Jump to content

Maximizing polluted water production from oil. Petrol vs natral gas


Recommended Posts

Assuming you use a slicksters to reuse CO2 and burn the crude oil in to petroleum, the math is as follows:

Petroleum (burning):

For each kg of petroleum, the petroleum generator creates 375 g water and 250 g CO2.   The CO2 is converted to 125 g petroleum, and it loops.  This geometric series results in 1 kg petroleum going in being consumed (resulting in 1.143 kg being burned) for 428.6 g of water.

This amount is approximately half if you use the oil refinery.

Natural Gas:

For each kg of petroleum, we get 670 g of natural gas.  This is converted to  502.5 g of water and 167.5 g of CO2.  The CO2 is converted to 83.75 g crude oil/petroleum, resulting in 56.1125 g natural gas.  This results in a geometric series where r = 1/8*0.67 and a = 0.67.  This results in 1 kg petroleum converting and recycling to burn a total of 0.7312 kg natural gas, resulting in 548 g water. 

If you are using oil wells for your oil source, then you are consuming 1000 g/s water to produce 3333.33 g/s crude oil. 

  1. If you go the petroleum route, you produce 1428.62 g/s water, but 1000 g/s is used for the oil well, so you gain ~428.62 g/s water. 
  2. With natural gas, you produce 1.828 g/s water.  Of that, 1000 is used by the oil well, so you gain ~828 g/s water. 

If you use the refinery, then you lose water on the oil well.

You can also get sulfur if you go the natural gas route.  Sulfur is useless currently, except that you can melt it down and vent heat in to space.

EDIT:  There has been discussion about dirt below.  That is also a valid desired resource, though it was not requested by the OP.  But I should probably cover it anyway:

Petroleum without slicksters:  You get 375 g polluted water and 250 g of CO2 from each kg petroleum.  Using the carbon skimmer, you get an additional 833.3 g of polluted water (by spending 833.3 g of water).  This results on a total of 1208.3 g polluted water.  Using the water sieve, you gain ~48.33 g polluted dirt, which can translate 1:1 in to dirt.  That results 161.1 g/s dirt from an oil well, as well as 1250 g/s water, resulting in a net profit of 250 g/s water.

Petroleum with slicksters:  You get 500 g/s polluted water per kg, resulting in 20 g of dirt from 1 kg petroleum.  From an oil well, you would get 57.14 g/s dirt and gain 1428.62 g/s water, resulting in a profit of 667 g/s water.

Natural Gas without slicksters:  From your 0.67 kg natural gas, you get 502.5 g water and 167.5 g CO2.  The CO2 can add ~558 g polluted water (by consuming clean water), resulting in a total of ~1061 g polluted water, or 42.4 g dirt.  From an oil well, that means 141.4 g/s dirt and 1675 g/s water, or a profit of 675 g/s water.

Natural Gas with slicksters:  The 548 g of polluted water acquired from the 1 kg petroleum (through boiling) results in 23.4 g dirt.   The single oil well would produce 80.5 g/s dirt, along with the 2013 g/s water, 1013 g/s water being the profit.

EDIT:  I messed up the geometric series and I fixed it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Grimgaw said:

If pH2O was the aim without care for clean water source, would using slicksters produce more than running all that CO2 through skimmer?

skimmers don't produce, they convert 

the water to PW ratio is 1:1

If the objective is Pdirt then skimmers would work if looped with a sieve, but the OP didn't ask for dirt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Neotuck said:

skimmers don't produce, they convert

Oil wells, slicksters don't produce, they convert. See what I did there?

50 minutes ago, Neotuck said:

the water to PW ratio is 1:1

CO2 has to come from somewhere though.

50 minutes ago, Neotuck said:

If the objective is Pdirt then skimmers would work if looped with a sieve, but the OP didn't ask for dirt

I didn't ask for Pdirt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the point being, if you want more water the better move is to convert your CO2 back into petroleum, which you'll burn again and gain more water+CO2.

 

skimming isn't water positive, CO2->molten slicksters->petroleum is.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You also need less dirt if you are feeding slickters.  If you feed slicksters, you get extra meat and eggs.  The dirt or the water could be more valuable, depending on your situation.  But these schemes get you plenty of dirt anyway, as all the water starts polluted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Neotuck said:

Because he's trying to start an argument over nothing

When i read whole posts and nothing is edited so far, then you brought in "dirt" and he did not ask for it, after that you said he missed whole topic and now you say he is starting "argument over nothing".
Not my beer, but from a neutral point of view..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Oozinator said:

When i read whole posts and nothing is edited so far, then you brought in "dirt" and he did not ask for it, after that you said he missed whole topic and now you say he is starting "argument over nothing".
Not my beer, but from a neutral point of view..

Well at least you got my point, yes I'm the one who brought "dirt" to the topic saying that it's the ideal outcome of using skimmers not "polluted water" due to the fact you lose as much water as you put in.

However he miss quoted me as if I was accusing him of bringing "dirt" to the topic. I didn't do that and I find it annoying he keeps trying to prove a point that doesn't exist.

However I agree this could turn toxic so I'll drop the issue here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Please be aware that the content of this thread may be outdated and no longer applicable.

×
×
  • Create New...