Rethinking oil sands and pipelines

[wyly]

nay nay.

There is definately progress on a variety of space elveators. Now that carbon nanotubels and other nano fibres are in production the projects have actually started.

There are pictures, but I can't vouche for their validity. The systems which were patented by US Government employees so said are controlled by the US government - well some designs.

without pictures and links this is pure fantasy...

[NUMBERED]

without pictures and links this is pure fantasy...

read the link

http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?159334

see picture 7,8,9 for a scaled down version of a drill bit.

Just keep in mind the borers used in your tunnels are made of steel and rubber they are not the best that can be produced, they are relatively safe though.

Here is one from Harvard

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1985lbsa.conf..465R

Edited August 14, 2012 by NUMBERED

[wyly]

read the link

http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?159334

see picture 7,8,9 for a scaled down version of a drill bit.

Just keep in mind the borers used in your tunnels are made of steel and rubber they are not the best that can be produced, they are relatively safe though.

Here is one from Harvard

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1985lbsa.conf..465R

hmmm.... neither link is for space elevators

[NUMBERED]

hmmm.... neither link is for space elevators

Where are you moving the oil to the moon?

Come on you are telling me BC wouldn't love a giant glass pipe.... line.

Edited August 14, 2012 by NUMBERED

[WWWTT]

I recommended to the pipeline org that they use nuclear plasma borers for their pipelines just dig it about 100m underground. Mobile nuclear reactors only cost a few million dollars these days, and they could rig up a tunneler to just make a 10-20 ft circumference tunnel that they can put their pipeline and golf cart roadways in, they could even make service areas. It would be much safer also. Some other modifications are needed but it is doable these days.

This idea is unrealistic.

The amount of energy/money/resources required to bore holes in such manner would be so immensely vast,it would outweigh the energy contained within the oil being transported.

Not to mention that if such technology was easily utilized,such technology would have many other applications making the use of oil useless.

WWWTT

[NUMBERED]

This idea is unrealistic.

The amount of energy/money/resources required to bore holes in such manner would be so immensely vast,it would outweigh the energy contained within the oil being transported.

Not to mention that if such technology was easily utilized,such technology would have many other applications making the use of oil useless.

WWWTT

false. a 15 million boring machine is not cost prohibitive for the project, it actually is cheaper than chlearing a 100meter x 1000km chunk of forest.

sorry try again.

What are you talking about both plasma and nuclear power plants exist and are used for a variety of applications.

Even though Ford developed plans for nuclear powered vehicles half a century ago, its not like people will be driving thorium powered cars in the near future, and flight of radioative materials ain't exactly going to get past a non conservative product safety consumer agency.

Oil has a solid 20 years as an energy source left atleast, even though there will be a shift as oil prices increase, also materially its use will phase out as plastics become less effective than other materials processing. It will become obsolete but its not like wood has stopped being used, the transition will bring us easily into the next 20 years, and specialized fuel sells are forcast into contigency operations of equipment for atleast 20 years. There will be a secondary class for oil by the 2030's both by necesity and advantage of other resources.

You just seem way out of touch on the fact mini nuclear reactors by Toshiba for instance and plsma used in a variety of industrial applicatoins such as coating operations are used currently and available for commercial usages not just military. But they tend to be only in major sectors like Aerospace, Nautical, and Energy - gas and oil would not be alien to those class to industries.

The stuff exists its not scifi.

Edited August 14, 2012 by NUMBERED

[WWWTT]

sorry try again.

Why?

I'm going to sit this one out because I sense an endless debate about intangible technological advancements that are untested on a large scale.

As well as the fact that this is to far separated from the thread

WWWTT

[The_Squid]

The stuff exists its not scifi.

Please, provide some links for people to peruse this technology and how it is being used today.

[wyly]

Where are you moving the oil to the moon?

Come on you are telling me BC wouldn't love a giant glass pipe.... line.

hey I'm not the one claiming japan is building an elevator into space...still waiting for that evidence....

