The United States Is Now the Largest Global Crude Oil Producer • Hacker News Board

Re: The United States Is Now the Largest Global Crude Oil Producer

#241

Post by learc83 » Thu, Sep 13, 2018, 2:33 PM UTC

beat wrote: post #239

learc83 wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100 miles is enough range to get out of the way of worst effects of most natural disasters, and plenty of people get by without a car at all.

100 miles into a rural area isn't equipped to support a million people driven off the seaboard. My sister lives in the hillbilly sticks of the Virginia/North Carolina border, about 100 miles inland. She has to drive 45 minutes to get to a doctor. That area isn't going to take thousands of refugees for a week or two. Can't feed them or provide sufficient sanitation. That's how you get cholera.

And how many people live in hurricane prone areas with no decent sized non-coastal towns within 100 miles?

They might want to consider buying something else. Or society might have to add more rapid charging stations and buses if shorter range electric cars become the norm.

Big coastal cities are already nearly impossible to evacuate by car on short notice, and they already have tens of thousands of people without cars.

Re: The United States Is Now the Largest Global Crude Oil Producer

#242

Post by beat » Thu, Sep 13, 2018, 2:46 PM UTC

learc83 wrote: post #241

beat wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100 miles into a rural area isn't equipped to support a million people driven off the seaboard. My sister lives in the hillbilly sticks of the Virginia/North Carolina border, about 100 miles inland. She has to drive 45 minutes to get to a doctor. That area isn't going to take thousands of refugees for a week or two. Can't feed them or provide sufficient sanitation. That's how you get cholera.

And how many people live in hurricane prone areas with no decent sized non-coastal towns within 100 miles? They might want to consider buying something else. Or society might have to add more rapid charging stations and buses if shorter range electric cars become the norm. Big coastal cities are already nearly impossible to evacuate by car on short notice, and they already have tens of thousands of people without car…

The point is, "100 miles inland" isn't an answer. It's a separate issue from the problem of impoverished people living in low-lying coastal areas who can't afford cars or other means of leaving at all (there are hundreds of thousands in the path of Florence).

If you're gonna leave the North Carolina coast for the hurricane and you can afford to leave at all, there's little financial difference to whether it's winding up in inland rural areas, or simply heading to a major city anywhere else in the country. Drive to Nashville, or fly to Chicago.

Re: The United States Is Now the Largest Global Crude Oil Producer

#243

Post by toomuchtodo » Thu, Sep 13, 2018, 2:52 PM UTC

learc83 wrote: post #222

toomuchtodo wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100 miles would not be sufficient to get out of the path of Hurricane Florence currently on the US eastern seaboard (although Tesla has done of the honors of lifting any restrictions on their software range limited models, as well as providing free SuperCharging to get folks to safety [1]). [1] https://electrek.co/2018/09/12/tesla-releasing-more-battery-...

It's enough to get far enough inland that it's no longer that dangerous, which is why I said "worst effects." I've never heard of an evacuation order 100 miles inland.

I agree I probably didn't use the right language. You'll need more than 100 miles to both get out of harm's way, and also to ensure you're able to make it somewhere with accommodations available considering everyone else evacuating.

Family in South Carolina are going to Atlanta to ensure there isn't an issue getting a hotel room.

Re: The United States Is Now the Largest Global Crude Oil Producer

#244

Post by man2525 » Thu, Sep 13, 2018, 3:00 PM UTC

aphextron wrote: post #5

It's been fascinating to watch Saudi influence wane over the last few years as this sinks in as the new reality. We live in a completely different power structure now from 20 years ago. They're certainly still obscenely rich, but the power they had over geopolitics via OPEC is effectively gone at this point due to tar sands, renewables, and natural gas.

They don't need to influence all of us to affect all of us. U.S. taxes are funding Al-Nusra in Syria at Israel's (who hospitalizes them) and the Saudis' request in a larger war on Shiite rebels.

Re: The United States Is Now the Largest Global Crude Oil Producer

#245

Post by gascan » Thu, Sep 13, 2018, 3:27 PM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #178

headmelted wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I got a 2013 one not long ago with a 24kwh battery (with about 20kwh of capacity remaining). I paid well under $10k for mine with a bunch of Nissan incentives (warranty and MOT cover for 3 years, things like that). In fuel and tax savings it'll have paid for itself within those 3 years (versus a petrol or diesel car), after which it's effectively a free, zero-tax, zero-fuel-cost car. My point being that an EV is alre…

You can just fill a can with gas and bring it to the car. (this is what a tow service will do if you've only run out of gas)

One could pretty easily imagine tow trucks carrying around a 1kWh battery with some standard DC connector, and that would get you a couple miles.

A 1kWh battery is not big; e-bicycles carry ~500Wh.

Would be literally the electric equivalent of a gas can.

Re: The United States Is Now the Largest Global Crude Oil Producer

#246

Post by learc83 » Thu, Sep 13, 2018, 3:42 PM UTC

beat wrote: post #242

learc83 wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And how many people live in hurricane prone areas with no decent sized non-coastal towns within 100 miles? They might want to consider buying something else. Or society might have to add more rapid charging stations and buses if shorter range electric cars become the norm. Big coastal cities are already nearly impossible to evacuate by car on short notice, and they already have tens of thousands of people without car…

The point is, "100 miles inland" isn't an answer. It's a separate issue from the problem of impoverished people living in low-lying coastal areas who can't afford cars or other means of leaving at all (there are hundreds of thousands in the path of Florence). If you're gonna leave the North Carolina coast for the hurricane and you can afford to leave at all, there's little financial difference to whether it's winding…

>If you're gonna leave the North Carolina coast for the hurricane and you can afford to leave at all, there's little financial difference to whether it's winding up in inland rural areas, or simply heading to a major city anywhere else in the country. Drive to Nashville, or fly to Chicago.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here?

