looked off our coasts either.

And even if prices were $1/gallon our current administration is going to forge ahead with the environmental agenda regardless of the consequences to the economy.

I fully support biofuels like diesel made from algae. In reality what's really holding it back is negative public perception of diesels and the government's own environmental regulations. Instead of the government pouring money into something like that they're focusing on electric cars which are terrible for the environment in the long run (perhaps not to the atmosphere unlike that "evil CO2" which is another lie and issue altogether).


RE: Affordable Telsa
By invidious on 7/30/2009 2:34:44 PM , Rating: 2
There is money and power to gained had by being green, but this has nothing to do with the actual merets of the technology/practices. Corporations still pollute and politicians are still in bed with them, the only difference is now they are diligently trying to convince us otherwise.


RE: Affordable Telsa
By nafhan on 7/30/2009 3:20:54 PM , Rating: 3
The current politicians pushing "green" technology are no different than any other politicians. They are just in bed with different corporations/lobbyists.
Corporate and political agendas still trump scientific and economic facts.


RE: Affordable Telsa
By SiliconDoc on 8/2/2009 9:06:24 PM , Rating: 2
"Affordable Tesla" is still a non-scientific profitless fantasy pushed by brainless science class flunkies with a chip on both shoulders larger than their shrunken brains, and a screeching pussbag for a mouth, filled with conspiracy and demands that someone else provide them their Peter Pan fairy miracle "for free".
Sadly, lots of politicians have the very same mental disease.
The pussbags should wrap tinfoil over their rounded empty gourds, yank it off, then go outside and cook a hotdog with it (that no doubt will not come from any meat bearing mammal they raised and slaughtered, but will instead magically appear in a grocery meat cooler for the whiners in green tights.)
After they cook their diggity dog, they should remind themselves when the sun goes down it's cold weiners or starve time.
Next they can open a solar wiener restaurant... YEAH LIKE WHERE ARE THOSE ALREADY ?!??!!
You'd think these whining pussbags would already have their free energy restaurant chains where they could green it up like madddd - but reality is of course, the bane to their twisted, whining, complaining, someoen else make the miracle for me, me ,me, brain.
With all these pussbags, you'd think just one of them or a couple could have pulled it off by now - but no, it's all FANTASY for them.
I for one, would gladly stuff the whole raw corncob in their piehole while the farmer and I get on with the real business.
If "you don't understand" or are ready to whine about "anger" or complain about complaining, do us a favor and open wide for the corncob instead, this time soaked with O I L , for an added lesson in reality.


RE: Affordable Telsa
By augiem on 7/30/2009 3:07:03 PM , Rating: 4
1: "giants" - I'm not sure why you have the quote marks there. You don't agree that $45.22 billion/yr (worlds most profitable company) deserves to be called a "giant"?

2: Oil shale, American reserves - You may be correct about our oil reserves. (Is that 100 year figure worldwide usage or US only?) And we'll hopefully tap into this as needed in the future. But the world is rapidly developing and countries like China are consuming oil faster than ever. Whether its 100 years or 200 years, it's still limited.

3: Government control / enviromental agenda - Yes, and I agree much of the government regulation is just like the "green" movement - it's pure marketing for the benefit of companies and politicians. But this is completely different from what I was talking about. I was talking about the real incentive companies have to research and transition to new energy sources based on economic and other factors. (Such as the control of the oil supply by various governments.) I believe the government throwing in environmental rules left and right or forcing companies to meet quotas of "green" spending in attempt to appear to be "doing something" about the environment probably hurts rather than helps the situation.

Also realize, "green" has nothing to do with my argument. Just because this is an oil conversation, doesn't mean it has to immediately be a battle of the right-wing vs envirohead. Other forms of energy that are no "greener" than gas may be viable. I personally would love to see nuclear fusion become our fuel of choice. Not necessarily because it's so "green", but because it's so damn cool.

If we really were on the edge of running out of easily accessible oil (read: cheap), the oil companies would have great reason to go ahead and put more effort into looking for more alternatives. Not that I don't think they are, but if you were about to lose your job, wouldn't it put a fire under your butt to find a new one? That is my point.


RE: Affordable Telsa
By augiem on 7/30/2009 3:08:57 PM , Rating: 2
"World's most profitable company" - referring to Exxon. http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/18/global-09_The-...

There is NO between-the-lines "EVIL GIANT OIL MONGER" sentiment couched in there, FYI.


RE: Affordable Telsa
By mattclary on 7/30/2009 6:38:52 PM , Rating: 3
Make sure you compare profits to actual sales. Looks like profits were only a little more than 10% of sales. Microsoft did better than that.


