Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

1.53 Trillion Barrels of Oil

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.

Re: 1.53 Trillion Barrels of Oil

Unread postby bencole » Fri 03 Apr 2009, 00:13:04

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', '
')
BTW, the Elm Coulee field is not the biggest area of the Bakken anymore (hasn't been for a while),


Fair enough, which field is the highest producing in the Bakken?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'a')nd 130K bpd is a lot more than 50K bpd.


Not in the context of US oil demand I'm afraid
bencole
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 359
Joined: Thu 26 Feb 2009, 03:29:52

Re: 1.53 Trillion Barrels of Oil

Unread postby bencole » Fri 03 Apr 2009, 00:17:42

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', 'O')h yeah, and one more thing: If you're spending your time googleing stuff about the Bakken to respond to my comments, don't bother. I know basically anything and everything about the Bakken that you could find on the internet. If you want to know anything about the Bakken, save yourself some googleing time and just ask me instead.

8)


Well, modesty is a virtue you know. I'm pretty sure there is plenty you still don't know about the Bakken, and it's always best to cross check and never rely on a single information source. Unless of course you are privy to knowledge outside the public domain, are you an industry insider?
bencole
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 359
Joined: Thu 26 Feb 2009, 03:29:52

Re: 1.53 Trillion Barrels of Oil

Unread postby copious.abundance » Fri 03 Apr 2009, 00:20:07

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bencole', 'N')ot if you put it in the context that the USA's total production has fallen from a peak of 10.2 million bpd, the north slope field falling 1.5 million bpd between 1998-2008, or that exports from the cantarell field fell 600 000 bpd between 2007-2008, etc.

Production from the Bakken is still in its infancy, and that is even moreso the case of those other shales I mentioned. You can't call something a failure when it's barely had a chance to prove itself.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bencole', 'B')ut it still falls far short of 1 million bpd, like you said would be nicely convincing for the naysayers.

I said half-million, not million.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bencole', 'I')'m not dissmissing it, I'm just trying to put the 1.53 trillion barrel figure in context. On the surface someone may look at this kind of number and think that one of these formations can indeed solve the USA's entire energy problem, just like the tar sands in Canada, but it is imporatant to point out that this is not true.

I agree there is a lot of misinformed hype surrounding the numbers on the Green River shale. But that number does make a nice, eye-catching thread title. :lol: At any rate, let's say that, in 10 years, they can manage to coax out a half-million bpd from the Green River shale. A half-million bpd addition to US production would be a really, really nice addition. A million would be even better. This would not "solve" the US's energy imports problem, but it would alleviate it noticeably.

As for the rest of the Bakken stuff, if you want to talk about it there's a thread dedicated to it. Don't want to get too off-topic here. ;)
Stuff for doomers to contemplate:
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1190117.html#p1190117
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1193930.html#p1193930
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1206767.html#p1206767
User avatar
copious.abundance
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9589
Joined: Wed 26 Mar 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Cornucopia
Top

Re: 1.53 Trillion Barrels of Oil

Unread postby copious.abundance » Fri 03 Apr 2009, 00:33:42

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bencole', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', '
')
BTW, the Elm Coulee field is not the biggest area of the Bakken anymore (hasn't been for a while),


Fair enough, which field is the highest producing in the Bakken?

There is an area around the Nesson Anticline (centered in Mountrail County, ND) which has been the "hot spot" for the past couple years. When you're talking about an continuous resource play like the Bakken you can't always talk about "fields," though there are a few areas in the Bakken which they do call "fields" because they do contain concentrated "collections" of oil and give them names. The Sanish field is one such field receiving a lot of attention near the Nesson Anticline . . . but that gets complicated because that's also part of the Three Forks formation which extends over an even larger area of ND than the Bakken itself. Then there is the Elm Coulee field you mentioned before, which is similar. So in brief, I can't say "Field X is the biggest-producing field in the Bakken" because in a continuous resource such as the Bakken, a "field" can be very hard to define.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'a')nd 130K bpd is a lot more than 50K bpd.