[Guest Derek L]

I always wondered what happened to William Ashley……..Glad he’s doing well.

[NUMBERED]

Guys please let me know if you are serious or just pretending to be stupid.

[Moonbox]

false. a 15 million boring machine is not cost prohibitive for the project, it actually is cheaper than chlearing a 100meter x 1000km chunk of forest.

You're so full of BS it hurts. Digging a 1000 km tunnel through solid rock would cost billions upon billions. That's the sort of project only a government can undertake.

[wyly]

Guys please let me know if you are serious or just pretending to be stupid.

hey you've done something no one else has ever done on the forum...you've united the left and right of the forum membership...we're all calling your ideas and evidence for them BS...

[jacee]

It's going to be smoke and mirrors, or colour me surprised.

The king of closed government and lack of accountability will ensure that this is just a facade with no teeth.

I'd like to thank Thomas Mulcair for having the guts to bring this issue to light so that Harper actually took some time to give it lip service. I hope most of the sheeple realize that.

I hope the "sheeple" care more about the issues than what politician gets the credit.

It's nice to see Harper forced to remember who pays him.

[NUMBERED]

I hope the "sheeple" care more about the issues than what politician gets the credit.

It's nice to see Harper forced to remember who pays him.

All I can say is look back to the links. If you don't yet know elementary physics learn it.

If you didn't know pipelines are already dug through solidstone. Not all pipelines are surface pipelines.

You guys just come off as completely out of touch. You just can except that stone can be melted instead of blown up or mechanically drilled, if you read the links it should be obvious that los alamos designed these systems in the 1970's. The harvard link takes the example of the moon, however limestones are harder to work with than solid stones. Please don't comment until you have read the papers linked and understand how they apply to granites.

All you need to do to melt through granite is introduce heat in the tune of 1215 - 1260 °C.

The melting point of some salts used in nuclear processing is 1400 degrees

zirconium metal can hold temperatures well above 2000k while its melting point is 1855 °C

the melting point of tungsten, the highest is 3,422 °C,

The system is relatively simple, picture a hot knife and butter. I am not suggesting mechanical boring machines be used I am suggesting nuclear fueled boring machines that melt and glassify not mechanically drill alone.

You should be able to see that the mlting temprature of a metalic heating element is much higher than the melting temperature of a metal. One might then take the logical next step and ask what theboilding point is, and how glass is made and what elements glass is made out of.

If you do not understand read this

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/geophys/meltrock.html

here is a page listing the energy formula

http://www4.nau.edu/microanalysis/Microprobe/Column-ElectronGun.html

There are lots of different links you could read to bring yourself closer to understanding with depending on the materials used design differs slightly but the premise remains a hot knife in butter and support and pressurization long enough for pressurized magma to reach a stable temperature either naturally or through assisted means.

http://www.tungsten.com.cn/ingformation-of-pure-tungsten/Catalog-of-Pure-Tungsten.pdf

If you are thinking oh it would get stuck, - this is why you have the casing able to be pressurized larger or smaller though an adjustable skin, likewise as long as the temperature of the exterior of the craft if kept hotter than the melting point of the stone it is drilling through itt is like that hot knife again and it wont get stuck unless the reactor fails, which is not likely.

ok a bone.

http://www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk/vitrified.htm

Edited August 14, 2012 by NUMBERED

[Moonbox]

Nobody is arguing that stone can't be melted. We've all seen a volcano. People are arguing that it would be impossibly expensive to do what you're saying. We're also not having a science debate here. This isn't a science forum. Stop posting irrelevant technical data.

What people are saying here is that your proposed solution would cost so much money that it would't be viable. You posting patent designs and basic energy formulas etc doesn't prove otherwise.

[NUMBERED]

Nobody is arguing that stone can't be melted. We've all seen a volcano. People are arguing that it would be impossibly expensive to do what you're saying. We're also not having a science debate here. This isn't a science forum. Stop posting irrelevant technical data.

