Solar Powered Technology Enhances Oil Recovery

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Solar Powered Technology Enhances Oil Recovery

Posted by samzenpus on Sunday September 14, 2014 @07:11AM from the odd-couple dept.

mdsolar writes with this story of a company that uses solar energy to recover crude oil. Royal Dutch Shell has teamed with a sovereign investment fund from Oman to invest $53 million in a company that manufactures solar power equipment designed for increasing oil production. Glasspoint Solar Inc. installs aluminum mirrors near oil fields that concentrate solar radiation on insulated tubes containing water. The steam generated from heating the water is injected into oil fields to recover heavy crude oil. This concept of enhanced oil recovery. involves high pressure injection of hot fluids to recover heavy crude oil. The use of renewable energy like solar power makes great economic sense, as the fuel cost associated with this enhanced oil recovery technology is practically zero. Shell hopes to employ this technology in its oil fields in Oman. The company hopes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with enhanced oil recovery operations. A large-scale successful implementation of this technology could be a game changer for major consumers like India and the U.S.. Both have substantial oil reserves, but are unable to tap them due to high costs involved in heavy oil recovery.

82 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

I wonder if they could add geothermal. by allaunjsilverfox2 · 2014-09-14 07:21 · Score: 3, Interesting

It'd be kind of interesting, extremely site specific. But still a interesting use case.

--
Restore the madness of youth's lechery
1. Re:I wonder if they could add geothermal. by dbIII · 2014-09-14 12:57 · Score: 2
  
  There's a "shallow" geothermal energy source under an oil basin in Australia but it's still a matter of drilling some pairs of expensive holes to use it. However it may be a more viable use than running power cables from a geothermal electricity generator on site than to a city close to a couple of thousand kilometres away.
2. Re:I wonder if they could add geothermal. by RockDoctor · 2014-09-22 15:01 · Score: 1
  
  Geothermal and hydrocarbon are not good bedfellows. Where you've got a high enough geothermal gradient for it to be a significant source of power, then you're going to be cooking your kerogens at depth shallow enough to have little prospect of encountering a trap, and they'll just sep out ot surface. Plus, you'd have a wider gas window and narrower oil window, and the oil is considerably the more valuable for export sales.
  Could you use directly geothermally-generated steam as a steam-flood source all in the one well? You'd need to rig your surface water injector on the injection well to higher pressures than for conventional water or steam injection (higher pressures cost more and wear out faster) but the production wells wouldn't need significantly different completion. Slugging of your steam flow from the geothermal source into the flood injection leg of the well would be an issue - potentially a big issue.
  What are the odds of the shape and size of your geothermal field being sufficiently close to power an outer ring of injection wells and efficiently steam-flood into the central few producers. It's not impossible, but it's also not terribly likely. Geothermal fields tending to be relatively large and disperses, but oil fields being sharply delineated by their original oil-water contacts (would you drill out in the water leg, except to provide pressure / waterflood support? Would you sign the AFE for subsidiary drilling centres, access roads etc for a 1/3 increase in well count (steam producer plus the regular injector - producer pair). You might make a case, but it's not going to be a high likelihood case.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Renewable by lorinc · 2014-09-14 07:23 · Score: 4, Interesting

Using renewable energy to tap unrenewable energy... Seems not really enduring. Why not just use directly the renewable energy in first place?

--
Video of some good progressive thrash music
1. Re:Renewable by mc6809e · 2014-09-14 07:34 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Using renewable energy to tap unrenewable energy... Seems not really enduring. Why not just use directly the renewable energy in first place?
  Because oil isn't just used as energy, though it often is.
  Petroleum is a miracle substance from the standpoint of its chemistry. It would be hard to imagine modern life without all the chemicals and materials petroleum makes possible.
  Burning such a flexible, important substance as fuel is terribly foolish.
2. Re:Renewable by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-14 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  As of 2014, how do you power trucks, tractors, cargo ships, and planes on solar?
3. Re:Renewable by lorinc · 2014-09-14 08:05 · Score: 1
  
  As of 2014, how do you power trucks, tractors, cargo ships, and planes on solar?
  I dunno. Maybe but using the energy to synthesize some chemicals that can later on be burned in a motor, performing a closed cycle.
  