Not in the context of US oil demand I'm afraid

And Ghawar in the context of world oil demand is similarly insignificant. Ghawar produces a piddling 5 million bpd while world demand is about 85 million bpd. A piddling 7%.

:roll:
Stuff for doomers to contemplate:
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1190117.html#p1190117
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1193930.html#p1193930
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1206767.html#p1206767
User avatar
copious.abundance
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9589
Joined: Wed 26 Mar 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Cornucopia
Top

Re: 1.53 Trillion Barrels of Oil

Unread postby copious.abundance » Fri 03 Apr 2009, 00:35:59

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bencole', 'W')ell, modesty is a virtue you know. I'm pretty sure there is plenty you still don't know about the Bakken, and it's always best to cross check and never rely on a single information source. Unless of course you are privy to knowledge outside the public domain, are you an industry insider?

No, I do not work in the industry. I just happen to know a lot about it.
Stuff for doomers to contemplate:
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1190117.html#p1190117
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1193930.html#p1193930
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1206767.html#p1206767
User avatar
copious.abundance
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9589
Joined: Wed 26 Mar 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Cornucopia
Top

Re: 1.53 Trillion Barrels of Oil

Unread postby bencole » Fri 03 Apr 2009, 00:49:07

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', '
')Production from the Bakken is still in its infancy, and that is even moreso the case of those other shales I mentioned. You can't call something a failure when it's barely had a chance to prove itself.


The oil shale industry is as least as old as the tar sands industry, from the late 1960's on (TOSCO, etc), so hardly in it's infacy.Both went through the 1973 oil crisis and the price collapse of the 1980's. But it has yet to reach comparible production or economic interest, so by some measures it could be considered a failure.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') said half-million, not million.


You said half a million for the Colorado formation alone. Plus the half a million expected from the Bakken, this equals a million. But your total estimate for them combined sometime in the future is 390K, this falls far short.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') agree there is a lot of misinformed hype surrounding the numbers on the Green River shale. But that number does make a nice, eye-catching thread title.


Agreed, that's why the industry uses misleading numbers like this.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')At any rate, let's say that, in 10 years, they can manage to coax out a half-million bpd from the Green River shale. A half-million bpd addition to US production would be a really, really nice addition.


No, see this is part of the problem. It's far from certain that this level of production can be acheived, we just can't "say" something and hope it happens, something has to be demonstrated to make it seem practical.

Also, In 10 years its estimated that all oil exports from Mexico to the USA will have been stopped due to depletion, this equals a loss of over 3 million barrels per day. Putting numbers in context like this shows that in reality a 500K increase doesn't make much of a difference at all.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')A million would be even better. This would not "solve" the US's energy imports problem, but it would alleviate it noticeably.


It won't come anywhere near to alleviating the USA's future energy problems. The consumption rate is simply to high to be sustained.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')s for the rest of the Bakken stuff, if you want to talk about it there's a thread dedicated to it. Don't want to get too off-topic here. ;)

Ok, agreed, no more talk of the bakken on this thread, only the Colorado formation is being considered.
bencole
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 359
Joined: Thu 26 Feb 2009, 03:29:52
Top

Re: 1.53 Trillion Barrels of Oil

Unread postby bencole » Fri 03 Apr 2009, 00:59:08

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', '
')
And Ghawar in the context of world oil demand is similarly insignificant. Ghawar produces a piddling 5 million bpd while world demand is about 85 million bpd. A piddling 7%.

:roll:


I have to disagree, 7% of world demand is not insignificant and 5 million bpd is not "piddling" for a single field. This is a massive amount of energy production. Many see Ghawar as a litmus test of peak oil due to its size alone.

