Focus Fusion effect on the "Economic Limit" of depleted Oil Wells.

[Duke Leto]

If you look here on the divine Wiki, there’s a formula determining at what point an oil well has become depleted and therefore unprofitable. The formula seems to assume that the well’s own oil is the pumping energy source since the energy density of oil is the most portable and efficient pumping tech.

Does anyone know enough about the Oil industry to redo the formula for the possibility of FF generators being the pump mechanism?

[Phil’s Dad]

Interesting paradox your grace. If FF then why pump oil? :-/

[Duke Leto]

Phil’s Dad wrote: Interesting paradox your grace. If FF then why pump oil? :-/

1) Plastics.
2) Still need a portable fuel for long range light vehicles if EEStor don’t work and pumping might be cheaper than synthesizing.
3) Even if EEStor does work, you still have n million # of cars to refit or repalce and pumping from depleted midwestern wells lowers the cost of gas while that is happening without playing around in the mideast.

[Aeronaut]

Phil’s Dad wrote: Interesting paradox your grace. If FF then why pump oil? :-/

A single FF module would increase the yield of hundreds of wells. Further efficiencies would power the refineries and pipelines with FF modules.

[Breakable]

Fusion powered global warming!
What about coal mining?

[Aeronaut]

Breakable wrote: Fusion powered global warming!
What about coal mining?

Glad you asked. Strip mining trucks and locomotives are large enough for FF modules. Underground mines still have large electrical loads to power. See above increased profitability post. It applies to almost any industry. 😉

[Phil’s Dad]

Duke Leto wrote:

1) Plastics.
2) Still need a portable fuel for long range light vehicles if EEStor don’t work.
3) # million cars to refit or replace.

I buy 3 in the short term but there are a lot of alternatives to ultra-capacitors so not 2.

Your best argument is 1. I have long held the belief that plastics are more valuable than gold. We will look back on depletion of oil reserves with horror. We did WHAT with it?

I am with Breakable on this one. Cost savings aside we are surely looking to substitute hydrocarbon burning, not augment it.

[Alex Pollard]

Phil’s Dad wrote:

1) Plastics.
2) Still need a portable fuel for long range light vehicles if EEStor don’t work.
3) # million cars to refit or replace.

I buy 3 in the short term but there are a lot of alternatives to ultra-capacitors so not 2.

Your best argument is 1. I have long held the belief that plastics are more valuable than gold. We will look back on depletion of oil reserves with horror. We did WHAT with it?

I am with Breakable on this one. Cost savings aside we are surely looking to substitute hydrocarbon burning, not augment it.

Yes, we will probably have to resort to using coal to make petrochemicals.

[Breakable]

Great, we can use FF to synthesize gas from oil, to extract oil from shale sands, to strip mine coal much deeper, extract more oil from depleted wells and build undersea cities for oil mining….
that’s … just … fantastic!
Who needs electric cars when gas is 0.04c per galon?
And I was hoping for an alternative energy revolution…
Edit:Gas per galon

[Brian H]

Breakable wrote: Great, we can use FF to synthesize gas from oil, to extract oil from shale sands, to strip mine coal much deeper, extract more oil from depleted wells and build undersea cities for oil mining….
that’s … just … fantastic!
Who needs electric cars when gas is 0.04c per galon?
And I was hoping for an alternative energy revolution…
Edit:Gas per galon

Edit of edit: gas is 4¢ per gallon (?)

Comments on edit of edit:
1) I assume you meant 4¢, not 0.04¢ (=1/25 of 1¢, or $0.0004)
2) I assume you meant cost per gallon of gas, since ‘gas per gallon’ is kind of circularly meaningless
3) to type the ¢ symbol, hold down the Alt key, enter 155 on the numeric keypad, and release.
4) I assume you meant “gallon”, not “galon”, since the latter isn’t a word
5) I wonder how you’d get from $4/gallon to 4¢/gallon, even if electricity were free. Reduced demand would certainly lower the price of oil, but it would still cost about $2/bbl to pump even in Saudi Arabia, and at least that to ship and refine, and at least twice that to deliver at retail, which works out to 8/42, or 20¢/USG. Which is what I remember the price being in the early ’50s. (Yes, I can remember that far back.)
6) That much price reduction could never occur in current dollars; probably about 50¢/gallon would be the lower limit, which would make ICE engines competitive with electric cars in cost/mile. Except for maintenance, lubrication, brakes (electric cars do about 90% or more of their “braking” with regen without touching the brake pedal), etc.
7) The vastly reduced cost of energy would have huge benefits, whether the actual energy source in any particular instance was coal, oil, or p-B11.

[Breakable]

Because I was not proof-reading my post, I was probably not very serious, and I don’t believe it validated an exhaustive rebuttal.
Still I believe it is possible that gas prices can drop from the local maximum of 4.10 to 0.04 $ in the US, if energy prices dropped 100x. Probably the Oil & Coal industry would be the first to install FF reactors, in order to survive for some time, and the demand for gasoline wont drop until EV cars and infrastructure are much more common.

[Brian H]

Breakable wrote: Because I was not proof-reading my post, I was probably not very serious, and I don’t believe it validated an exhaustive rebuttal.
Still I believe it is possible that gas prices can drop from the local maximum of 4.10 to 0.04 $ in the US, if energy prices dropped 100x. Probably the Oil & Coal industry would be the first to install FF reactors, in order to survive for some time, and the demand for gasoline wont drop until EV cars and infrastructure are much more common.

Not possible. Processing energy costs are not 100% of the cost of gasoline, or even close. Maybe one order of magnitude, max, but not two orders reduction.
However, the prices would start to drop immediately once FF viability was confirmed. Almost all purchasing is done on a future anticipated demand and supply basis — traders and refiners best guesses.

[Aeronaut]

Brian H wrote:
However, the prices would start to drop immediately once FF viability was confirmed. Almost all purchasing is done on a future anticipated demand and supply basis — traders and refiners best guesses.

I’d expect a very short ‘gasp’ in securities prices, but the real action would be in the one to ten year energy sector futures prices. This would be your barometer for when to short the fossil fuels.

[Brian H]

Aeronaut wrote:

However, the prices would start to drop immediately once FF viability was confirmed. Almost all purchasing is done on a future anticipated demand and supply basis — traders and refiners best guesses.

I’d expect a very short ‘gasp’ in securities prices, but the real action would be in the one to ten year energy sector futures prices. This would be your barometer for when to short the fossil fuels.
Indeed, but those markets would immediately begin to reflect revised expectations; in fact, they ARE purely and simply expectations.

Speaking of markets, I wish someone with more resources than I would fire up the Intrade action by putting a buy or sell bid up!

[Breakable]

The lot requirement price to high for me (100$), and I don’t think Intrade gives margin? Even they it is not liquid enough to trade with margin.

[Author]

Posts