Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on July 9, 2013
Different Peak Oil Denial Nonsense Is Still Nonsense [Pt 4]
I began the first post in this series with this observation: “Some day (soon, I hope) audiences for whom peak oil denial nonsense is intended will ask themselves: what are the reasons—and supporting evidence—for these kinds of assertions?”
This is a follow-up to last Monday’s post, offering more samplings from a Forbes piece published a few weeks back by David Blackmon.
What is Massive?
As is all-too-typical by media beholden to the fossil fuel industry—facts-be-damned—the author cites one “of the many other massive US oil shale reservoirs like the Cline Shale” as further evidence that peak oil is nothing more than nonsense orchestrated by a group of observers who apparently take great delight in making things up to satisfy a doom-and-gloom outlook on life.
In the world of fossil fuel supply, we speak of “resources” or “reserves.” “Reservoirs” doesn’t mean anything, but when you add “massive” to the word, well then … now we’re talking!
A Fact or Two
Given that this Forbes piece neglected to enlighten us about the Cline Shale—not a single fact—I did one of those whatchamaccallits … “Googlings” I think they call it, to get some info. [Also overlooked was any explanation about the significant difference between “oil shale” and “shale oil”—also referred to as ‘tight” oil. See this from Chris Nelder.] The Cline Shale’s very own alliance website was nice enough to offer this:
The Cline Shale on the eastern shelf of the Permian Basin in West Texas is an emerging oil shale development region with tremendous projected potential. The Wall Street Journal’s ‘Market Watch’ in November 2012 estimated that the Cline Shale could become the largest oil play in American history — much larger than the Bakken in North Dakota, the Eagle Ford in South Texas, etc. Even being equivalent to those major shale production regions demonstrates that the Cline Shale is a force to be reckoned with, a source of business opportunities, and a region with which to become familiar.
Wow! Perhaps I stand corrected….The Wall Street Journal’s ‘Market Watch, that bastion of independence and energy expertise, has “estimated” that the Cline “could become” yadda, yadda, yadda. So perhaps it is possible that the Cline might have the potential. That clinches it!
But if that’s not enough to convince my peers and I, “the Cline Shale is a force to be reckoned with.” Wow again! Who needs facts, evidence, or truth when we have forces with which to be reckoned—which not coincidentally are also sources of “business opportunities” and a place we should all “become familiar” with. Who knew the Cline was such a unique “reservoir?”
We should also keep in mind that:
Major producers estimate 15 years or drilling activity and at least 30 years of oil production [1]
and, as an “industry player noted”:
If it’s all drilled out at 40-acre spacing, it should recover about three billion barrels of oil. [2]
Wow for the third time! Three billion barrels of oil adds up to almost 6 months of U.S. demand, and all we have to do is wait for “15 years of drilling” and “at least 30 years of production” to get all of that outta there! That is some kind of massive.
Good thing none of us will need those three billion barrels soon.
4 Comments on "Different Peak Oil Denial Nonsense Is Still Nonsense [Pt 4]"
westexas on Tue, 9th Jul 2013 12:24 pm
Some simple math:
If we assume a probably conservative decline rate of 10%/year from existing oil wells in the US*, then over the 10 year period from 2013 to 2023, the US oil industry would have to replace the productive equivalent of every oil field in the United States of America–just to maintain a constant crude oil production rate.
*A relatively high decline rate because an increasing percentage of US crude oil production comes from very high decline rate tight/shale plays.
oilystuff on Tue, 9th Jul 2013 1:11 pm
Mr. Westexas, as always you speak with great, admirable truth; I believe at the moment 25% of our domestic crude oil production is coming from unconventional tight oil resources declining at the rate of 25% per year the first 3 years of production life. Your 10% annual decline rate across the board is, IMO, conservative. Mox nix, we are in deep doo-doo and I appreciate you continuing to take this message to the street.
Beery on Tue, 9th Jul 2013 2:16 pm
I think we need to take note of the particular wording here. According to the Cline Shale Alliance quote, this is ‘oil shale’ (kerogen shale), not ‘shale oil’ (AKA ‘tight oil’). You don’t ‘drill’ for oil shale – you either mine it or you heat it in situ by building a hugely expensive power plant on top of it and then you pump out the resulting oily sludge and process it.
The fact that the ‘industry player’ doesn’t know that you cannot drill for kerogen shale seems to indicate to me that he’s either an industry shill trying to get rubes to invest, or he doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about.
Even if this were shale oil (which it’s not), and even if the estimated recovery figures are true (which they’re not gonna be), 30 years of production for 6 months worth of oil means that the Cline Shale will provide only 1/60th of our oil needs over the next 30 years.
Woop-de-fricken-doo.
DC on Tue, 9th Jul 2013 5:10 pm
There is a powerful need not only to convince people that all is well when it comes to fossil-fuel supplies, but an equally powerful need to re-assure people that the current drive-shop-consume-flip poorly built houses economy will never have to change. That the future will look exactly the same as the past-and be powered exclusively by oil, with a token wind turbine or solar panel thrown in to placate the pale greens.