Careful when you say similar

130 000 / 20 000 000 x 100 = 0.65%

0.65% is much smaller than 7% so oil shale production represents a much smaller fraction of US demand then Ghawar does of world demand,
bencole
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 359
Joined: Thu 26 Feb 2009, 03:29:52
Top

Re: 1.53 Trillion Barrels of Oil

Unread postby Plantagenet » Fri 03 Apr 2009, 02:02:05

Since you are so delighted by the 1.53 trillion barrels of oil in Colorado, perhaps you will equally pleased to learn that there are hundreds of trillions of dollars worth of gold in ocean sediments, and almost unlimited amounts of uranium in the world's granite mountains, and unbelievable amounts of iron at the earth's core.

Huge huge amounts. :roll:
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26765
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: 1.53 Trillion Barrels of Oil

Unread postby copious.abundance » Fri 03 Apr 2009, 14:13:57

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bencole', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', '
')Production from the Bakken is still in its infancy, and that is even moreso the case of those other shales I mentioned. You can't call something a failure when it's barely had a chance to prove itself.


The oil shale industry is as least as old as the tar sands industry, from the late 1960's on (TOSCO, etc), so hardly in it's infacy.Both went through the 1973 oil crisis and the price collapse of the 1980's. But it has yet to reach comparible production or economic interest, so by some measures it could be considered a failure.

The Bakken is not "oil shale," it is regular oil (as opposed to kerogen) from a shale formation. There is a big difference between the two, and the fact that you treated both as the same tells me you really have no idea what you're talking about.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bencole', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') said half-million, not million.


You said half a million for the Colorado formation alone. Plus the half a million expected from the Bakken, this equals a million. But your total estimate for them combined sometime in the future is 390K, this falls far short.

I said nothing of the sort. Here is what I said:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', 'B')ut it would still be fun to see them churn out at least a half-million bpd of kerogen out of this thing, just to show the doomers it can be done economically.
I said "this thing" was the kerogen from the Green River Shale. The stuff from the Bakken is not kerogen, and my statement about the half-million bpd referred only to the kerogen from the Green River Shale. The Bakken and similar oil-from-shale plays are an entirely different animal. Please do not lump them together any longer. Thank you.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bencole', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') agree there is a lot of misinformed hype surrounding the numbers on the Green River shale. But that number does make a nice, eye-catching thread title.
Agreed, that's why the industry uses misleading numbers like this.
In this case it was not "industry," it was a scientific assessment by the USGS. There's nothing "misleading" about these numbers as long as you understand the nature of what they're talking about. It just so happens that a lot of people do not understand the nature of what the USGS is talking about, and it is those people who hype it up. But the 1.53 trillion barrels of oil, in and of itself, is not "misleading."

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bencole', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')At any rate, let's say that, in 10 years, they can manage to coax out a half-million bpd from the Green River shale. A half-million bpd addition to US production would be a really, really nice addition.
No, see this is part of the problem. It's far from certain that this level of production can be acheived, we just can't "say" something and hope it happens, something has to be demonstrated to make it seem practical.
I never said it was certain, I merely stated a hypothetical ("let's say that").

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bencole', 'A')lso, In 10 years its estimated that all oil exports from Mexico to the USA will have been stopped due to depletion, this equals a loss of over 3 million barrels per day. Putting numbers in context like this shows that in reality a 500K increase doesn't make much of a difference at all.
Oh - don't worry. There will be new sources of oil imports heading to the US, which can make up for any Mexican declines, and possibly even more. I guarantee it!

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bencole', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')A million would be even better. This would not "solve" the US's energy imports problem, but it would alleviate it noticeably.
It won't come anywhere near to alleviating the USA's future energy problems. The consumption rate is simply to high to be sustained.
Uhhh . .. yeah. :roll: A 20% increase in US oil production and a corresponding 10% decrease in imports would not be an "allevation." Ya, sure.