  --
  Video of some good progressive thrash music
4. Re:Renewable by Charliemopps · 2014-09-14 08:14 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Using renewable energy to tap unrenewable energy... Seems not really enduring. Why not just use directly the renewable energy in first place?
  This reduces the carbon footprint of the Oil itself. Most people tend to forget that over half the CO2 released by oil is done prior to it ever getting into your gas tank. If we could make it carbon neutral up to that point we'd be making significant progress. This is a good thing no matter how you look at it.
5. Re:Renewable by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-14 08:35 · Score: 1
  
  It'd be nice if they could use something like this to heat the water they use to extract oil from tar sands. Canada could turn even more of itself into a barren wasteland.
6. Re: Renewable by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-14 09:34 · Score: 1
  
  Nope, it just in increases the amount of recoverable oil in otherwise dying oil fields, whether it's in Oman or elsewhere, as long as they can find the extra water to pump into fields below the desert. If you apply the tech in tar sands extraction where the result is toxic run off and aquifer injection, it may reduce the overall carbon footprint of the worst case practices. It will only make further environmental damage less costly to those who seek to perpetuate their economic position. It'll just brown wash more of the world's fresh water.
7. Re:Renewable by drfred79 · 2014-09-14 09:53 · Score: 2
  
  This is exactly how you sustain the development of renewable energy. Using it to lower the cost of oil drilling might come with innovations in renewable energy.
  
  I don't know anyone against renewable energy. The problems I have with it are the government favoring it over a neutral policy and mandates forcing me to use it when it's not yet the least costly.
8. Re:Renewable by tomhath · 2014-09-14 10:27 · Score: 2
  
  Yup. Back in the 1970's the Shah of Iran said something along the lines of: "Oil is too valuable to burn".
9. Re:Renewable by DanielRavenNest · 2014-09-14 10:39 · Score: 1
  
  > As of 2014, how do you power trucks, tractors, cargo ships, and planes on solar?
  Using bioengineered microbes to efficiently produce ethanol or diesel directly: http://www.jouleunlimited.com/...
  The microbes don't have to produce leaf or stem structures, and are genetically engineered to emit the fuel molecules directly, like yeast emits alcohol. Except yeast poison themselves when the alcohol content in fermentation gets too high. The Joule Unlimited process draws off the fuel continuously, so the microbes can keep working. The efficiency limit is around 6% by this process, where standard photosynthesis is about 1%. Since the microbes are a contained system, you can use crappy dry land, rather than food-growing cropland, like we do for vehicle ethanol today.
10. Re:Renewable by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-14 11:51 · Score: 0
  
  Nuclear would be better!
11. Re:Renewable by craighansen · 2014-09-14 12:14 · Score: 1
  
  It'd be nice if they could use something like this to heat the water they use to extract oil from tar sands. Canada could turn even more of itself into a barren wasteland.
  Fortunately, this technology isn't so useful in Canada because of its lower solar insolation.
12. Re:Renewable by dbIII · 2014-09-14 13:00 · Score: 1
  
  like yeast
  Several examples are yeast. One tested recently is to use modified yeast to produce a chemical originally found in oranges that can be used to make up half the volume of jet fuel.
13. Re:Renewable by thegarbz · 2014-09-14 13:14 · Score: 1
  
  Because one is transportable and the other isn't. Renewables are fantastic in situations where they can be used, and a pointless waste of money everywhere else.
  The answer to your question isn't non-renewable+renewable vs only renewable, the answer is either of new-renewable + renewable vs only non-renewable.
14. Re:Renewable by manu0601 · 2014-09-14 14:06 · Score: 1
  
  What share of extracted oil goes to chemistry instead of being burnt?
15. Re:Renewable by Wing_Zero · 2014-09-14 14:28 · Score: 1
  
  this is the breakdown as far as i found:
  In a barrel (42gal) of crude you need to divide it into separate parts. These parts are roughly:
  Naphta and other condensates that are liquid. 2gal
  Kerosene, where most is jet-fuel 4gal
  Unleaded gasoline 20gal
  Diesel fuel and heating/furnace oil 10gal
  Engine oil .5gal
  Gear oil .5gal
  Grease .5gal
  Tar/asphalt 1gal
  source: http://www.answers.com/Q/How_m...
16. Re:Renewable by manu0601 · 2014-09-14 14:34 · Score: 1
  