RE: Affordable Telsa
By augiem on 7/30/2009 7:10:19 PM , Rating: 2
Net profit ratio doesn't really seem as relevant as total profit figures (or gross revenue for that matter). Many many small companies have higher net profit ratios than Exxon or even Microsoft. If I remember correctly, for the longest time, Nintendo was one of the highest profit per employee (different measure, I know) companies in existence. But it would be easy enough to beat all of them in a profit ratio game if you're say a tiny consulting company or even a sole proprietorship with no employees or office expenses.


RE: Affordable Telsa
By FITCamaro on 7/30/2009 3:46:03 PM , Rating: 2
I put giants in quotes because to me they are just another company. The fact that they make a lot more money just means they have a product everyone wants. It does not make them evil or wrong for making so much money.

Now you want to call them giant because they are a large company, well then they're not really any bigger or even as big as other large companies in the world. But I don't think that's what you were implying with the word "giant".


RE: Affordable Telsa
By augiem on 7/30/2009 4:08:39 PM , Rating: 2
>> But I don't think that's what you were implying with the word "giant".

You are wrong.


RE: Affordable Telsa
By augiem on 7/30/2009 4:14:04 PM , Rating: 2
(msg accidentally cut off)

There was no hidden message in my use of the word "giants". It was a way of saying the handful of megacompanies that provide the world's oil. I believe in free enterprise and have nothing against mega corporations unless they are doing something unethical. But that's just as easy for a small company and/or individual.

I myself am an entrepreneur and would love for my companies to grow as big as Exxon someday. (In my dreams... ha ha!)


RE: Affordable Telsa
By FITCamaro on 7/30/2009 3:55:57 PM , Rating: 2
And if you want a way for companies to pursue something like algae based diesel here's an idea for the government.

1) Relax the emissions regulations on diesel engines since the emissions technology required in order to make a diesel meet the current requirements is expensive. If the Europeans are so perfect as liberals tout, why can't we have the same standards as them?

2) Launch a campaign to fight against the current negative stigma associated with diesel engines.

3) Fund investment into large scale production of the fuel. Or offer tax breaks to the oil companies for research into said production.

4) Offer tax breaks for automakers developing diesel cars so its cheaper to do so.

5) Offer a tax break towards the purchase of a diesel car. Now you might say "BUT YOU HATE THE GOVERNMENT GIVING PEOPLE MONEY!". You are correct. But a tax break is not the government giving people money someone else's money. It is the government taking less of a person's money.


RE: Affordable Telsa
By TheEinstein on 7/30/2009 6:33:48 PM , Rating: 2
Actually for another forum way back I did a study of existing light sweet crude, heavy crude, shale, coal, and natural gas.

My mathematical conclusion was that there is 350 years of oil in existence at this time in KNOWN reserves, and that unexplored reserves probably are in excess of 1,000 years.

Yes I said 1,000 years. I was able to conclusively prove a curve of growth in finding major oil finds and they are still climbing, not shrinking.

Additionally I showed how even in fields where for xyz reason they thought they had truly gotten 100% of the oil in the region, new methods have made those old wells produce again when applied to the old wells in amounts greater than the old production rate.

But just ignore any signs we have available oil, please do not think we do, so when you destroy our nation we can rebuild it with the first V-10 engines en mass available on newly designed super highways where people drive 90 miles an hour to and from work.


RE: Affordable Telsa
By augiem on 7/30/2009 7:04:13 PM , Rating: 3
If that 1000 year figure is anywhere close to true, that is amazing. I do know there are issues with current techniques not being able to drain more than a certain percentage of the oil in a field making it too costly to get the rest. That could certainly change in the future giving access to more oil from the same fields.

>> But just ignore any signs we have available oil, please
>> do not think we do, so when you destroy our nation...

Why does everyone on the internet have to be so damn rude and confrontational? I am fully aware the US has large oil reserves and that government regulation has made it impossible to tap into. (Floridia wouldn't allow oil drilling offshore because they claim it would ruin their beach resorts view. Sheesh...)

>> where people drive 90 miles an hour to and from work.

It's called California.


RE: Affordable Telsa
By sinful on 7/30/2009 8:38:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
My mathematical conclusion was that there is 350 years of oil in existence at this time in KNOWN reserves, and that unexplored reserves probably are in excess of 1,000 years.


The flaw in your reasoning is that it ignores the economic incentive for oil producing countries to not accurately report their known reserves; nor does it take into account the issue that those countries wouldn't "warn away" other countries from their product.

