1.818J/2.65J/3.564J/10.391J/11.371J/22.

811J/ESD166J

SUSTAINABLE ENERGY

Prof. Michael W. Golay

Nuclear Engineering Dept.

1
RESOURCE EVALUATION AND

DEPLETION ANALYSES

2
WAYS OF ESTIMATING ENERGY

RESOURCES

• Monte Carlo

• “Hubbert” Method Extrapolation

• Expert Opinion (Delphi)

3
FACTORS AFECTING RESOURCE

RECOVERY

• Nature of Deposit
• Fuel Price
• Technological Innovation
– Deep drilling
– Sideways drilling
– Oil and gas field pressurization
– Hydrofracturing
– Large scale mechanization

4
URANIUM AREAS OF THE U.S.
Courtesy of U.S. Atomic Energy Commission.

5
 MAJOR SOURCES OF URANIUM

Class 1 – Sandstone Deposits

U3O8 Concentration
Share (Percent) Tons U3O8
New Mexico .49 0.25 Total

Wyoming .36 0.20 315,000

Utah .03 0.32 Š $10/lb

Colorado .03 0.28

Texas .06 0.28
Other .03 0.28
Class 2 – Vein Deposits 7,100
Class 3 – Lignite Deposits 0.01-0.05 1,200
Class 4 – Phosphate Rock 0.015
Class 5 – Phosphate Rock Leached 0.010 54,600
Zone (Fla.)
Class 6 – Chattanooga Shale 0.006 2,557,300
Class 7 – Copper Leach Solution 0.0012 30,000
Operations
Class 8 – Conway Granite 0.0012-Uranium 1x106
0.0050-Thorium 4x106
Class 9 – Sea Water 0.33x10-6 4x109 6
 ESTIMATES OF URANIUM AVAILABILITY FROM

GEOLOGICAL FORMATIONS AND OCEANS IN THE U.S.

4000

1800
Millions of Tons U3O8

200

S 30
2
S 10 Figure by
# MIT OCW.
0
Conventional Shale Shale Granite Shale Granite Seawater
60-80 ppm 25-60 ppm 10-20 ppm 10-25 ppm 4-10 ppm 0.003 ppm
# 700-2100 ppm
DECLINE IN GRADE OF MINED

COPPER ORES SINCE 1925

Figure removed for copyright reasons.

8
RECOVERY BY IN-SITU COMBUSTION

9
 MONTE CARLO ESTIMATION

Yield from
Region Y
n
Y = ΣYj
j=1
(Eq. 1) Y

Yield from Yield from Yield from

Zone 1, y1 Zone 2, y3 Zone n, yn

y1 y2 yn
Probability density functions are obtained subjectively, using information
about deposit characteristics, fuel price, and technology used.
10
 MONTE CARLO SAMPLING

Area = 1
⇒
dyi
yimin yi yimax yimin yi yimax

Prob. (y i < Yi < y i + δy i ) = fYi (y i )dy i (Eq. 2) Prob. (Yi < yi ) = FYi (y i )
(Eq. 3)
yi
= ∫ fYi (y′i )dy′i
y i min

[
Consider Yi to be a random variable within y i min , y i max ]

11
MONTE CARLO SAMPLING, Continued

1. Utilize a random number generator to select a value of F(y i )

within range [0, 1] ⇒ corresponding value of yi (Eq. 3).
2. Repeat step 1 for all values of i and utilize selected values
[ ]
of Yi1 = y11 , y21 , L, y n1 to calculate a value of
Y1, (Eq. 1) (note Y is also a random variable).
3. Repeat step 2 many times and obtain a set of values of Y.
Their distribution will approximate that of the variable Y
as
fY(Y)
P(Yj )
or
fY(Y)
P(Yn)

Ymin Y Ymax
12
 KING HUBBERT ESTIMATION METHOD

CHARACTERISTICS OF MINERAL RESOURCE EXTRACTION

• As More Resource Is Extracted The Grade Of The Marginally

Most Attractive Resources Decreases, Causing
– Need for improved extraction technologies