  Interesting and insightful, but it does not answer the question :-)
17. Re:Renewable by kellymcdonald78 · 2014-09-14 14:34 · Score: 1
  
  Before the massive glut in tight gas due to fracking, there were serious plans to build a nuclear reactor in Northern Alberta for exactly that purpose (steam for in-situ oil sands extraction). However now that the price of natural gas has cratered in North America, its much more cost effective to use it for steam
18. Re:Renewable by sillybilly · 2014-09-14 15:10 · Score: 1
  
  Because renewable energy lacks a good carrier - such as gasoline, diesel, propane, sugar, fat, li-ion battery. Usually the way they get the energy required to pump oil out of the ground, is by burning some oil to run the equipment, and you talk about the concept of net energy gain. In case it takes 90% of a barrel of oil worth of pumping to squeeze out 100% of one barrel from the ground, your net energy gain is 10%, and it may not be worth it. However, with renewables, which are kinda like free in the desert, and you don't have a good way to transport it away from there, but you can use them exclusively to run your equipment and do the net energy of extraction at 100%.
  Renewable energy would be great if you had a good carrier for it. They talk about the hydrogen economy, but it's not gonna fly far. I talk about the ammonia economy - tag the hydrogen onto nitrogen, that's plentiful, easy to come by, unlike the only 0.03% CO2 in the atmosphere, from which to extract the carbon and turn it to hydrocarbon - you have to process a humongous amount of air to get any carbon out of it, that you could turn into hydrocarbons as the renewable energy carrier.
  By the way my karma instantly went bad, things that were modded +3 Funny, got modded -1 offtopic or -1 troll, so they only let me post 10 posts per day under this ID, and I'd have to go Anonymous Coward for more. I like to have people that read one of my postings, dig through my other postings too.
19. Re:Renewable by Neil+Boekend · 2014-09-14 17:59 · Score: 1
  
  Assuming that list is accurate it is less than 8.3%.
  
  --
  Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
20. Re:Renewable by ShanghaiBill · 2014-09-14 18:07 · Score: 1
  
  Why not just use directly the renewable energy in first place?
  How are you going to power a car in New Jersey with sunshine in Oman?
21. Re: Renewable by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-14 18:29 · Score: 0
  
  There is always a flip side. They are injecting water into the ground, which I suspect will be unrecoverable. This is bad for any countries water supply but a crapload worse in a desert country.
22. Re:Renewable by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-14 20:38 · Score: 0
  
  Which is why we flare off (burn) more natural gas now than we use...
23. Re:Renewable by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-14 23:52 · Score: 0
  
  No it doesn't (noticably).
  As long as the pumped up oil is meant for buring there is no way you can make this CO2 neutral. And making oil cheaper is certainly counterproductive for going away from fossile fuel (which is the only way to be really CO2 neutral - stop releasing CO2 that has been in the ground for ages).
24. Re:Renewable by Jeremi · 2014-09-15 02:50 · Score: 1
  
  The problems I have with it are the government favoring it over a neutral policy and mandates forcing me to use it when it's not yet the least costly.
  That raises the question: Least costly to whom?
  If, for example, the carbon emissions from your cheap energy today are going to result in my air conditioning bill doubling next year, shouldn't you be held liable to compensate me for the costs you incurred?
  Or on a larger scale, if Shell's tar-sands pollution over the next few years causes Miami to have to be evacuated in, say, 2025, should the cost of losing Miami and relocating all of its people not be somehow factored in to our calculations about what is really "cheapest"? Otherwise we're just robbing Peter to pay Paul.
  
