The Orinoco Oil Belt is now reckoned to contain 513 billion “technically recoverable” barrels of oil, or more than double the previous estimate of 235 barrels. Although this has been compared with and is said to dwarf the 264 billion barrels under Saudi Arabia, like is not quite being compared with like. The Venezuelan oil is “heavy oil”, which is a highly viscous bitumen rather than the light oil from Saudi which is highly prized since it is much easier to refine into fuel, especially petrol for spark-ignition engines. Converting the Orinoco “oil” into fuel will need a swathe of new engineering investment to build and develop refineries in order to derive fuel from it.
Nonetheless the Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and his government have drawn-up plans to bring foreign investors including companies from China and India into the region, even though contract disputes reign with previous partners, based in the United States. The heavy oil is present in the form of oil-sands, similar to the tar-sands in Canada’s Athabasca region, and is highly intensive in terms of energy to provide heat to extract the bitumen and water too. Nonetheless Orinoco is the largest oil accumulation ever to be assessed by the United States Geological Survey, and the amount of recoverable oil is derived from estimates that 40 - 45% of it may be recovered, although there is some scepticism about this and one Venezuelan geologist, Gustavo Coronel, has put this down to 25%, noting that even then much of it would be too expensive to produce.
The latter does however depend on the prevailing price of a barrel of oil, which is now around $80 and rising. Sources of oil from Mexico (e.g. Cantarell) are in decline and American home-production of oil is falling even in the face of falling demand for it as driving-habits change. The Canadian tar sands are looking increasingly ripe, as supplies of conventional oil from the Middle East look to become more expensive and it is in no way certain that President Chavez will sell his oil to the U.S. anyway. In short, light crude oil will become an increasingly precious and scarce commodity, and heavy oil will be extracted instead.
As to the likely outcome of this, even if sufficient quantities can be recovered it is to the EROEI (Energy Returned On Energy Invested) that we should look to determine the viability of sources of “oil”. Middle East oil has various estimates of EROEI ranging from about 30 down to 8 (i.e. for each barrel of oil worth of energy, 30 to 8 barrels of oil may be recovered), while “oil” from tar sands is costed at anywhere from 3 down to 1.5. Clearly, whatever amount of hydrocarbon liquid fuels may be produced in the future, cheap, easily refined oil must soon peak, and along with it our global transportation network. It is the relocalization of civilization whose silhouette appears on the future horizon.
Related Reading.
“Venezuela oil ‘may double Saudis’.” http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8476395.stm
“Oil Estimates in Venezuela Doubled,” Jan Mouawad. http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/oil-estimates-in-venezuela-doubled/
“Why the U.S. needs all the tar sands oil it can get,” By Jeff Rubin. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/jeff-rubins-smaller-world/why-the-us-needs-all-the-tar-sands-oil-it-can-get/article1436274/
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Norway says "Yes" to Arctic Drilling.
According to a recent survey, the majority of Norwegians are in favour of an exploration study in a region of pristine Arctic wilderness, and which moreover is home to the largest spawning ground for cod in the world. Norway is not quite in the same straits as Britain in terms of the depletion of its North Sea fields, and yet its mature holdings of oil and gas are in decline. If Norway is to maintain its position as a major exporter of hydrocarbons, it needs to strike new resources and the oil industry believes that the waters near the Lofoten and Vesteraalen islands in the Arctic must be drilled down through to offset the decline in its existing fields.
Environmental groups fear that any spillage of oil would cause ecological mayhem. Indeed, the region has a complex ecology, with cold water reefs, pods of whales, some of Europe's largest seabird colonies and the spawning grounds of the world's largest population of cod. It is not expected that the government will decide firmly until 2013 whether to open up the area or not, but if some estimates of the timing and impact of peak oil are correct, the emphasis will have shifted acute by then, and all areas where oil is believed to lie will be up for grabs.
85% of Norwegians are of the view that the oil and gas industry will be highly significant to the economy of northern Norway, which also has appreciable fishing and tourism industries. Norwegian friends of mine applaud the oil industry for providing enormous wealth to the country and a very good standard of living for its citizens. Norway is seen by some as an ideal target for immigration, in view of its generous welfare system, although it is probably not as lenient as ours in Britain which we can no longer afford to prop-up on loans from the EU and elsewhere.