What people are saying here is that your proposed solution would cost so much money that it would't be viable. You posting patent designs and basic energy formulas etc doesn't prove otherwise.

What makes it expensive. Micro Nuclear Reactors have come down in price over the last 2 years and are commercially available.

If you've followed the links and filled in information gaps you should realize that things like thorium reactors are safer than u235 reactors. The micro reactors have been tossed around to places like alaska and now places in the US.

Where is the insanely expensive stuff coming from, there is no basis for it.

My gosh 1 f35 would cost a boatload more than this.

If you are wondering but what keeps it from just sealing, that would be the back (train) trailing pressure system which keeps the barrier supported and pressurized, while allowing the temperature to lower to a point of stability this system allows the skin contact surfaces to stay hot as it follows behind the knife

so as the front part moves ahead the back part inches behind the whole thing like a worm eating its way through soil.

here is a really old report

http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/4444905-MPTHXW/4444905.pdf

Do note the toshiba reactors fullfill and exceed the 10 MW needs stated in this report.

Edited August 14, 2012 by NUMBERED

[Moonbox]

Care to show us where.....anywhere a Nuclear tunnel machine has been used, will be used or even a picture of one?

While you are at it, grab me a pic of a Unicorn , Jackalope , Mermaid and something shady said that was true. (the unicorn should be the easiest)

Well said. That was funny. 10/10

[Moonbox]

What makes it expensive. Micro Nuclear Reactors have come down in price over the last 2 years and are commercially available.

If you've followed the links and filled in information gaps you should realize that things like thorium reactors are safer than u235 reactors. The micro reactors have been tossed around to places like alaska and now places in the US.

Where is the insanely expensive stuff coming from, there is no basis for it.

As I already mentioned, you've posted nothing but garbage. We have patent submissions from 1972, the prospect of trenchless thermal drilling in difficult terrain, something about electron guns and (my favorite) the feasability of boreholes on the moon. Nowhere is there any mention of the technology you're proposing (a nuclear powered thermal drilling machine) existing, nor have you been able to provide any idea of what that sort of technology would cost. A 3000km conventional pipeline (no drilling involved) is proposed to cost between $5-6B. You've proposed, however, that we can somehow go 1000km underground (much of that through solid rock) for less than the cost of an F-35....which on the high end would maybe cost $150M.

How much more out of touch can you get?

Edited August 14, 2012 by Moonbox

[NUMBERED]

As I already mentioned, you've posted nothing but garbage. We have patent submissions from 1972, the prospect of trenchless thermal drilling in difficult terrain, something about electron guns and (my favorite) the feasability of boreholes on the moon. Nowhere is there any mention of the technology you're proposing (a nuclear powered thermal drilling machine) existing, nor have you been able to provide any idea of what that sort of technology would cost. A 3000km conventional pipeline (no drilling involved) is proposed to cost between $5-6B. You've proposed, however, that we can somehow go 1000km underground (much of that through solid rock) for less than the cost of an F-35....which on the high end would maybe cost $150M.

How much more out of touch can you get?

Why are you calling the US department of Energy and Los Alamos labs a source of garbage?

What exactly are you refuting?

Although I do think the price would be far less than 150m even at that price tag it would be less than 1 f35. The borer also wouldn't be confined to use on one pipeline but would be reusable with a long service life possible.

1000m is 1km ..

As I said once you go beyond 1km in depth there are structural problems due to geological structural issues. For practicality the system should be deep but not too deep.

I suggested 100m if that provides for bedrock. The tunnel is just the base however, and the pineline would still be laid, but it would decrease labour costs, and it would actually cost less. The only thing the same is the pipeline itself, and it would be safer, you could actually probably have major cost savings, and it would be more secure, and the above ground resources would be saved. The tunnel could range in size from around 10ft to 40ft. However you likely would want to have room for a vehicle and perhaps set up connecting outlets every so often should there be a problem perhaps at areas where there are already settlements or existing government facilities, etc.. although that would compramize security a bit.