Re: The United States Is Now the Largest Global Crude Oil Producer

#247

Post by unexpected » Thu, Sep 13, 2018, 3:58 PM UTC

xref wrote: post #206

unexpected wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I work in this industry. To answer your question, yes, there are oil and gas producers horizontally drilling wells, but not fracking them. This is actually quite common in offshore (Gulf of Mexico) environments. Your offshore pad is in a fixed location, and you often drill horizontally to get to the target. These wells are productive enough that you don't need to hydraulically fracture them.

curious, would fracking be used years or decades down the line to extend well life?

potentially, if it's economic enough. The typical shale wells that you see being drilled have very high initial rates, but then fall dramatically. They are a totally different well profile than the wells offshore (where shale is not being targeted).

Will shale ever be targeted offshore? Maybe, in a world where oil is $150/barrel and we're all still demanding it. A few things are holding back hydraulically fracking offshore:

1) Freshwater - The current "recipes" need freshwater, and do not work with salt water. Fracking uses a lot of water. This seems solvable, but currently not a lot of research in this area.

2) Sand - A TON of sand is required to keep these fracks open - we are talking truck load upon truck load of sand (sometimes over 100 truck loads). How does this happen in an offshore environment? The logistics would be quite tricky (and expensive).

3) Equipment - Typically, onshore drilling rigs drill the well, and then move off the location and the fracking unit comes onto the location. The fracking unit can be as big or bigger than the drilling unit spread. To translate this to an offshore environment would be logistically impossible - we would basically need specialized "fracking drill ships" to equivocate this. To date, these don't exist (but could potentially exist in the future).

4) Institutional Know-How - for how big these companies are, it's quite surprising that the big players haven't had much success fracking - ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, BP, Total, Shell - all of these guys do some fracking, but it's not really their core business (offshore is). The fracking revolution was built on the backs of the smaller industry players (and these guys don't do offshore well). In tech parlance, this would be loosely equivalent to why Microsoft/Yahoo/Oracle have never really done startups well (just buy the ones that do well).

It's important to note that fracking we see in the news are a totally different target than conventional oil wells. So the permian basin, which is "so hot" right now, had conventional targets that were tapped out in the 1980's/1990's. The shale wells being drilled are entirely new wells at different targets, so you wouldn't use the fracking techniques that we hear about to extend the life of an existing well - you would drill a totally new well.

To give you an idea of the costs involved, an offshore deepwater drill ship in the Gulf of Mexico has a rig rate (all in) of about $500k/day. An onshore rig in the permian basin drilling shale wells is probably around $50k-$75k. It's a 10x difference (why is why countries like Brazil, Venezuela, etc. have struggled during this latest "boom").

Re: The United States Is Now the Largest Global Crude Oil Producer

#248

Post by learc83 » Thu, Sep 13, 2018, 4:07 PM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #243

learc83 wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's enough to get far enough inland that it's no longer that dangerous, which is why I said "worst effects." I've never heard of an evacuation order 100 miles inland.

I agree I probably didn't use the right language. You'll need more than 100 miles to both get out of harm's way, and also to ensure you're able to make it somewhere with accommodations available considering everyone else evacuating. Family in South Carolina are going to Atlanta to ensure there isn't an issue getting a hotel room.

I was thinking more immediate life threatening danger with 100 miles. If you leave early enough so that power outages aren't an issue, finding a place to charge shouldn't be too much of a problem, even if it's a slower charge that adds hours to your trip.

That could be a problem once electric vehicles are much more popular, but then again, fast charging stations should be more popular by then too.

Re: The United States Is Now the Largest Global Crude Oil Producer

#249

Post by nickbauman » Thu, Sep 13, 2018, 5:02 PM UTC

aphextron wrote: post #5

It's been fascinating to watch Saudi influence wane over the last few years as this sinks in as the new reality. We live in a completely different power structure now from 20 years ago. They're certainly still obscenely rich, but the power they had over geopolitics via OPEC is effectively gone at this point due to tar sands, renewables, and natural gas.

The US has _always_ been the first or second largest crude oil producer since the beginning. Not much has changed. We just have millions of oil wells, whereas Saudi has only a few hundred, many of which had naturally pressureized well heads (no pumping required). In fact the largest single oil well on the planet is in Saudi (it's called Ghawar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghawar_Field, which is such a lovely name) and it's over 150 miles long!

Re: The United States Is Now the Largest Global Crude Oil Producer

#250

Post by _ph_ » Thu, Sep 13, 2018, 5:03 PM UTC

rurban wrote: post #235

_ph_ wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Batteries don’t use rare earths, nor does China have a monopoly on them. There are mines for example in Nevada. They were closed though when China flooded the markets with cheap rare earths. But they can be reopened.

"Rather than worrying about a lack of lithium, there could be shortages of rare earth materials, should the EV replace the conventional car. One such material is the permanent magnet for the electric motors. Permanent magnets make one of the most energy-efficient motors. China controls about 95 percent of the global market for rare earth metals and expects to use most of these resources for its own production" - http…

Right, rare earths are in motors, not in batteries, as the quote you cited says. And indeed China controls large parts of the global market, as they flooded the market with cheap rare earths, which caused mines in the west to shut down. They can be reopened as the market price for rare earths rises.