Norway invests much of the revenues from its oil and gas profits in an offshore wealth fund, although along with most other investments this was hit hard by the financial crash at the end of 2008. Nonetheless it still stands at $450 billion. It is through this pot of cash that Norway intends to provide pensions and other state benefits, and so maintaining its oil and gas income is crucial to the social welfare of the country.
Norway produced 3.5 million barrels of oil a day about ten years ago, and output has fallen to around 2 million bpd now. Britain produced around 3 million bpd at the end of the 1970s and early 1980s and now that has fallen to 1 million bpd and is declining fast. I heard the other day that there are deposits of oil off the Falkland islands around 60 billion barrels worth which presumably Britain will be entitled to some share of. At the time of the Falkand war in 1982, I recall there was some talk of "mineral rights" including oil and maybe that's why Britain really went to so much effort to defend a couple of small islands against Argentine invasion.
It is clear enough that environmental concerns will not prove sufficiently robust defences against a need to compensate for a dearth of oil production from established fields and we can expect drilling to occur in many currently sacrosanct regions of the world, maybe including the region of Lake Baikal and even Antarctica. The writing is on the wall, nonetheless for a world that gets 40% of its entire energy from oil.
Related Reading.
"Most Norwegians want Arctic drilling study: survey." By Wojclech Moskwa. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60D2E520100114?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reuters%2Fenvironment+%28News+%2F+US+%2F+Environment%29
Environmental groups fear that any spillage of oil would cause ecological mayhem. Indeed, the region has a complex ecology, with cold water reefs, pods of whales, some of Europe's largest seabird colonies and the spawning grounds of the world's largest population of cod. It is not expected that the government will decide firmly until 2013 whether to open up the area or not, but if some estimates of the timing and impact of peak oil are correct, the emphasis will have shifted acute by then, and all areas where oil is believed to lie will be up for grabs.
85% of Norwegians are of the view that the oil and gas industry will be highly significant to the economy of northern Norway, which also has appreciable fishing and tourism industries. Norwegian friends of mine applaud the oil industry for providing enormous wealth to the country and a very good standard of living for its citizens. Norway is seen by some as an ideal target for immigration, in view of its generous welfare system, although it is probably not as lenient as ours in Britain which we can no longer afford to prop-up on loans from the EU and elsewhere.
Norway invests much of the revenues from its oil and gas profits in an offshore wealth fund, although along with most other investments this was hit hard by the financial crash at the end of 2008. Nonetheless it still stands at $450 billion. It is through this pot of cash that Norway intends to provide pensions and other state benefits, and so maintaining its oil and gas income is crucial to the social welfare of the country.
Norway produced 3.5 million barrels of oil a day about ten years ago, and output has fallen to around 2 million bpd now. Britain produced around 3 million bpd at the end of the 1970s and early 1980s and now that has fallen to 1 million bpd and is declining fast. I heard the other day that there are deposits of oil off the Falkland islands around 60 billion barrels worth which presumably Britain will be entitled to some share of. At the time of the Falkand war in 1982, I recall there was some talk of "mineral rights" including oil and maybe that's why Britain really went to so much effort to defend a couple of small islands against Argentine invasion.
It is clear enough that environmental concerns will not prove sufficiently robust defences against a need to compensate for a dearth of oil production from established fields and we can expect drilling to occur in many currently sacrosanct regions of the world, maybe including the region of Lake Baikal and even Antarctica. The writing is on the wall, nonetheless for a world that gets 40% of its entire energy from oil.
Related Reading.
"Most Norwegians want Arctic drilling study: survey." By Wojclech Moskwa. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60D2E520100114?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reuters%2Fenvironment+%28News+%2F+US+%2F+Environment%29
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Snow and Gas Supplies.