In OPEC countries, the amount they are allowed to sell is directly related to how much they claim to have in known reserves.

The more that they claim to have, the more they can sell and the more profit they make.

Go look at their trending for known reserves, and then do the actual math of how much they mined vs. how much they discovered.
It's no secret that they don't add up.


RE: Affordable Telsa
By sinful on 7/30/2009 8:56:47 PM , Rating: 2
Here it is for those too lazy to google it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves

"Since a system of country production quotas was introduced in the 1980s, partly based on reserves levels, there have been dramatic increases in reported reserves among Opec producers. In 1983, Kuwait increased its proven reserves from 67 Gbbl (10.7×10^9 m3) to 92 Gbbl (14.6×10^9 m3). In 1985-86, the UAE almost tripled its reserves from 33 Gbbl (5.2×10^9 m3) to 97 Gbbl (15.4×10^9 m3). Saudi Arabia raised its reported reserve number in 1988 by 50% . In 2001-02, Iran raised its proven reserves by some 30% to 130 Gbbl (21×10^9 m3), which advanced it to second place in reserves and ahead of Iraq.

In terms of Kuwait, it's estimated there is less than 50% of what they actually claim, and of that, only 50% is actually proven.
(i.e. only 25% of what they claim is proven).

I'm also not sure how you figured out 350 years; According to Wikipedia, there's about 54 years worth of oil, even assuming that OPEC is NOT inflating their numbers by 4x.

....so, probably like 20 years before the price of gasoline starts skyrocketing.
(We'll probably never actually "run out", but if gas is $10/gallon, it's really a moot point since it's cheaper to go to alternative energy).


RE: Affordable Telsa
By knutjb on 7/31/2009 12:59:18 AM , Rating: 2
By your analogy, prices will be much higher in 20 years, or to put it another way, alternative energy is way too expensive to replace gas today. If someone had produced a more efficient energy for a lower cost we'd be using it, too much money to be made.

For you conspiracy theorist with your 100mpg carburetors: after big oil attempts to crush any opposition to it's strangle hold on the energy market, a safe and green alternative energy makes it onto the market because greenpeace and the sierra club thwarted them in court with a foia request to the patent office just in time to say the world from burning up.

BTW Exxon is not that big when you compare them to OPEC who artificially keeps prices up by controlling supplies. Hey it's tough being a dictator so many to buy off to stay in power.


RE: Affordable Telsa
By FITCamaro on 7/31/2009 8:23:26 AM , Rating: 2
Yes because wikipedia is the end all, be all of information. While I'll admit there is a lot of good information on there, that is the last place I'd go for information on any politically sensitive topic. Especially given the site owner's insanely liberal bias.


RE: Affordable Telsa
By sinful on 8/2/2009 2:36:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes because wikipedia is the end all, be all of information. While I'll admit there is a lot of good information on there, that is the last place I'd go for information on any politically sensitive topic. Especially given the site owner's insanely liberal bias.


Oh right because "Teh Liberalz in OPEC put out wrongz information!"
LOL

Really, the numbers are out there, and they're put out there by the most insanely conservative groups out there, and you think those sources of information are too liberal?

LOL

The whole "It's from a liberal source so therefore they must be fake" is a total joke.
Wikipedia is peer edited, it's not like the owner runs around and makes all 10000000 articles on Wikipeida have a liberal bias.

Talk about burying your head in the sand!

What's amazing is that this isn't about some crazy far flung conspiracy... it's basically saying "Hey, they're not very truthful so they can make a few extra $BILLION."

Um, yeah, they don't even need numbers for that to be believable...
Heck, I'd tell a few white lies for a few BILLION dollars.
To think some of the whack jobs in the middle east WOULDN'T do it is laughably naive.


RE: Affordable Telsa
By Snow01 on 8/3/2009 2:27:59 AM , Rating: 2
For all the "green" projects I've seen over the past several years, this story from CNN is probably the the best example I've seen, and a good example of green technology as an economic boon, rather than a political move.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/07/31/cow.power/index...

This farmer is saving $200,000/year turning cow poop into electricity by powering his farm, some neighbors homes, and selling excess back to the grid. His farm is also now odor free, and he's still making use of the left over waste as compost. It's a shame we don't hear about more of these types of green initiatives.


RE: Affordable Telsa
By pequin06 on 7/30/2009 3:52:32 PM , Rating: 1
Electric cars have been around in some shape or form for 100 years.
Electric cars suck!
Damn hippies and their blasted pipe dreams.