:roll:
Stuff for doomers to contemplate:
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1190117.html#p1190117
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1193930.html#p1193930
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1206767.html#p1206767
User avatar
copious.abundance
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9589
Joined: Wed 26 Mar 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Cornucopia
Top

Re: 1.53 Trillion Barrels of Oil

Unread postby copious.abundance » Fri 03 Apr 2009, 14:38:25

^
Why am I wrong? Your quotes confirmed exactly what I just said. The stuff from the Green River Shale is kerogen.
Last edited by copious.abundance on Fri 03 Apr 2009, 14:40:17, edited 1 time in total.
Stuff for doomers to contemplate:
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1190117.html#p1190117
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1193930.html#p1193930
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1206767.html#p1206767
User avatar
copious.abundance
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9589
Joined: Wed 26 Mar 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Cornucopia

Re: 1.53 Trillion Barrels of Oil

Unread postby rangerone314 » Fri 03 Apr 2009, 15:03:52

Has anyone ever come up with a mathematical relationship that involves: demand, EROEI and the price of oil?
An ideology is by definition not a search for TRUTH-but a search for PROOF that its point of view is right

Equals barter and negotiate-people with power just take

You cant defend freedom by eliminating it-unknown

Our elected reps should wear sponsor patches on their suits so we know who they represent-like Nascar-Roy
User avatar
rangerone314
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4105
Joined: Wed 03 Dec 2008, 04:00:00
Location: Maryland

Re: 1.53 Trillion Barrels of Oil

Unread postby rangerone314 » Fri 03 Apr 2009, 15:07:27

The atmosphere of Uranus is 3.4% methane... so maybe we could use that for energy... only have to build a 3 billion km long pipeline.
An ideology is by definition not a search for TRUTH-but a search for PROOF that its point of view is right

Equals barter and negotiate-people with power just take

You cant defend freedom by eliminating it-unknown

Our elected reps should wear sponsor patches on their suits so we know who they represent-like Nascar-Roy
User avatar
rangerone314
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4105
Joined: Wed 03 Dec 2008, 04:00:00
Location: Maryland

Re: 1.53 Trillion Barrels of Oil

Unread postby bencole » Fri 03 Apr 2009, 17:22:08

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', '
')
The Bakken is not "oil shale," it is regular oil (as opposed to kerogen) from a shale formation. There is a big difference between the two, and the fact that you treated both as the same tells me you really have no idea what you're talking about.


The stuff from the Bakken is not kerogen, and my statement about the half-million bpd referred only to the kerogen from the Green River Shale. The Bakken and similar oil-from-shale plays are an entirely different animal. Please do not lump them together any longer. Thank you.


No, lets make certain we do lump them all together (tar sands as well) based on their similarly bad EROEI.

And by the way based on your apparent lack of knowledge of math, physics, the ability to distinguish between a manitude of recoverable barrels and producton rate, calling the ghawar field piddling, and getting EROEI backwards, I would say you equally do not know what you are talking about. At most what we have here is a debate between idiots. :)


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')n this case it was not "industry," it was a scientific assessment by the USGS. There's nothing "misleading" about these numbers as long as you understand the nature of what they're talking about. It just so happens that a lot of people do not understand the nature of what the USGS is talking about, and it is those people who hype it up. But the 1.53 trillion barrels of oil, in and of itself, is not "misleading."



Sure it is, even you used the number in the thread tilte for the purpose of misleading.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') never said it was certain, I merely stated a hypothetical ("let's say that").


Hypotheticals need to be grounded somewhat in reality to be convincing. Simply pulling the number that you would like to have out of thin air doesn't make for a strong argument.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')h - don't worry. There will be new sources of oil imports heading to the US, which can make up for any Mexican declines, and possibly even more. I guarantee it!


And you can guarantee it based on what, your good word? Do you own a fleet of tankers? Are you a Saudi prince?
There is no guarantee that new oil discoveries will automatically become US imports, many exporting countries around the world are struggling right now from becoming net importers.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'U')hhh . .. yeah. :roll: A 20% increase in US oil production and a corresponding 10% decrease in imports would not be an "allevation." Ya, sure.

:roll:

More math problems I see, let me help.

