Report
Critiques
I welcome all constructive critiscm of my report.
Send any comments or questions you have to my email address: rayona@mit.edu
Thanks for your feedback so far, here are the comments that team e has
received pertaining to non-seismic exploration:
" I was wondering about the exploration. Why
couldn't we just look at one form of looking for stuff. It sounded
like if we used planes there would be very little to no harm to the environment.
I really don't like the sound of blowing up crap in the groud to find out
if there is stuff down there. How would this affect the perma frost
(this might be a ? for one of the other groups)? Also, could you tell
exactly how each process happens in terms that anyone could understand.
I have been looking at politics so I don't really know any of those terms."
" You discuss the range of measurement for Magnetic, but none before.
How far apart do the pipes/receptors need to be for the other methods?
This will determine which method is more environmentally friendly. For
the "vertical field balance" one: is the area shallow? How shallow
is shallow? Don't you need Seismic methods to figure this out? In
your conclusion you say we should use them all. Have you thought about
which ones will affect others, as in, if we put metal pipes in the ground
to measure one things, will that influence data we gather later from another
process? "
" Questions about non-seismic exploration
1. How can one measure the electric resistivity of reservoir rocks that
are buried deep underground?
2. Do you have any prediction on when the earth's field NMR can be applied
to hydrocarbon exploration and how much it will cost?
3. According to your explanation, those exploration methods do not seem
to cause any environmentally harmful effect themselves. However, accompanying
facilities and staff can be a cause of pollution and ecological disturbance.
In addition, how much does each of those methods cost?"
" it is totally unfeasible to use every seismic
and non-seismic exploration technique. one/two/three have to be better
than the others. pick those three and then combine your section to be
exploration techniques and you can discuss the ones you choose therein.
mostly what i am suggesting is a definite conclusion, from you two -- the
people who know it best, about which exploration method(s) is the best. "
"Seismic exploration would affect whales (deafen
them) as you well know. On the other hand, magnetic exploration would potentially
affect bird's migratory pattern too. It is still under experimentation, but
it's increasingly believed that a lot of birds use a kind of ferro-protein
in their brains as a sensor to sense the Earth's magnetic field, and disrupting
the magnetic field around could confuse them really much. I don't know the
level of usage of magnetic exploration in your proposal in detail, so it's
worth thinking whether the extent to which it is being used, at a ground level
possibly, would cause confusion in their migration path."
" Electrical: how deep do they have to
go? how do you place the probes in the ground? does it have any effects on
the environment (animals getting shocks and running away, vegetation burning)?
how accurate is it?
NMR: how do you perturb the magnetic field? how accurate is it for reservoirs
that are deep down?
Electrical vs. Seismic: this should go after electric. Why is electrical
more accurate for liquids and seismic for gases?
Proton-precession: "fluid such as gasoline"... say liquid hydrocarbons, there
is no gasoline underground. do you have to drill to do it (how deep)?
Schmidt: how big is the footprint? do you drill for something? how accurate
is it?
Gravitational: do you leave a footprint?
Conclusion: look for pros and cons of each method, state them, and evaluate
(cost-benefit analysis). Decide on something specific and say why in your
conclusion. Don't just use citations, and don't rely on the
Encyclopedia Britannica as a source. It is not considered a good source for
work in college except for background reading."
Last Updated: November 10, 2003