Gordon Brown has said that there is no reason to fear that Britain will run short of gas during this uncharacteristically severe spell of cold and snow, which has been impinging upon us since before Christmas. Apparently we have six days worth of gas in hand compared to the French reserve of 120 days. Now the two countries get their gas from different sources, and Britain can no longer rely on the output of the North Sea fields, which are in steep decline, but needs to import more from its co-owner of that geological bestowal, Norway. Part of the recent concern over gas-provision was indeed due to some technical troubles in the supply of gas from Norway. France, along with other countries in mainland Europe obtains much of its gas from Russia, but it surprises me that there is so much gas stored in reserve.
This may derive in part from the fact that France makes 80% of its electricity from nuclear power while Britain makes 40% of its power from natural gas, and so the demand for gas is less. In Britain, around 100 companies are on interruptable gas contracts, meaning that they pay less for their gas but in times of crisis, like now, they must defer their demand on the national grid so that there are sufficient gas supplies to keep homes warm.
Being an island, once lauded as being Britain's source of protection, inter alia from French invasion, e.g Trafalgar, and a secure vantage point for the reverse, when Britain attacked France, e.g. Agincourt, Crecy and Waterloo, now appears rather vulnerable since we rely relentlessly on imports of fuel and food, and presently salt to grit the roads, since our own mines in Cheshire are unable to keep pace with demand, even suspending normal exports of it to Germany. Some of the imported salt comes from as far away as Egypt, and reserves are falling so low that local authorities are having to ration its use, e.g. by only gritting main roads, leaving the minor B-roads treacherous. There is a babble of complaint about this, but frankly what else can they do. When they do grit and snow falls, the effect is blanketed; and when the temperature falls below about minus 8 degrees C, the salt no longer melts the ice, for good and well understood reasons of thermodynamics.
We have been reminded of late too, irrespective of the prevailing weather conditions, that we will need to produce more of our own food over the next 20 years, as part of the blanket excuse of global warming. Well maybe, but the most immediate reason is to use less fossil fuel, particularly oil which I note is around $83 a barrel once more. Britain imports around a third of its food and this just isn't going to be feasible within 20 years and probably far less that that. "Peak Oil", is a term muttered out of the corner of someone's mouth but Global Warming is the main rallying cry. It matters not in the most pressing term since the same actions of burning less carbon both mitigate and buy time to re-adapt society from the global to the local, and maybe avert some of the worst cataclysms of GW, although some mathematical models predict that it is already too late to stop the planet from heating into the foreseeable future.
When we do suffer from such sputterings in the normally well-greased engine of modern life, I am reminded of the inevitability of change. That within a decade or two, we must completely change the way we live, powering-down to a society that doesn't need to use so much energy and move both goods and people around in the extent of the status quo. The transition will not be easy and maybe to quote Chinua Achebe in the title of his novel, "Things Fall Apart".
Meanwhile, Happy New Year!
This may derive in part from the fact that France makes 80% of its electricity from nuclear power while Britain makes 40% of its power from natural gas, and so the demand for gas is less. In Britain, around 100 companies are on interruptable gas contracts, meaning that they pay less for their gas but in times of crisis, like now, they must defer their demand on the national grid so that there are sufficient gas supplies to keep homes warm.
Being an island, once lauded as being Britain's source of protection, inter alia from French invasion, e.g Trafalgar, and a secure vantage point for the reverse, when Britain attacked France, e.g. Agincourt, Crecy and Waterloo, now appears rather vulnerable since we rely relentlessly on imports of fuel and food, and presently salt to grit the roads, since our own mines in Cheshire are unable to keep pace with demand, even suspending normal exports of it to Germany. Some of the imported salt comes from as far away as Egypt, and reserves are falling so low that local authorities are having to ration its use, e.g. by only gritting main roads, leaving the minor B-roads treacherous. There is a babble of complaint about this, but frankly what else can they do. When they do grit and snow falls, the effect is blanketed; and when the temperature falls below about minus 8 degrees C, the salt no longer melts the ice, for good and well understood reasons of thermodynamics.