  --
  
  I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
25. Re:Renewable by psycho12345 · 2014-09-15 04:14 · Score: 1
  
  To expand upon this. Oil made plastic possible, and with it, saving lives. Before plastic, we did not have a sanitary way to store or transport many chemicals and substances, among them, blood. With the advent of plastics, safe blood transfusions became possible, along with other transfusions. Burning the oil in a gas tank is a terrible waste, it is better used for the medical applications. So much of what you see and take for granted in a modern hospital is plastic and thus based on oil (Plastic Syringes, IV drips, Latex gloves, bags to hold transfusions, plastic tubes, the list goes on and on.)
26. Re:Renewable by cyberchondriac · 2014-09-15 04:24 · Score: 1
  
  http://www.saveandconserve.com...
  
  --
  
  Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
27. Re:Renewable by Longtimber · 2014-09-15 08:11 · Score: 1
  
  Crude is all over the place depending on source. The gov is now calling all liquids "oil" even moonshine. Oil from Shale deposits - aka. LTO makes little Diesel.
28. Re:Renewable by drfred79 · 2014-09-15 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  Just as a quick jab, maybe I want poor Canadians to be paid by rich beachfront property owning Miamians? Just something to think about.
  
  Inflation: It would cost more today to retard economic growth and combat climate change than it will in 2025. That's if you agree that the warming hiatus will end, and that humans have an substantial effect on the Earth's climate.
29. Re:Renewable by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-15 12:28 · Score: 0
  
  And he was quoting from Earthman Come Home written in 1955
30. Re:Renewable by Jeremi · 2014-09-15 15:53 · Score: 1
  
  Just as a quick jab, maybe I want poor Canadians to be paid by rich beachfront property owning Miamians? Just something to think about.
  
  Hmm, a sort of environmental extortion racket? I like it, but somehow the Canadians don't strike me as quite the type to try it. Maybe I'm wrong about that. :)
  
  Inflation: It would cost more today to retard economic growth and combat climate change than it will in 2025.
  
  Are you sure? Because while the relevant technologies will have no doubt advanced by 2025, the scale of the problem will be that much larger by that time as well. It's not obvious (to me anyway) how one would predict where the "sweet spot" would be, or if there even is going to be one -- it's entirely possible that the problems will continuously grow faster than the technology needed to solve them, so that it will never be cheaper or easier to combat climate change than it is today.
  
  --
  
  I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
31. Re:Renewable by drfred79 · 2014-09-15 17:51 · Score: 1
  
  Good point, both could increase exponentially. But using the worst case scenario by the IPCC it's 4c until 2100. Measure 4c compressed to the daily variability. You can see what a slap in the wrist even the worst case scenarios by a very pro anthropogenic global climate change rackets are.
Steam to extract oil that shouldn't be... by mspohr · 2014-09-14 07:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

This is a good example of greenwashing.
They're using solar steam generators to extract heavy crude oil and tar sands. This oil is difficult to extract and environmentally costly to refine.
From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...
"With present technology, the extraction and refining of heavy oils and oil sands generates as much as three times the total CO2 emissions compared to conventional oil."
This oil should probably be left in the ground.

--
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
1. Re:Steam to extract oil that shouldn't be... by 32771 · 2014-09-14 08:09 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  "With present technology, the extraction and refining of heavy oils and oil sands generates as much as three times the total CO2 emissions compared to conventional oil."
  This isn't present technology, this is future technology. In other words you are using old data to tarnish the image of an improved technology, let me call you a green liar maybe even a green troll.
  Also it is a practical way of converting sunlight into chemical energy and a simple storage solution for solar energy. If we can get rid of the 70% use of fossil fuels in transportation and only use it for producing plastic the only problems we have to worry about is the pacific garbage patch and associated problems. Once we can keep population growth in check we can solve mankind's problems - very nice. These stop gap measures are exactly what we need to align peak population (2080?) with peak industrial society (2020?).
  Just for shits and grins, how do you plan to remove the CO2 from the atmosphere to get back to 280ppm? Also how many billion dead people are you willing to accept?
  