Do note the smaller diamater machines would be more expensive, not less expensive. But they would cost less than a conventional driller for say the BC pipeline.

The pipeline pricetag would aso be less than the surface pipeline.

The question would be is how strong are the US governments patents on the technology if it is not being used commercially?

The patents are the only stumbling block, and the only real source of cost inflation, unless it was made by Lockheedmartin.

However

"For applications filed before June 8, 1995, the term is either 17 years from the issue date or 20 years from the earliest claimed domestic priority date, whichever is longer."

Meaning the patents have expired.

Edited August 14, 2012 by NUMBERED

[WWWTT]

What makes it expensive. Micro Nuclear Reactors have come down in price over the last 2 years and are commercially available.

If you've followed the links and filled in information gaps you should realize that things like thorium reactors are safer than u235 reactors. The micro reactors have been tossed around to places like alaska and now places in the US.

Maybe you are right.

However this technology is many years away and Alberta is looking for practical solutions that can be applied in the near future.

WWWTT

[guyser]

All I can say is look back to the links. If you don't yet know elementary physics learn it.

You are trolling , and doing a lousy job at it too.

Physics, learn it please.

Heat dissapation , magma disposal, melting of all the machinery.....yeah, you have not thought of those problems have you?

If you didn't know pipelines are already dug through solidstone. Not all pipelines are surface pipelines.

Sure we do, but we on earth call them 'drilled wells'They deliver water . Realy cool things too.

You guys just come off as completely out of touch.

Says the resident of infowars.

You just can except that stone can be melted instead of blown up or mechanically drilled,

Ok, we melt it, but where do we put it and how do we transport it, how do we get the heat to dissapate?

however limestones are harder to work with than solid stones. Please don't comment until you have read the papers linked and understand how they apply to granites.

Limestone is a soft sedimentary rock. Really easy to drill through.

Granite is a hard stone.

Climb out of the basement and ask mom if the counter top is limestone or granite and why ? Mommy should know , but then again.......fruit of the loins and all that.

The system is relatively simple, picture a hot knife and butter. I am not suggesting mechanical boring machines be used I am suggesting nuclear fueled boring machines that melt and glassify not mechanically drill alone.

So simple no one had designed , buitl , tested, mocked up, done drawings......simple!

Glassify? Oh man....insert facepalm here.

[guyser]

Well said. That was funny. 10/10

thanks

This guy is way out there in looney land thinking any of this is viable in his lifetime.

[Wild Bill]

Maybe you are right.

However this technology is many years away and Alberta is looking for practical solutions that can be applied in the near future.

WWWTT

That is a better point than perhaps you realize, WWWTT. If the "eco-warriors" were successful, they would drastically cut supply today! However, alternatives are NOT going to be available by the next weekend!

Like it or not, we are dependent right now on adequate supplies of oil not just for transportation but for all those other things, like plastics and most important, fertilizer! Plastics are not just bags that choke sea turtles. They are also used in medical applications, like hip and knee replacements. Fertilizers of course, help feed us!

So if the green movement won the war tomorrow we would all starve!

One positive thing about the status quo today is that going green is a slow war. This gives time to adapt. The dirty sources slowly become more expensive, making green alternatives more profitable or at least, affordable.

Some politicians are blessedly ignorant of the situation, as witness McGuinty paying people up to 80 cents per kilowatt for wind and solar generation against traditional sources at 5-6 cents per kw. If Ontario were to go fully alternative tomorrow the lights would go out across the province. Not because the grid would fail but simply because only a few rich folks could afford it!

[NUMBERED]

Maybe you are right.

However this technology is many years away and Alberta is looking for practical solutions that can be applied in the near future.

WWWTT

The technology is 40 years old.