20% increase in US production = (.20)(5 million bpd) = + 1 million bpd (extremely optimistic)
10% decrease in imports = (.10)(20 million bpd) = + 2 million bpd (conservation, reduced demand etc)

net savings = 3 million bpd

loss of supply from mexico alone = 3 million bpd

net result = nothing, back to square one.
Last edited by bencole on Fri 03 Apr 2009, 19:07:56, edited 1 time in total.
bencole
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 359
Joined: Thu 26 Feb 2009, 03:29:52
Top

Re: 1.53 Trillion Barrels of Oil

Unread postby bencole » Fri 03 Apr 2009, 17:30:18

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rangerone314', 'H')as anyone ever come up with a mathematical relationship that involves: demand, EROEI and the price of oil?


Not really, and for deliberate reasons. The price of oil is a very abstract economic concept. It is established by commodity futures traders dealing with paper barrels whose value is partially determined by perception and speculation. Geological facts are often neglected and poorly understood by economists, hence the ignorance concerning finite resource depletion.
bencole
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 359
Joined: Thu 26 Feb 2009, 03:29:52
Top

Re: 1.53 Trillion Barrels of Oil

Unread postby TheDude » Fri 03 Apr 2009, 18:06:31

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', 'I') agree there is a lot of misinformed hype surrounding the numbers on the Green River shale. But that number does make a nice, eye-catching thread title. :lol: At any rate, let's say that, in 10 years, they can manage to coax out a half-million bpd from the Green River shale. A half-million bpd addition to US production would be a really, really nice addition. A million would be even better. This would not "solve" the US's energy imports problem, but it would alleviate it noticeably.


Image

I've posted tons of material on the unfeasability of recovering kerogen here. You realize this area is extremely arid, right? And even Shell's process would be very water-intensive.

Study: 50-50 chance of dry Lake Mead in 2021 - Climate Change- msnbc.com

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'm')snbc.com staff and news service reports
updated 10:57 a.m. PT, Tues., Feb. 12, 2008

What are the chances that Lake Mead, a key source of water for more than 22 million people in the Southwest, would ever go dry? A new study says it's 50 percent by 2021 if warming continues and water use is not curtailed.

"We were stunned at the magnitude of the problem and how fast it was coming at us," co-author Tim Barnett of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography said in a statement. "Make no mistake, this water problem is not a scientific abstraction, but rather one that will impact each and every one of us that live in the Southwest."

"It's likely to mean real changes to how we live and do business in this region," added co-author David Pierce, a Scripps climate scientist.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here

The experts estimated that the Colorado River system, which feeds Lake Mead and Lake Powell, is seeing a net deficit of nearly 1 million acre-feet of water per year — an amount that can supply some 8 million people. That water is not being replenished, they noted, and human demand, evaporation and human-induced climate change are fueling the growing deficit.


Resistance from citizenry makes the whole idea of processing shale a non-starter. Like Randy Udall said, we'd be better off rendering down Cap'n Crunch, and this is the water supply for the SW in toto we're talking about - you'd face a unified front all the way to San Diego howling about loss of hydro generation and drinking water.

You and your Bakken, too. Feel free to update my chart:

Image

The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan (March 19, 2009) - How Peak Is Our Oil?, Ctd.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he infrastructure costs are enormous though. The vaunted N. Dakota Bakken Formation which has been so much in the news lately are running 20 stage frac jobs which requires staggering horsepower from compressors and mighty piles of sand to complete the wells. A well drilling and completion can easily run $5 million. Initial production can be high, on the order of 800 bbl/day but that decline is very steep and rapid. You have to drill as fast as you can just to stay flat after the initial runup and already the "sweetspot" areas appear to be dwindling.

A very large proportion of the Bakken wells are not making money in the present price and many companies are critically over extended and having financial stress because of their recent Bakken investments. We're on the verge of an experiment in massive investment that will be a failure unless price comes up and soon.
Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
And let me tell you something: I dig your work.
User avatar
TheDude
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4896
Joined: Thu 06 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: 3 miles NW of Champoeg, Republic of Cascadia
Top

Re: 1.53 Trillion Barrels of Oil

Unread postby copious.abundance » Fri 03 Apr 2009, 23:45:34

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bencole', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', 'T')he Bakken is not "oil shale," it is regular oil (as opposed to kerogen) from a shale formation. There is a big difference between the two, and the fact that you treated both as the same tells me you really have no idea what you're talking about.

