- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: WSJ Article: America’s Biggest Oil Field Is Turning Into a Pressure Cooker
Posted on 12/30/25 at 7:49 am to X123F45
Posted on 12/30/25 at 7:49 am to X123F45
quote:
X123F45
I think you’re missing the issue entirely. The cooling medium doesn’t matter. Whether they use a closed loop with chilled water, a closed loop with some sort of glycol coolant, or forced-air convection with chilled air for the actual heat transfer from the server racks doesn’t really affect their water usage.
The issue is how they ultimately eject the heat from the larger system. There are basically three options for this:
1. Air cooling by passing coolant through an exchanger where ambient air is blown over the coils outside.
2. Vapor-compression refrigeration (which still ultimately uses air cooling to remove heat from the refrigerant, but allows for much smaller air cooled exchangers because the refrigerant gives higher approach temperatures).
3. Evaporative cooling.
Evaporative cooling in cooling towers is simply the most economical option most of the time. The downside of evaporative cooling is that you lose coolant (water) to evaporation and have to make it up somehow, hence the high water usage.
1
Posted on 12/30/25 at 8:21 am to ragincajun03
quote:This isn't true at all. Have not seen a single viable carbon capture project in the Permian.
and has plans to become a hub for burying carbon dioxide captured at industrial plants and sucked out of the air.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 8:29 am to castorinho
quote:
This isn't true at all. Have not seen a single viable carbon capture project in the Permian.
While “viable” could be relative, due to tax credits being the main driver, outfits have purchased or leased pore space in the Permian for capture and sequestration. Occidental Petroleum has an air capture facility in Ector County that should be starting up some time soon, if it hasn’t already.
Economic viability TBD.
This post was edited on 12/30/25 at 8:34 am
Posted on 12/30/25 at 8:31 am to jnethe1
quote:there are closed loop solutions being worked on. But even just the initial amount of water needed is still massive, and replenishing the losses is still also massive for most of these municipalities.
So why not use a closed system?
Posted on 12/30/25 at 8:37 am to ragincajun03
I'm guessing that's really really small scale compared to what they're doing in Allen parish?
Posted on 12/30/25 at 8:42 am to castorinho
?? Beats me. Don’t know any specifics on what they may be doing in Allen, other than LA DNR shows they did file for a permit.
This article sites the Ector County air capture facility as being a $1.3 Billion project.
LINK
This article sites the Ector County air capture facility as being a $1.3 Billion project.
LINK
Posted on 12/30/25 at 8:55 am to AllDayEveryDay
quote:
Also, as much as it pains me to admit, when OK outlawed salt water injection their occurrence of earth quakes dropped dramatically. So there's a pretty good case for removing the option all together.
So there is a connect between quakes and injection/fracking?
I see arguments/discussions on this pop up for various locations like PA, NY and the West.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 9:25 am to TigersnJeeps
quote:
So there is a connect between quakes and injection/fracking?
Water injection for disposal, it appears so. You have both oil companies and regulators collecting data and monitoring in the Permian.
Fracking, nothing I’ve seen or heard discussed.
This post was edited on 12/30/25 at 9:26 am
Posted on 12/30/25 at 10:09 am to lostinbr
quote:
I think you’re missing the issue entirely
Nope.
quote:
Evaporative cooling in cooling towers is simply the most economical option
Nope. It's theft. Call a spade a spade.
Use a closed loop system... OR engineer it to tie into a resource not impacted by evaporative loss.
Ie: the 10th largest river system in the world.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 10:18 am to Violent Hip Swivel
quote:
M-Tex can't seem to catch a break lately. As if the 400 million dollar off-shore well wasn't a big enough headache, now America's biggest oil field is turning into a pressure cooker. It will take everything Billy Bob has to solve this one!