  --
  Je me souviens.
2. Re:Steam to extract oil that shouldn't be... by Charliemopps · 2014-09-14 08:16 · Score: 1
  
  This is a good example of greenwashing.
  They're using solar steam generators to extract heavy crude oil and tar sands. This oil is difficult to extract and environmentally costly to refine.
  From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...
  "With present technology, the extraction and refining of heavy oils and oil sands generates as much as three times the total CO2 emissions compared to conventional oil."
  This oil should probably be left in the ground.
  It reduces the CO2 footprint of the oil by reducing how many fossil fuels are needed to extract it. You can't just "Stop using oil" that's not possible, even remotely. So get over.
3. Re:Steam to extract oil that shouldn't be... by mspohr · 2014-09-14 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  "With present technology, the extraction and refining of heavy oils and oil sands generates as much as three times the total CO2 emissions compared to conventional oil."
  This isn't present technology, this is future technology. In other words you are using old data to tarnish the image of an improved technology, let me call you a green liar maybe even a green troll.
  This does help with reducing the CO2 impact of extraction but not of transport and refining... so still should leave this oil in the ground.
  The rest of your post is gibberish so I can't respond.
  
  --
  I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
4. Re:Steam to extract oil that shouldn't be... by mspohr · 2014-09-14 08:26 · Score: 1
  
  It reduces the CO2 footprint of the oil by reducing how many fossil fuels are needed to extract it. You can't just "Stop using oil" that's not possible, even remotely. So get over.
  Even reducing the CO2 cost of extraction, this oil is very dirty and produces more CO2.
  Yes, it's hard to stop using oil but not impossible....
  "So get over."... ?
  
  --
  I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
5. Re:Steam to extract oil that shouldn't be... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-14 10:10 · Score: 0
  
  This just in... mdsolar posts (first?) submission that isn't anti-nuclear (even though it is pro fossil fuel and vaguely pro solar).
6. Re:Steam to extract oil that shouldn't be... by 32771 · 2014-09-14 10:38 · Score: 1
  
  Well I didn't want to write that much, obviously I can't just throw out some ill connected thoughts though.
  Ultimately I agree with you that the project in question will mainly aid extraction. It will be used to protect the investment in existing infrastructure way before we could hope for transitioning towards a world where oil is only used for production of plastics and transportation is achieved through technologies with a lower impact.
  While I see your point of not burning fossil fuels you should offer some credible way out of the problem, our existence is based on that probably just as much as on a stable climate. Also note that if you stop the flow of oil today you will feel the effects within half a year maybe at most in society, whereas the climate gives you a 40 year lag. There is no way you get this past people. I could write more but I'm incredibly tired of it.
  
  --
  Je me souviens.
7. Re:Steam to extract oil that shouldn't be... by mspohr · 2014-09-14 11:41 · Score: 2
  
  Thanks for this clear and reasonable reply.
  Clearly you don't just stop the flow of fossil fuel without having a replacement source.
  The credible way out of the problem of burning fossil fuels is to replace as many energy sources as possible with renewables (wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, etc.). This will cost money and there need to be strong market signals to accelerate the change. Something like a carbon tax with the proceeds going to develop renewable resources would work (for some value of $tax and $subsidy).
  The problem is political (mainly in the US) where the corporations which count fossil fuels and fossil fuel infrastructure as "assets" are able to corrupt the political process to prevent the necessary incentives from being put in place. I fear that it is already too late since we are now experiencing the effects of climate change and it will get much worse going forward. However, any reduction in CO2 now will help in the future.
  
  --
  I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
8. Re:Steam to extract oil that shouldn't be... by dbIII · 2014-09-14 13:12 · Score: 1
  
  Just for shits and grins, how do you plan to remove the CO2 from the atmosphere
  Easy, just bind it up with the lime we make from calcium carbonate :) No I'm not being serious, I'm highlighting how the "obvious" methods are like leaving the fridge door open to try to cool a house and make things worse.
  Looks like we're stuck with it unless some dirt cheap energy source that does not produce as much carbon dioxide as can be removed per unit of energy becomes viable at immense scales. The "just cool down air until the carbon dioxide falls out" idiots are not considering how much energy it takes to do such a thing.
9. Re:Steam to extract oil that shouldn't be... by thegarbz · 2014-09-14 13:17 · Score: 1
  
  This oil should probably be left in the ground.
  Probably but to what end?
  The only reason the oil is being extracted is due to a demand for it. If you cut off the demand then it no longer becomes profitable to extract it. It's not just 3x as costly for CO2 but it's 3x as costly extract and refine too.
  It's not green washing, the alternative is not to simply ignore it but rather the alternative is to use non-renewables to perform this process. One way or the other it's coming out of the ground so why not do it with the best footprint possible?
10. Re:Steam to extract oil that shouldn't be... by mspohr · 2014-09-14 13:26 · Score: 1
  
  I think the point is that it should stay in the ground.
  It should be replaced by renewable energy.
  