The stuff from the Bakken is not kerogen, and my statement about the half-million bpd referred only to the kerogen from the Green River Shale. The Bakken and similar oil-from-shale plays are an entirely different animal. Please do not lump them together any longer. Thank you.


No, lets make certain we do lump them all together (tar sands as well) based on their similarly bad EROEI.

You remind me of a guy I used to debate on another forum. He would make a claim, then I would reply with something which proved him wrong, or brought into question his conclusion. He would then reply with something to the effect, "Well, but you see, the point is . . ." and then he would subtly shift the topic ever so slightly by making another new claim or statement about something tangentially related, but not quite the same. This would go on for pages, becoming a never-ending wild goose chase. After a few pages we would end up discussing something which had little to do with his original claim. I would then tell him his constant diversions were annoying and dishonest, and we would then spend another few pages arguing about the argument.

Your statement above - and several that precede it - are a perfect example of this. After I said I would rather them focus attention on extracting oil from shales like the Bakken (as opposed to kerogen from a shale like the Green River shale) you confused the two, starting here on page 2:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bencole', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinde2', 'N')ow, take the Bakken, and apply the same thing to those other two shales I mentioned. Since we know they can produce 130K bpd from the Bakken, after a few years of development they might get similar production from the Woodford shale, then repeat with the Tuscaloosa shale. By now you're talking 390K bpd, which is an even nicer addition to a nation which had been producing 5 million bpd.

But it still falls far short of 1 million bpd, like you said would be nicely convincing for the naysayers. And this comes from all of the biggest and best shale formations in the entire USA. The tar sands in comparison currently produces about 1 million bpd, much larger than all shale production put together from these sources.

The quote you were responding to specfically talked only about the Bakken, the Woodford and the Tuscaloosa shales, which I never said anything about producing 1 million barrels per day. However, even though you were quoting a comment about the Bakken, the Woodford and the Tuscaloosa, you changed the topic by referring to my earlier comment about the Green River shale:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', 'B')ut it would still be fun to see them churn out at least a half-million bpd of kerogen out of this thing, just to show the doomers it can be done economically.
Notice that I said "kerogen." Since I said "kerogen" I was referring to the Green River shale, not the other 3 shales. After a few more posts trying to tell you there's a big difference between the "oil" in the Green River shale and the real oil in the other 3 shales, just like my friend on the other forum, you decide to shrug off the entire lesson and tell me, "But you see, the point is, they all have low EROEI's." Nevermind the fact that you have no idea what the EROEI of the Bakken is (nobody does).

If you can't pay attention to what you're responding to and/or can't respond without changing the topic, then don't waste your time responding at all. I'm not interested in going on wild goose chases again.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bencole', 'A')nd by the way based on your apparent lack of knowledge of math, physics, the ability to distinguish between a manitude of recoverable barrels and producton rate, calling the ghawar field piddling, and getting EROEI backwards, I would say you equally do not know what you are talking about. At most what we have here is a debate between idiots. :)
You're right, I stated the ratio in EROEI backwards. Sorry. :roll:

As for the rates-vs-magnitude, I have already shown you I understand the distinction:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', 'I')n this case it was not "industry," it was a scientific assessment by the USGS. There's nothing "misleading" about these numbers as long as you understand the nature of what they're talking about. It just so happens that a lot of people do not understand the nature of what the USGS is talking about, and it is those people who hype it up. But the 1.53 trillion barrels of oil, in and of itself, is not "misleading.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bencole', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', 'I')n this case it was not "industry," it was a scientific assessment by the USGS. There's nothing "misleading" about these numbers as long as you understand the nature of what they're talking about. It just so happens that a lot of people do not understand the nature of what the USGS is talking about, and it is those people who hype it up. But the 1.53 trillion barrels of oil, in and of itself, is not "misleading."
Sure it is, even you used the number in the thread tilte for the purpose of misleading.
No, as I said on the first page:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', 'B')ut that number does make a nice, eye-catching thread title. :lol:
You should also have observed from my very first post in this thread that I knew this was an oft-discussed topic and figured what would happen in the thread. I knew no one would be "mislead" because I knew just about everyone here had already discussed the topic many, many times.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bencole', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', 'I') never said it was certain, I merely stated a hypothetical ("let's say that").
Hypotheticals need to be grounded somewhat in reality to be convincing. Simply pulling the number that you would like to have out of thin air doesn't make for a strong argument.
OK, I'll play your game. You lumped oil shale into the same category as oil sands (the EROEI comment above). The Alberta oil sands are already producing in excess of 1 million barrels per day. Since you put oil shale into the same category as oil sands, if oil sands can produce 1 million bpd, so can oil shale. So, by your own criteria, oil shale is just as capable of producing 1 million barrels per day as are oil sands, and my hypothetical 1 million bpd is not so far-fetched after all. Using your own categorization.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bencole', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', 'O')h - don't worry. There will be new sources of oil imports heading to the US, which can make up for any Mexican declines, and possibly even more. I guarantee it!
And you can guarantee it based on what, your good word? Do you own a fleet of tankers? Are you a Saudi prince?
There is no guarantee that new oil discoveries will automatically become US imports, many exporting countries around the world are struggling right now from becoming net importers.
No, I am neither a Saudi prince nor do I own a fleet of tankers. But let me put it this way . . .

. . . I'm not normally a betting man, but I'll bet you $100 that within 2 years someone will announce an oil discovery, located in the western hemisphere, which will have a projected peak output as large as, and possibly significantly greater than, Cantarell's peak output (which was a little over 2 million bpd). This discovery will be at least 15% owned by American oil companies (could be double that, maybe), and the rest of the field will be owned by Western oil companies more than willing to export the oil (and/or refined products) from this field to the US. Most, if not all, of these other oil companies already do export oil and refined products to the US.

Bet?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bencole', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', 'U')hhh . .. yeah. :roll: A 20% increase in US oil production and a corresponding 10% decrease in imports would not be an "allevation." Ya, sure.

:roll:
More math problems I see, let me help.

20% increase in US production = (.20)(5 million bpd) = + 1 million bpd (extremely optimistic)
10% decrease in imports = (.10)(20 million bpd) = + 2 million bpd (conservation, reduced demand etc)

net savings = 3 million bpd

loss of supply from mexico alone = 3 million bpd

net result = nothing, back to square one.
As usual, you decided to slither away from the topic you were responding to. Let me clarify:

US right now produces about 5 million bpd. My hypothetical 1 million bpd production from oil shale would raise that to 6 million barrels. That's the 20% increase in production.

US right now imports about 10 million bpd (actually closer to 9, but I digress). If domestic production rose by 1 million bpd, imports could fall by 1 million bpd. That's the 10% decrease in imports.

Your original claim on page 2 which started all this was:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bencole', 'N')ot if you put it in the context that the USA's total production has fallen from a peak of 10.2 million bpd, the north slope field falling 1.5 million bpd between 1998-2008, or that exports from the cantarell field fell 600 000 bpd between 2007-2008, etc.
The fact that you mentioned a 1.5 million bpd decrease in Alaskan production indicates you think 1.5 million bpd is significant. The fact that you mentioned a 600K bpd drop in imports from Mexico indicates you think 600K bpd is significant. The hypothetical 1 million bpd from oil shale I mentioned is right between those two numbers. Therefore, by your own criteria, you must believe it would be significant.

BTW, speaking of math, the US never imported 3 million bpd from Mexico. Might want to check your facts first before you state them. :wink:
Stuff for doomers to contemplate:
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1190117.html#p1190117
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1193930.html#p1193930
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1206767.html#p1206767
User avatar
copious.abundance
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9589
Joined: Wed 26 Mar 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Cornucopia
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 168 guests