I’m thinking Cooper might be of some use now with his almost degree.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 10:28 am to ragincajun03
quote:
salty water, which they pump back into the ground
Wait until they hear about the oceans
And the seas
Posted on 12/30/25 at 10:38 am to TigersnJeeps
quote:
So there is a connect between quakes and injection/fracking?
Injection more than fracking. I lived in Oklahoma when this was going on. My boss didn't believe it. I said if he were to look at a map of earthquakes in the US and then the oilfield and injection activity in Oklahoma, he would believe me. Those were fun times. I learned you can hear an earthquake.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 10:58 am to RobbBobb
quote:
Wait until they hear about the oceans
And the seas
That’d be one hell of a pipeline(s) required to get all that Permian water to the Gulf of America.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 11:00 am to ragincajun03
quote:
That’d be one hell of a pipeline(s) required to get all that Permian water to the Gulf of America.
But the amount of jobs . . . .
Posted on 12/30/25 at 11:03 am to ragincajun03
quote:
We've already had a wellsite blow up and a deadly H2S release recently. Just as soon have the geyser shooting produced water in the air. Something else M-Tex can get sued for.
All you need is a hot lawyer and it all goes away.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 11:21 am to RobbBobb
quote:
But the amount of jobs . . . .
Absolutely, but someone has to be willing to spend that capital. I agree it would be awesome.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 11:25 am to ragincajun03
quote:
That’d be one hell of a pipeline(s) required to get all that Permian water to the Gulf of America.
Need an exclusion zone the size of Texas wherever this "salty" water gets dumped at.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 2:33 pm to X123F45
quote:
OR engineer it to tie into a resource not impacted by evaporative loss.
I don’t disagree with this in principle, and data center water usage is certainly a looming problem.
But when you say shite like…
quote:..and..
Because the so called geniuses are too stupid to scalena simple PC rig upward.
It wouldn't even be hard. Automotive engineers have already spent the last century figuring out which coolant is safe for which metals.
quote:…it kind of makes it seem like you don’t know what you’re talking about. “Closed loop” cooling systems can still use evaporative cooling. The “closed loop” usually just means that the actual cooling medium being circulated through the equipment is an isolated circuit. It doesn’t address the actual method of final heat rejection to atmosphere. Many closed loop systems just exchange heat from the closed loop to a second circuit that flows through a cooling tower (and evaporates).
Or perhaps a chemical solution specifically designed to stop mineral buildup and offer corrosion protection.
We could call this solution... Coolant. We could offer it in many colors and ph levels.
So all that stuff about “coolant” is meaningless. They aren’t using so much water because it’s their choice of coolant. They’re using so much water because there isn’t a more cost-effective method of heat rejection from the system.
The stuff about scaling up “a simple PC rig” is silly as well. The reason your PC can be cooled by air (aside from the fact that it puts out orders of magnitude less heat per unit volume than a rack full of B200’s) is that it’s located inside of an air conditioned building. Your PC doesn’t really impact the cost of cooling your home, but the racks are basically the entire cost of cooling a data center.
If you think they should have to go with the more expensive option - specifically vapor-compression refrigeration - in areas where they don’t have access to virtually unlimited surface water like the Mississippi River, that’s a perfectly valid viewpoint. But don’t act like it’s because they don’t know what coolant is.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 5:04 pm to AllDayEveryDay
quote:
when OK outlawed salt water injection their occurrence of earth quakes dropped dramatically.
I can testify to this. For a while, we were having 2.5+ earthquakes in my area on the regular. Then then they suddenly stopped.
Cowinkydink?
Posted on 12/30/25 at 5:08 pm to Purplehaze
quote:
Question for the uninformed like me. I understand why data centers will need a lot of electricity but why would they need large quantities of water?
Data centers generate a lot of heat.
Water is a coolant.
Basic thermo-dynamics / heat transfer rules apply.
Note: most of the coolant water can be recycled through the closed cooling system. The amount of water they consume on a daily basis is only a fraction of what is circulating through the system.
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News