We have been reminded of late too, irrespective of the prevailing weather conditions, that we will need to produce more of our own food over the next 20 years, as part of the blanket excuse of global warming. Well maybe, but the most immediate reason is to use less fossil fuel, particularly oil which I note is around $83 a barrel once more. Britain imports around a third of its food and this just isn't going to be feasible within 20 years and probably far less that that. "Peak Oil", is a term muttered out of the corner of someone's mouth but Global Warming is the main rallying cry. It matters not in the most pressing term since the same actions of burning less carbon both mitigate and buy time to re-adapt society from the global to the local, and maybe avert some of the worst cataclysms of GW, although some mathematical models predict that it is already too late to stop the planet from heating into the foreseeable future.
When we do suffer from such sputterings in the normally well-greased engine of modern life, I am reminded of the inevitability of change. That within a decade or two, we must completely change the way we live, powering-down to a society that doesn't need to use so much energy and move both goods and people around in the extent of the status quo. The transition will not be easy and maybe to quote Chinua Achebe in the title of his novel, "Things Fall Apart".
Meanwhile, Happy New Year!
Wednesday, December 09, 2009
"Chemistry, Energy and Climate Change, " Lecture by Dr Richard Pike, CEO of the Royal Society of Chemistry.
I attended a lecture by Dr Richard Pike, who is the CEO of the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) yesterday evening in London, entitled: "Chemistry, Energy and Climate Change." I have previously applauded Dr Pike's pro-active stance on the importance of chemistry as a means to comprehend and address the challenges facing humanity, especially in terms of future energy provision and tackling pollution/climate change etc. He is also a very good speaker and presented a convincing case that there may be possibilities, in which chemical training will underpin the future.
The following is a summary dissected from my rapid scribblings during the lecture, and which in fact reinforces many of the ideas and conclusions that I have aired and espoused in my postings here, in my monthly column on scitizen.com and in various invited lectures:
In a nutshell there is no single solution, but "the" solution is to be sought as a mixture of many individual strategies. He has stated before that he doesn't think peak oil is an immediate problem and that with the implementation of unconventional sources of oil (he mentioned tar sands specifically) world oil production could rise to 130 million barrels per day, from 84 million bpd now. He referred also to gas-to-liquids processes and biofuels, but the latter with the caveat that using arable land to grow crops to meet the European Union target of 5.75% of our fuel coming from biofuel would require turning over 19% of the entire European Union nations' crop land to the purpose which clearly isn't going to happen. I have shown sums on this blog that demonstrate the absurdity of this policy which was probably dreamed-up by some Brussels bureaucrat rather than someone who can comprehend hard numbers. Pike emphasised the importance of using hard numbers, and in this thread we agree wholeheartedly.
In Pike's view, we should not look for our salvation in terms of resource limitation, i.e. that dwindling supplies of fossil fuels, especially oil, will result in a reduction in carbon emissions by default, but to address climate change as a strategy. I tend to disagree here, since the volume of world markets for oil depends on the rate of flow of oil from the ground (or unconventional oil from e.g. tar sands or gas-to-liquids, coal-to-liquids), rather than how much of a reserve there is, and simply oil will become harder to get and more expensive, and the EROEI will fall in reflection of this pushing up the energy costs to win it and thus the price of oil. Massive swathes of new engineering would be needed too to produce sufficient quantities of unconventional oil, and a number of such projects (and conventional extraction projects too) have been shelved during the recession.
That said, the action of using less oil (and other fossil fuels) certainly both reduces the rate at which we get through what is left and pumps less carbon into the atmosphere, thus mitigating climate change (on the human carbon to global warming to climate change, chain of events argument). There is an awful lot of speculation about this at the moment which has been rekindled by the recent claims that at the University of East Anglia data had been "doctored". I don't know what the latest is on this but I note that the Met Office is set to check its temperature records over the last 160 years for the veracity of global warming.
On British TV, currently is an advert that encourages us to drive 5 miles less per week. Now, does this really make a difference? Assuming an average 10,000 miles are driven per year, this actually amounts to 0.3% of carbon emissions saved. So, the answer is no, but it does at least engage the public with the issue and make them feel they are doing something to fix the problem, rather as railings were cut down and saucepans collected during World War II to be taken away for the "war effort". In truth it made little difference but it did forge a cohesion within society, during an otherwise potentially anarchic period.
Dr Pike touched on the issue of centralised and decentralised energy several times. Readers of this blog will note that my own conclusion is that the relocalisation of society is necessary is order to curb our reliance on transportation/oil, and that provision of heat and power at the local level must form part of the bedrock for such sustainable small communities as civilization must devolve to in order to reduce its energy demands. A mix of PV, geothermal etc. is likely to be implemented in a diverse, localised approach. Transportation is a particular problem since practically all of it relies on oil and there is no simple substitution from oil to other energy sources to keep it going on its present lavish scale.
Carbon capture and storage would entail huge new engineering on a scale to make any difference, if we do go down that route, since 100 million tonnes per DAY of CO2 would need to be so sequestered. There are essentially two methods to remove carbon from fuel: post-combustion and pre-combustion. Post-combustion, CO2 is removed from flue gas by passing it through a liquid amine which dissolves the CO2. Pre-combustion, the fuel (coal, gas, biomass) is processed into a mixture of CO2 + H2 and the CO2 is removed. Thus the actual fuel in hydrogen gas. It is worth noting that old-fashioned coal-gas contained around 51% H2 (along with CO, methane and other minor components). Either way, the CO2 must be put somewhere, for which strategies include pumping it into rocky formations (such as depleted oil and gas wells) at a pressure of 100 atmospheres, or even piping it in liquid form under pressure onto the sea-floor where it is cold enough and the pressure high enough that it is hoped the material will stay there, assisted by the formation of CO2-hydrate.
There is a problem of how to store electricity generated from renewable sources, e.g. solar, as in PV or concentrating power systems (CPS). If these solar methods of electricity generation were implemented and used to make H2, it would involve massive new infrastructure. That said, they are far more efficient (PV at 15% but 40% for triple-junction cells and CSP at above 20%) than generating biofuels (<1%), as worked out on the basis that the working amount of solar energy hitting the earth as an average across its surface amounts to 174 W/m^2. However, for solar/H2 the capital and infrastructural initial investment is massive whereas biofuels can be used with the existing liquid fuel distribution and combustion networks. The latter are unsustainable though, and so we need rather than to try and supplement existing means, to develop a completely new infrastructure/society. Huge challenges to the way we live.
Changes in land-use (clearing etc.) in order to grow crops for biofuels releases CO2. Thus it might be decades before any CO2 is saved overall! Synthetic photosynthesis could be used to fix CO2 and convert it into fuels, mainly alcohols. A massive reforestation programme would also help take carbon from the atmosphere. Genetic modification (GM) of plankton to more efficiently remove CO2 has been proposed as a strategy to cut carbon levels. Pike noted that the long term CCS strategy was something akin to the problem of looking after nuclear waste, over similarly long timescale of maybe millions of years.
Finally the point was made regarding skills. That training in science (numbers!) was needed starting at primary school, through to undergraduate and postgraduate studies in universities and employment of these graduates in industry. There are many business opportunities in all of the above, which should be seen less as a problem but a challenge. Saving energy is critical.
I hope I have done Dr Pike justice here, who sounds like a man after my own heart, even if he is an engineer rather than a chemist!
The following is a summary dissected from my rapid scribblings during the lecture, and which in fact reinforces many of the ideas and conclusions that I have aired and espoused in my postings here, in my monthly column on scitizen.com and in various invited lectures:
In a nutshell there is no single solution, but "the" solution is to be sought as a mixture of many individual strategies. He has stated before that he doesn't think peak oil is an immediate problem and that with the implementation of unconventional sources of oil (he mentioned tar sands specifically) world oil production could rise to 130 million barrels per day, from 84 million bpd now. He referred also to gas-to-liquids processes and biofuels, but the latter with the caveat that using arable land to grow crops to meet the European Union target of 5.75% of our fuel coming from biofuel would require turning over 19% of the entire European Union nations' crop land to the purpose which clearly isn't going to happen. I have shown sums on this blog that demonstrate the absurdity of this policy which was probably dreamed-up by some Brussels bureaucrat rather than someone who can comprehend hard numbers. Pike emphasised the importance of using hard numbers, and in this thread we agree wholeheartedly.
