Jones Beene: This is a remarkably naive analysis. I really think you will only be slightly right if the LENR technology improves very very little for a long time, say decades. That also seems very unlikely.
Ransom Sent from my iPhone On Jul 2, 2012, at 3:54 PM, "Jones Beene" <[email protected]> wrote: > Caveat: ... just finished watching the fabulous BBC series "State of Play" > which is fiction, of course, but so close to perceived reality that the > oil-tainted message "resistance is futile" comes through loud and clear ... > U-EX is the Borg. Get used to it and submit. AYBABTU ! > > Looking at the 'big picture' geopolitically, and starting with the > assumption that in 2012 a person or group, but probably not Rossi or DGT, > will introduce an independently validated, robust and replicable version of > Ni-H in prototype form (none of which criteria are met thus far, despite > hints and claims).... here is the utopian/dystopian tradeoff that is > emerging from looking at the implications of this development. > > First - the belief that this technology is not fully compatible with oil is > completely misguided, if not ironic. In fact, it is very likely that the > biggest early users of LENR, possibly the exclusive early users, will be the > oil-shale and tar sands industry in the USA and Canada, and especially in > the Orinoco tar belt of Venezuela. > > BTW - Together these previously out-of-reach petroleum resource offer > triple the capacity of ALL of the World's present day conventional oil > reserves !!!! All you need to get 4 trillion barrels of thick, gooey gunk to > market is ... ta da... cheap heat. Otherwise, it is tar. > > Sure, if LENR were to come out of the gates as a safe, mature and ready > source of electrical power, with zero radiation threat and at a net cost > lower than oil, then the new technology would supplant petroleum eventually, > but not quickly. That will take decades, even if prototype LENR does happen > this year. It always takes many years to go from prototype to mass market, > and "sunk costs" and inertia are a huge issue for supplanting any old > technology. In the meantime there could be a nasty compromise. > > It takes capital to get to market, and it is no secret who has most of the > available investment capital as well as the largest potential need for > thermal energy (if that energy can be placed in a deep hole to make tar > pumpable) ... not to mention the political connections. Now, who would that > be? If you guessed the shale, heavy oil and tar-sands industry, then move to > the head of the geopolitical class. Plus, they do not mind if it is slightly > radioactive since it is going in a well. > > Many LENR advocates, naively seem to think that Big Oil wants to kill the > new technology, when on the contrary they will embrace it, invest heavily in > it, and become the biggest customer for decades. A more careful appraisal of > the future situation, based on probabilities and economic realities, would > include the following facts and assumptions, all of which are defensible. > > 1) The cheapest old oil can be produced for very little cost, but is > declining in availability. It provides lots of cash flow which ideally would > go into replacement resources, if there were any. > 2) Most new oil (from shale, tar or offshore wells, etc) has a high > production cost, often a factor of 20 times more than the old, onshore > wells. Only one segment of high cost oil can employ LENR to expedite its > production, creating an internal problem for OPEC. > 3) The cheap heat from LENR should make new oil from tar extremely > competitive, and could destroy the offshore oil business. Being able to drop > a small reactor into a hole and use copious heat to soften the tar so that > it can be pumped - wow - this turns the tables on all prior economic > assumptions. > 4) This is a new paradigm, which segments of the industry will embrace > and others will ignore. There could a future internal schism of major > proportions in Big Oil - based on the availability of LENR to expedite tar > and shale. > 5) Fossil fuel production from well-to-road produces massive tax > revenue. This is true even if the industry also receives lots of tax breaks. > Politicians always favor proved tax revenue flow over alternatives. No help > there for LENR. > 6) There are possibly half a billion motor vehicles burning fossil > fuel, world-wide, with at least ten years of useful life remaining. This is > a sunk cost. > 7) Most consumers with $20k to $30k of value invested in a vehicle will > not abandon that vehicle, or abandon oil, to save a thousand per year in > fuel cost - even if the comparative fuel cost for LENR was zero. The > overhead of LENR will be substantial. The tree-hugger market is > insufficient. > 8) The unholy combination of the supply and profit cushion of low cost > old oil, the sunk cost of half a billion oil-burners, and the high tax > revenue, means that LENR cannot penetrate that market effectively, no matter > how clean it is. Thus anyone with this technology will be primed for > takeover by oil companies, but NOT to suppress it: instead to embrace it. > 9) With the advent of LENR, Venezuela can become the next Saudi Arabia, > or even a mini-OPEC. That may not be a good thing. Venezuela has way over a > trillion barrels of tar near the surface, and the reserves are close to > ocean transport, and are said to be understated to keep out foreign > interference. Athabasca Oil Sands are larger, but deeper and harder to pump > and more costly to get to market. > 10) In conclusion, the biggest initial market for LENR should be for > heavy oil production and it could revolutionize the industry. Cheap thermal > output and small reactor size to heat and pump heavy oil and tar from wells, > that otherwise are of low value make this almost inevitable. There will be > no problem with regulations, as in consumer markets. > 11) However, how many observers really appreciate this dynamic in its > full implications? Are we courting Venezuela the way we should? > 12) LOL - just the opposite. Is Big Oil pushing for a South American > Iraq War based on eliminating Chavismo? > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chavismo) > > All in all, despite the non-sensible claims of there being a large consumer > market for LENR, this will most likely not materialize in the coming decade, > at least not as long as tar-sands and oil shale can be tapped to supply the > huge sunk cost of oil burners. > > As you might imagine - this scenario is turning into a horrible nightmare > for ecology and idealists who want to see the end of fossil fuel. > Unfortunately, the only solution is political - but that makes it even more > frightening. AYBABTU ! > > > > > > > <winmail.dat>