  --
  I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
11. Re:Steam to extract oil that shouldn't be... by able1234au · 2014-09-14 14:27 · Score: 1
  
  I know you are joking but one interesting point on CO2 removal is that the problem is CO2 in the upper atmosphere which provides a "blanket" over us all. Lowering CO2 in the lower atmosphere will be helpful longterm but will not actually solve the CO2 problem for a long time. Upper atmosphere CO2 stays there for hundreds of years. Which is why we need to working on solutions today.
12. Re:Steam to extract oil that shouldn't be... by smellotron · 2014-09-14 15:43 · Score: 1
  
  This is a good example of greenwashing.
  
  This doesn't sound anything like greenwashing; greenwashing is a PR move to appear more "eco-friendly". This is simpler to explain as a rational economic decision: There are forms of non-renewable energy that are not harvested only because the energy cost to extract them exceeds the energy value they provide. If the energy costs to extract them can be brought down to near-zero, it is to Shell's economic benefit to extract and sell the heavy crude.
  Your argument that the oil should "stay in the ground" is totally unrelated. I do not have an informed opinion in the matter of heavy crudes, but please don't use it as a rebuttal.
13. Re:Steam to extract oil that shouldn't be... by thegarbz · 2014-09-14 23:08 · Score: 1
  
  Well you work on the demand side of things, and in the mean time I'm glad the company is taking the best possible approach to extracting the worst kind of energy.
14. Re:Steam to extract oil that shouldn't be... by mdsolar · 2014-09-14 23:49 · Score: 1
  
  This kind of thing gives access to much more fossil carbon than is considered in most carbon inventories because there is no need for the process to produce energy from the fossil carbon. It can just be an energy transfer from renewable energy that won't run out, to buried carbon that that is too low quality to be a fuel on its own. If we consider using renewably generated hydrogen to mobilize the remaining carbon in spent source rock, there is more than enough carbon to make the earth's surface uninhabitable for mammals nearly everywhere. http://www.newscientist.com/bl...
15. Re:Steam to extract oil that shouldn't be... by itzly · 2014-09-15 00:50 · Score: 1
  
  CO2 in the atmosphere is "well-mixed".
16. Re:Steam to extract oil that shouldn't be... by Procrasti · 2014-09-15 01:48 · Score: 1
  
  Can we stop focussing on renewables and replace carbon based fuels with nuclear as far, soon and much as possible?
  Once we've stopped burning carbon we can focus on renewables which aren't much more than a distraction in the scheme of things.
17. Re:Steam to extract oil that shouldn't be... by mspohr · 2014-09-15 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  One important problem is that nuclear has a lead time of a minimum of 10 years whereas renewables have a lead time of about one year. We can't burn fossil fuels at the current rate for another 10 years waiting for nuclear.
  
  --
  I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
18. Re:Steam to extract oil that shouldn't be... by mpe · 2014-09-15 06:12 · Score: 1
  
  The credible way out of the problem of burning fossil fuels is to replace as many energy sources as possible with renewables (wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, etc.).
  
  Wind and solar are not especially credible energy sources. Except for specific niche applications, possibly excluding this one. Geothermal and hydro require rather specific geography with hydro often being opposed by "greenies". With the most effective and most truely "renewable" option being even more strongly opposed by the "greenies".
Irony is duly noted by davydagger · 2014-09-14 07:27 · Score: 2

So let me get this straight, not only does the oil industry run on razor thin margins that they need subsidizing(its only wrong when solar does it), they need solar energy to help them get out their precious oil, and they are now suddenly worried about enviromental impact?

my sides, my sides.
1. Re: Irony is duly noted by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-14 07:37 · Score: 1
  
