March 01,, 2005
Vortex,
I see the price of oil has gone over fifty-one dollars a barrel recently and the faith in the Dollar further eroded internationally. Speculation and "irrational exuberance" of fear are large factors.
About a year or more ago in the Chemical & Engineering News periodical, there was an interview and commentary article in its Business Section with Canadian industrial business executives. At the time, the Dollar was around 1.05 to an Euro, oil was around $38+ per barrel, and gasoline was around $1.35 per gallon. The U.S. economy was unsettled, and there was talk about the supply of fuel (mid east oil) reserves shrinking.
The Canadians were involved in the "oil sands" mining business in Canada, not anywhere else. That's the country just north of us. No oceans in between. Canada has, in its oil sands, oil reserves matching, if not exceeding those of Saudi Arabia. And they only have to scoop it up at ground level. So Canada is happily mining, producing oil, and selling it in a petroleum market fixated primarily on mid east oil production. And the cost of production of that Canadian crude was where they could profit at seven ($7.00) US dollars per barrel!
More recently in the Wall Street Journal there were several news articles on energy related matters. One item dealt with the increasing needs of the Canada to meet the Kyoto Protocol requirement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They were facing the prospect of buying greenhouse gas "credits" . What was happening was Canada's rapid raising of oil sands petroleum production and this required huge gas guzzling mining machinery and such to do this. Similar problem is arising in Australia with all the mining activities there.
Then we come to the huge coal and untapped shale oil reserves in the U.S. We have so much coal that hundreds of burning coal veins (presumably spewing CO2) in abandoned mines are left alone. And we have oil shale up the kazoo but can't compete with oil sands.
The other article was about the increasing investments and development of the tremendous natural gas field discovered in Quatar. The investments are to develop a Gas to Liquid (GTL) technology which converts natural gas to a clear liquid fuel that can/is be used in unmodified diesel engines. Europe uses diesel engines in half of their vehicles. The U.S. uses less than two percent. Diesels give 30% better mileage than gas and GTL fuel burns cleaner.
The current break even cost for GTL is fourteen dollars ($14.00) per barrel. Also GTL fuel is stable and much easier to transport from Quatar than in cold liquid natural gas tanker ships. Also natural gas resources are spread over the world and are not OPEC controlled.
The original GTL technology came from Nazi era Germany which lost its colonies after WW One and was "only" coal rich and oil poor. Later, South Africa further developed and "simplified" the GTL process by using natural gas rather than first going through the coal gasification process. The GTL process was looked into after WWII by U.S. but cheap ($3/bbl) mid east oil came on line.
The GTL process, as described by WSJ, is interesting. Whatever the fuel source, natural gas in this instance, is first "combusted" to produce Carbon Monoxide, then mixed with Water (H2O) and Oxygen. This is then Cobalt catalyzed to produce a waxy petroleum product, put under high pressure (and heat?) "to break it into diesel and a smaller amount of other products, including motor oil." This reminds me of the hydrogenation process that also came along from Germany in the same era to produce among others, Margarine, the white solid, waxy, very cheap butter substitute made from vegetable oils.This was colored butter yellow manually each time with a food color "pill" in the U.S. due initially to the powerful dairy industry. Crisco is another such product. You can thank this process for all the"partially hydrogenated " oil products we consume today. I digress.
I believe we can have a closed loop solution to the expanding fuel combustion, exhaust gas problem here. Carbon monoxide is a fuel combustion product, just as carbon dioxide is. And a GTL process can be used for waste carbon dioxide (& monoxide) to produce gas or liquid fuel and recycled. I realize there already exists that loop closing link in the green plants but our consuming activities are exceeding their capacities.
Poking around reference texts into hydrogenation gave information as to what the WSJ reporter was talking about in reference to Quatar. The GTL process is basically the 1933 Fischer-Tropsch process (CO) and/or the 1912 Bergius process (coal). Catalysts used are not only Cobalt but also Nickel. And the clear fuel produced (among many) is: Kerosene. Diesel engines do burn kerosene I understand
Perhaps cold fusion or nuclear power could provide the needed recycling heat energy needs. Of course the are other greenhouse gasses to worry about but CO2 "remediation" is the major concern. Why only "remediate", recycle. Nuclear power fits in here somewhere. Now with a cleaner conscious, we may continue and expand to use a carbon based fuel economy. : )
Or is this far fetched?
-ak-