– Search for alternative deposits, minerals

– Price increases (actually, rarely observed)
PHASES OF MINERAL RESOURCE EXTRACTION
• Early: Low Demand, Low Production Costs, Low Innovation

• Growing: Increasing Demand And Discovering Rate, Production

Growing With Demand, Start of Innovation
• Mature: Decreasing Demand And Discovery Rate, Production

Struggling To Meet Demand, Shift To Alternatives

• Late: Low Demand, Production Difficulties, Strong Shift To

Alternatives (rarely observed)
13
Graph removed for copyright reasons.
Natural Gas reserves, 1947-1980, from American Gas Association.

14
 U.S. NATURAL GAS PRODUCTION
Courtesy of U.S. DOE.

Comparison of estimated (Hubbert) production curve and actual production (solid line).15
 U.S. CRUDE OIL PRODUCTION
Courtesy of U.S. DOE.

Comparison of estimated (Hubbert) production curve and actual production (solid line).
16
COMPLETE CYCLE OF WORLD
CRUDE-OIL PRODUCTION

Figure by MIT OCW.

17
 RESOURCE BEHAVIOR UNDER

“HUBBERT” ASSUMPTIONS

Cumulative Ultimate Production

Discoveries, Cumulative
Q d (t) 2τ Production,
Q Q p (t)
Known Reserves,
Q r (t)
time, t
td to tp
•
2τ •
Qd (t) Q p (t)

Timing:
time, t
td to tp
td, to, tp are times of
•
Qr(t)
respective maxima of

Qd, Qr, Qp.

18
 EQUATIONS
Conservation of Resource:
Qd (t ) = Q r (t ) + Q p (t ) (Eq. 4)

Rate Conservation:
Ýd (t ) = Q
Q Ýr (t ) + Q
Ýp (t ) (Eq. 5)
Approximate Results:
t (Q
Ýd = 0)− t(Q Ýr = 0) = 2 τ (Eq. 6)
(
 t − t
τ ≈ o p
) (Eq. 7)
(t d − t o )
or
1
to ≈ td + tp
2
( ) (Eq. 8)

Q pultimate ≈ 2 Qd (t d ) (Eq. 9)
19
 EQUATIONS, Continued
Ýd (t ) and Q
If we assume Gaussian distributions for Qr (t ), Q Ýp (t),
with each having the same standard deviation, σ, obtain
Q ro  1  t − t 2
Qr (t ) = exp  −  o 
(Eq. 10)
2πσ  2  σ  
Qd o  1  t − t 2
Ýd (t ) =
Q exp  −  d 
  (Eq. 11)
2πσ  2 σ 
Q po  1  t − t 2
Ý  p 
Q p (t ) = exp −   (Eq. 12)
2πσ  2  σ  
Ýr = 0 , or
Then, when Qr is at a maximum t = to and Q
Qro 2 Q r (t o )
Qr (t o ) = 2 ⇒ σ =
Ý
Ý (Eq. 13)
σ Q r (t o )
ÝÝ
20
 EQUATIONS, Continued
Ýd is at a maximum, t = t , and
When Q d
Ýd (t d ) = 0 = Q
Ý
Q Ýr (t d ) + Q
Ýp (t d )
Ý 
2  Q po  −(3 2)(τ σ )
2
⇒ τ≈σ  e (Eq. 14)

 Q ro 

Example: US Petroleum Production

τ ≈ 6 years σ ≈ 12 years
Qro ≈ 35 billion bbl Ý ≈ 12 million bbl/day
Q po
t ultimate ≈ 150 years
production

21
 SUBJECTIVE PROBABILITY
STUDY – STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Courtesy of U.S. Atomic Energy Commission.

22
 NEW MEXICO SUBJECTIVE
PROBABILITY STUDY (AFTER DELPHI)

Courtesy of U.S. Atomic Energy Commission.

23