  There more hilarity to the story. This method of using steam was originally used in the late 1800s as a concept to irrigate sections of north Africa. It was ultimately abandoned in favor of better crop production and transportation options that oil offered.
2. Re:Irony is duly noted by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-14 07:53 · Score: 0
  
  "Their precious oil"
  It's yours too. Look around you: Pretty muc nothing would be there withouth oil.
3. Re:Irony is duly noted by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-14 08:00 · Score: 0
  
  Pretty muc nothing would be there withouth oil.
  ...including my girlfriend's boobs. Precious indeed.
4. Re:Irony is duly noted by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-14 08:05 · Score: 0
  
  and, specifically, yes, it does run on razor thing margins. The competition is intense. It is the ultimate fungible commodity. While it's politically popular to blame the major oil companies for manipulating the market, all of the major refiners charge a straight percentage markup on gasoline. It's the specialties that are competitive and expensive. Don't believe me? Compare the cost of engine oil to gasoline.
5. Re:Irony is duly noted by davydagger · 2014-09-16 11:04 · Score: 1
  
  really? I think your confusing the argument. What you meant was "If all the oil in the world suddenly disappeared tommorow, the world would stop".
  
  But thats totally diffrent, because everything around me could be made without well reserve oil.(I make the distinction because there are many things called "oil", and many sources for it.)
6. Re:Irony is duly noted by davydagger · 2014-09-16 11:08 · Score: 1
  
  I'm blaming the oil companies for crying like little retarded brats who've been whipped when solar companies gets subsidizes, screamin about how solar isn't economicly effective unless there are massive government subsidies.
  
  Then low and behold, they get massive government subsidies in the form of tax breaks, and are bitchin and complainin about not being profitable enough. Pick one. Either if fine, but they can't have it both ways. On top of that, it looks to me like using solar is more cost effective, otherwise they wouldn't be using it themselves. Imagine if microsoft ran its internal servers on GNU/Linux?
  
  But yeah, I believe you, it takes a lot of resources to produce oil, and its only going to take more and more. I mean whats going to happen when it becomes uncompetative? Should we still subsidize it?
You're doing it wrong! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-14 07:37 · Score: 0

facepalm
Wait until global warming really kicks in by jfdavis668 · 2014-09-14 07:38 · Score: 4, Funny

I would have just waited for global warming to really kick in. The oil would be warm enough to extract without any added heat.
1. Re:Wait until global warming really kicks in by BlackPignouf · 2014-09-14 09:23 · Score: 1
  
  You're jesting, but I'd say that this process (like most, if not all, thermodynamical processes) works because of high temperature *difference*, not just high temperatures.
2. Re:Wait until global warming really kicks in by craighansen · 2014-09-14 12:20 · Score: 1
  
  Nope - it's the high temperatures that make the heavy oil flow more easily. But "Global Warming" of only a few degrees doesn't really do the trick.
don't they already vent hydrocarbon gasses? by bhlowe · 2014-09-14 07:42 · Score: 2

My understanding is that many oil wells vent large quantities of natural gas that are unprofitable to collect as a product, but could be used for on-site purposes. Solar panels are great if you have a ton of room, can keep them clean, and don't need continuous power, and want to appear "green." But for oil fields, using natural gas and processed fuels is the way to keep prices competitive.
1. Re:don't they already vent hydrocarbon gasses? by angel'o'sphere · 2014-09-14 08:03 · Score: 0
  
  Another smart /. poster who exactly knows what the guys we talk about do wrong.
  So, lets summarize: the oil platforms using mirrors (not solar panels aka PV as you claim!) should use natural gas instead, because that would be cheaper. And you are surprised that the owner of the oil platform disagrees? Perhaps that particular oil field has no gas left? Or the gas is sold elsewhere? Hm, how does it come, what degree or secret insight do you have that you know more about "competitive oil prices" than one who actually is running an oil platform?
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
2. Re:don't they already vent hydrocarbon gasses? by Sarten-X · 2014-09-14 08:19 · Score: 1
  
  The main reason the natural gas can't be sold commercially is that it's unpredictable. Some days, they extract a lot of high-quality gas, and other days they extract none, while still other days they might get something that's more toxic if burned.
  To use such gas for any commercial purpose would mean it needs to be reliable. Adding that reliability comes only at great expense.
  
  --
  You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
3. Re:don't they already vent hydrocarbon gasses? by craighansen · 2014-09-14 12:25 · Score: 1
  
  This solar process replaces up to order 80% of the fossil fuel that must already be employed to generate steam 'round-the-clock. There is also a gas-fired steam generator present to make steam at night and/or days with insufficient insolation, though they discuss on their website the notion that steam injection rates may vary - more during the day and less at night in order to increase the use of the solar-generated steam (to get up to the 80% level). Otherwise, the typical peak-rate to average-rate problem of solar power would make the amount more like 50% utilization absent additional hardware for steam storage.
4. Re:don't they already vent hydrocarbon gasses? by dbIII · 2014-09-14 13:35 · Score: 1
  
  My understanding is that many oil wells vent large quantities of natural gas that are unprofitable to collect as a product
  One astonishing example is almost all of the electricity generated in Nigeria comes from actually doing something with the heat from the flames on vented off gas. Until recently it was just burnt off - now it's generating quite a few MW.
Already being done by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-14 07:49 · Score: 1

Chevron has been doing this, with mixed results, in Coalinga, California for years.
http://www.brightsourceenergy.com/coalinga#.VBXxHUrvrcQ
pass the tinfoil by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-14 08:03 · Score: 0

Pass the tinfoil, please. Greenwashing is done with signs and advertisements, not with millions of dollars and heavy equipment investments. This is a business decision.
1. Re:pass the tinfoil by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-14 16:44 · Score: 0
  
  anyone who says "pass the tinfoil" is a faggot.
2. Re:pass the tinfoil by mpe · 2014-09-15 06:32 · Score: 1
  
  Greenwashing is done with signs and advertisements, not with millions of dollars and heavy equipment investments.
  
  The likes of "biofuels" and "renewable" electricity generation can involve vast amounts of money and plant. Yet be useless, even counterproductive, assuming a goal of reducing fossil fuel usage. So the idea that "greenwashing" cannot involve these is false.
if you're right, you're wrong by raymorris · 2014-09-14 10:36 · Score: 1

If you are correct that it increases the amount that can be recovered from an individual well site, then it follows that it therefore reduces the number of well sites required to meet world petroleum demand. After all, Texas oil fields supplied all the oil we need, we wouldn't have even be talking about drilling in Alaska or offshore.
also transportation from a temporary well is a pro by raymorris · 2014-09-14 10:42 · Score: 1

Also, transporting natural gas from, a temporary site like most oil wells is problematic. It doesn't make sense to run pipelines to a well that will only there for a year, and natural gas doesn't compress well. This is why people who need gas in a tank use propane.
Game changer my ass by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-14 10:45 · Score: 0

The fracking bullshit has now proven to be a fraud (95% overestimated) and they tell the world there is another miracle.
First they tell you injecting poison into the ground to get the last bit of oil so nearby home's tap water become poisonous and flammable is the 'game changer', now they tell you injecting hot water is going to change the game again.
I bet they got some bridges to sell too.
pass the tinfoil by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-14 10:48 · Score: 0

'millions of dollars' for Shell is not even %1 of their marketing cost.
EROEI by mdsolar · 2014-09-14 17:10 · Score: 1

This allows the Peak Oil argument that oil won't be extracted if the ratio of energy return on energy invested drops too low (usually below about 3) to be discounted. Values well below one can now be exploited. Additionally, source rock may be injected with renewably sourced hydrogen to get at carbon that normally would be completely immobile. Kharecha and Hansen attempted to look at the effects of Peak Oil on climate. http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs... It appears they may have been seriously too optimistic. Exploiting source rock to mobilize all the carbon using renewable energy could lead to three or four doublings of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In essence, renewable energy provides the means to make most of the continents uninhabitable.
Solar prices falling significantly by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-14 17:49 · Score: 0

Solar module prices have declined 75% in give years and they should fall significantly in the future. As prices fall, solar panels become more economical for more and more uses. In 10 years I would guess solar panel prices will decline 90% which will mean solar panels will be used on more homes and businesses.
Fracking? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-15 00:23 · Score: 0

Aquafracking perhaps?