In Pike's view, we should not look for our salvation in terms of resource limitation, i.e. that dwindling supplies of fossil fuels, especially oil, will result in a reduction in carbon emissions by default, but to address climate change as a strategy. I tend to disagree here, since the volume of world markets for oil depends on the rate of flow of oil from the ground (or unconventional oil from e.g. tar sands or gas-to-liquids, coal-to-liquids), rather than how much of a reserve there is, and simply oil will become harder to get and more expensive, and the EROEI will fall in reflection of this pushing up the energy costs to win it and thus the price of oil. Massive swathes of new engineering would be needed too to produce sufficient quantities of unconventional oil, and a number of such projects (and conventional extraction projects too) have been shelved during the recession.
That said, the action of using less oil (and other fossil fuels) certainly both reduces the rate at which we get through what is left and pumps less carbon into the atmosphere, thus mitigating climate change (on the human carbon to global warming to climate change, chain of events argument). There is an awful lot of speculation about this at the moment which has been rekindled by the recent claims that at the University of East Anglia data had been "doctored". I don't know what the latest is on this but I note that the Met Office is set to check its temperature records over the last 160 years for the veracity of global warming.
On British TV, currently is an advert that encourages us to drive 5 miles less per week. Now, does this really make a difference? Assuming an average 10,000 miles are driven per year, this actually amounts to 0.3% of carbon emissions saved. So, the answer is no, but it does at least engage the public with the issue and make them feel they are doing something to fix the problem, rather as railings were cut down and saucepans collected during World War II to be taken away for the "war effort". In truth it made little difference but it did forge a cohesion within society, during an otherwise potentially anarchic period.
Dr Pike touched on the issue of centralised and decentralised energy several times. Readers of this blog will note that my own conclusion is that the relocalisation of society is necessary is order to curb our reliance on transportation/oil, and that provision of heat and power at the local level must form part of the bedrock for such sustainable small communities as civilization must devolve to in order to reduce its energy demands. A mix of PV, geothermal etc. is likely to be implemented in a diverse, localised approach. Transportation is a particular problem since practically all of it relies on oil and there is no simple substitution from oil to other energy sources to keep it going on its present lavish scale.
Carbon capture and storage would entail huge new engineering on a scale to make any difference, if we do go down that route, since 100 million tonnes per DAY of CO2 would need to be so sequestered. There are essentially two methods to remove carbon from fuel: post-combustion and pre-combustion. Post-combustion, CO2 is removed from flue gas by passing it through a liquid amine which dissolves the CO2. Pre-combustion, the fuel (coal, gas, biomass) is processed into a mixture of CO2 + H2 and the CO2 is removed. Thus the actual fuel in hydrogen gas. It is worth noting that old-fashioned coal-gas contained around 51% H2 (along with CO, methane and other minor components). Either way, the CO2 must be put somewhere, for which strategies include pumping it into rocky formations (such as depleted oil and gas wells) at a pressure of 100 atmospheres, or even piping it in liquid form under pressure onto the sea-floor where it is cold enough and the pressure high enough that it is hoped the material will stay there, assisted by the formation of CO2-hydrate.
There is a problem of how to store electricity generated from renewable sources, e.g. solar, as in PV or concentrating power systems (CPS). If these solar methods of electricity generation were implemented and used to make H2, it would involve massive new infrastructure. That said, they are far more efficient (PV at 15% but 40% for triple-junction cells and CSP at above 20%) than generating biofuels (<1%), as worked out on the basis that the working amount of solar energy hitting the earth as an average across its surface amounts to 174 W/m^2. However, for solar/H2 the capital and infrastructural initial investment is massive whereas biofuels can be used with the existing liquid fuel distribution and combustion networks. The latter are unsustainable though, and so we need rather than to try and supplement existing means, to develop a completely new infrastructure/society. Huge challenges to the way we live.
Changes in land-use (clearing etc.) in order to grow crops for biofuels releases CO2. Thus it might be decades before any CO2 is saved overall! Synthetic photosynthesis could be used to fix CO2 and convert it into fuels, mainly alcohols. A massive reforestation programme would also help take carbon from the atmosphere. Genetic modification (GM) of plankton to more efficiently remove CO2 has been proposed as a strategy to cut carbon levels. Pike noted that the long term CCS strategy was something akin to the problem of looking after nuclear waste, over similarly long timescale of maybe millions of years.
Finally the point was made regarding skills. That training in science (numbers!) was needed starting at primary school, through to undergraduate and postgraduate studies in universities and employment of these graduates in industry. There are many business opportunities in all of the above, which should be seen less as a problem but a challenge. Saving energy is critical.
I hope I have done Dr Pike justice here, who sounds like a man after my own heart, even if he is an engineer rather than a chemist!
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
"Coltan" - African Niobium and Tantalum Ore.
I first heard the word "coltan" on a recent television documentary about the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in Africa. Coltan is a black, metallic ore which is a source of "Columbium" (now called Niobium) and Tantalum, hence the name. Since tantalum is used to make high-performance capacitors as find application in mobile-phones, DVD players, video game players (playstations), laptop computers, electronic cameras, pacemakers, hearing-aids, airbags, GPS, ignition-systems and anti-lock braking systems in cars, it accordingly underpins a highly lucrative electronics industry. The thread of the TV documentary was that the extraction and sale of coltan onto Western markets provides funding for the war that is going on in the Congo, during which 5.4 million people have been killed in the past decade.
The Rwandan occupation of Eastern Congo was a principal reason that the Congo was prevented from exploiting its own bequest of coltan, much of which is mined illegally and smuggled across borders into Uganda, Burundi and Rwanda. It is reputed that prisoners-of-war and children are forced to work in the coltan mines. In consequence of the problem of telling legitimate and bootleg mining operations apart, a number of electronics manufacturers have boycotted Africa entirely as a source of coltan, not wishing to aid any funding of the occupation of the Congo by militia groups.
Congo actually produces under 1% of the world's tantalum, which is also mined in Brazil, Australia, Canada, China, Ethiopia and Mozamboque. The metal is also a by-product of tin-production in Malaysia and Thailand. In view of its profitable nature, there are potential future production projects in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Greenland, China, Mozambique, Canada, Australia, the United States, Finland, Afghanistan and Brazil. I doubt the war in Afghanistan is entirely in the service of obtaining tantalum, but I do wonder what resources may lie there, as wars are always about resources (and power) in one form or another.
That there are deposits of tantalum in Greenland makes an interesting follow-up to my last article to the effect that the melting Greenland ice may expose and render viable the extraction of rare-earth metals and one begins to wonder what resources may become available, of materials and energy, as climate change re-sculpts the land and water-scape of the Earth.
Related Reading.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coltan
The Rwandan occupation of Eastern Congo was a principal reason that the Congo was prevented from exploiting its own bequest of coltan, much of which is mined illegally and smuggled across borders into Uganda, Burundi and Rwanda. It is reputed that prisoners-of-war and children are forced to work in the coltan mines. In consequence of the problem of telling legitimate and bootleg mining operations apart, a number of electronics manufacturers have boycotted Africa entirely as a source of coltan, not wishing to aid any funding of the occupation of the Congo by militia groups.
Congo actually produces under 1% of the world's tantalum, which is also mined in Brazil, Australia, Canada, China, Ethiopia and Mozamboque. The metal is also a by-product of tin-production in Malaysia and Thailand. In view of its profitable nature, there are potential future production projects in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Greenland, China, Mozambique, Canada, Australia, the United States, Finland, Afghanistan and Brazil. I doubt the war in Afghanistan is entirely in the service of obtaining tantalum, but I do wonder what resources may lie there, as wars are always about resources (and power) in one form or another.
That there are deposits of tantalum in Greenland makes an interesting follow-up to my last article to the effect that the melting Greenland ice may expose and render viable the extraction of rare-earth metals and one begins to wonder what resources may become available, of materials and energy, as climate change re-sculpts the land and water-scape of the Earth.
Related Reading.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coltan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)