RE: Affordable Telsa
By scrapsma54 on 7/30/2009 11:29:58 PM , Rating: 2
Thats a shame you got rated down. Many people here don't realize gas is a dependency of a Independent nation. Its a false hope for a false currency. A type of gold that turns into nothing.


RE: Affordable Telsa
By pequin06 on 7/31/2009 9:31:49 AM , Rating: 2
What isn't a dependency of a Independent nation?
You could replace the word gas with anything. Food is a dependency of a Independent nation, Water, Coal, Wind, etc...


RE: Affordable Telsa
By scrapsma54 on 7/31/2009 12:32:00 PM , Rating: 2
Flipping the pillow to get to the cold side? I don't have to pay for that. It may be gone in 60 seconds but I don't have to pay for it.


MSNBC an authority?
By owyheewine on 7/30/2009 1:35:43 PM , Rating: 2
I've never heard anything on MSNBC that made me think that they have anyone who knows a BTU from a BUT. Oil companies are spending billions and have thousands of exceptionally bright people working to solve this very problem. The development of the new fields on the Williston Basin of the upper midwest and Canada is a direct result os some of the new technology. The Bakken formation holds by some estimate multiple trillion barrels of oil that is being produced by new technology and methods. Rest assured that research is being carried on to improve production from existing fields and new fields that is well beyond this technology. You really need to find a credible source for your posts.




RE: MSNBC an authority?
By FITCamaro on 7/30/2009 1:59:59 PM , Rating: 2
I like the MSLSD acronym for them better.


RE: MSNBC an authority?
By Chocobollz on 7/31/2009 10:57:36 AM , Rating: 2
What's an MSLSD? Is it like SSDD?


Cost vs benefit
By tastyratz on 7/30/2009 2:08:38 PM , Rating: 2
Oil extractions are getting more expensive as we wring out every little drop we can get to... and everything has a price point. Shale has only fairly recently been getting extracted because under $x per barrel its not worth it. What about this technology? Can it be used to produce at current costs? What cost per barrel does it become beneficial to utilize?




RE: Cost vs benefit
By TheEinstein on 7/30/2009 6:39:37 PM , Rating: 4
Actually there are a variety of effective Shale treatments.

One such involves a 2 for 1 ratio. A company has been using a test refinery which burns 1 section of shale to get the oil out of 2 sections of shale. Their costs are 'very' low.

Basically the costs are to dig the shale, transport it to a very close refinery, and to refine the resulting oil to fuels and derivatives.

I have heard an estimate of $20 a barrel for them at one point, though I think this is a little low.

And this is a company that cannot get a break. Environmentalists stopped it from expanding it's 'test region' as well as it's size, it cannot get subsidies, lawsuits from enviro-terrorists keep coming, and the Democrats keep the masses from hearing anything about it.

Of course there is the simplest lie of them all. Shale is not oil, I mean hold them both in a cup, and they do not look the same, I mean, omg it's not oil! Yes believe the Democrats, they will save our nation! /sarcasm


By amanojaku on 7/30/2009 2:17:06 PM , Rating: 4
Damned picorazzi...




By mattclary on 7/30/2009 6:41:23 PM , Rating: 2
oh, hell yeah.


Someone failed Math class ??
By DotNetGuru on 7/30/2009 4:48:38 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
if the companies could get 50% of the oil out of the ground rather than the 35% -- would double the global oil reserves


How is a roughly 43% increase equal to a 100% increase ?




By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 7/30/2009 5:58:51 PM , Rating: 2
It doesn't say it would double output, just reserves. Apparently we're saving less than we use


Hundreds of millions
By Torment on 7/30/2009 4:06:23 PM , Rating: 2
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

I think that might be off by 15 orders of magnitude or so.




Fancy name
By diegoaac on 7/30/2009 6:37:16 PM , Rating: 2
So nanoreporters is a fancy name for chemically tagged carbon nanotubes. This article (and the msnbc one) are total bias (or at least marketingspeak)




By ggordonliddy on 7/31/2009 12:34:48 AM , Rating: 2
As an emissary, I spew forth a blood-stained fecal sample as a tiny token of our gratitude. Eat and enjoy!




Why all the fuss...
By plowak on 8/1/2009 2:16:46 PM , Rating: 2
We only need enough in oil reserves to meet our needs until Dec 21, 2012.

(Ha...and I'll be the first to tell you, "I told ya so".)




"This is about the Internet.  Everything on the Internet is encrypted. This is not a BlackBerry-only issue. If they can't deal with the Internet, they should shut it off." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki