Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Oil Shale : Green River Kerogen

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

Re: Shale

Unread postby Oil-Finder » Fri 25 Jan 2008, 20:58:14

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Oil-Finder', 'T')his sounds promising. Maybe.

--> LINK <--
Is the Schlumberger guy really expecting us to believe$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he Green River Formation of western Colorado, eastern Utah and southwest Wyoming contains the equivalent of an estimated 1.8 trillion barrels of crude oil, enough, Raytheon said, to meet current U.S. demand for 250 years.
So he thinks they can produce 21 million net barrels a day from oil shale? If not, what was the point of such a throw-away remark? Tell us the production rate, not how long it could mathematically last.

Peak oilers do the same thing when an oil discovery is announced - e.g., if someone finds 15 billion barrels of oil somewhere the common peaker response is, "Well that's nice, it'll delay the peak by a half year." If peakers can state how long a resource could mathematically last, why can't journalists?
User avatar
Oil-Finder
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 630
Joined: Tue 11 Dec 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Seattle

Re: Shale

Unread postby TonyPrep » Fri 25 Jan 2008, 22:23:03

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Oil-Finder', 'I')f peakers can state how long a resource could mathematically last, why can't journalists?
I don't hear peak oilers making a point about resources lasting X years at current consumption levels. Most refer to production rates and production profiles over a period of time. To take an estimate of the oil volume and then divide it by current consumption, to come up with a figure, is completely and utterly meaningless. If you think otherwise, I'd be interested to know why?

What would be of use is an estimate of peak production rate, EROEI and how quickly it could be ramped up to that rate. The quote I posted is pointless since it includes none of those things.

You posted the link as "promising". In what way is it "promising"?
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand

Re: Shale

Unread postby Oil-Finder » Sat 26 Jan 2008, 04:45:38

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'I') don't hear peak oilers making a point about resources lasting X years at current consumption levels.

I do. Some examples:
http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic35194-75.html
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', 'S')top the presses. Peak oil has been pushed back 6 to 12 hours by this recent discovery.

You yourself did it here:
http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic35194-0-asc-15.html
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'F')or example, a 100 billion barrel discovery (if it was additional to any estimate of discovery) would only push the peak out by a year or two

http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic35194-0-asc-0.html
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Concerned', 'F')act is all (every drop) of those discoveries in 2007 offset roughly one years oil consumption.


And that's just from one thread.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'M')ost refer to production rates and production profiles over a period of time. To take an estimate of the oil volume and then divide it by current consumption, to come up with a figure, is completely and utterly meaningless. If you think otherwise, I'd be interested to know why?
Then all the people doing that in the quotes above - including yourself - were being "completely and utterly meaningless."

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'W')hat would be of use is an estimate of peak production rate, EROEI and how quickly it could be ramped up to that rate. The quote I posted is pointless since it includes none of those things.
As pointed out earlier in this thread, Shell says the EROEI of their in-situ process is 3-6:1, depending on the scale of the project. Don't know the EROEI of this microwaving method, but from the sound of it, sounds like it could be better.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'Y')ou posted the link as "promising". In what way is it "promising"?
It sounds promising because it sounds like a more efficient way of extracting oil from shale than other methods.
User avatar
Oil-Finder
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 630
Joined: Tue 11 Dec 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Seattle
Top

Re: Shale

Unread postby TonyPrep » Sat 26 Jan 2008, 05:50:31

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Oil-Finder', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'I') don't hear peak oilers making a point about resources lasting X years at current consumption levels.

I do. Some examples:
http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic35194-75.html
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', 'S')top the presses. Peak oil has been pushed back 6 to 12 hours by this recent discovery.

You yourself did it here:
http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic35194-0-asc-15.html
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'F')or example, a 100 billion barrel discovery (if it was additional to any estimate of discovery) would only push the peak out by a year or two

http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic35194-0-asc-0.html
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Concerned', 'F')act is all (every drop) of those discoveries in 2007 offset roughly one years oil consumption.


And that's just from one thread.And none of them are examples of peak oilers talking about x years at current consumption levels. They are about how much peak could be pushed back by a discovery, which is nothing like an R/P ratio.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Oil-Finder', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'Y')ou posted the link as "promising". In what way is it "promising"?
It sounds promising because it sounds like a more efficient way of extracting oil from shale than other methods.But I still don't see why that's promising. All it promises to do is lower the decline rate a little. I suppose some might find that encouraging.
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: Shale

Unread postby Oil-Finder » Sat 26 Jan 2008, 06:03:47

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'A')nd none of them are examples of peak oilers talking about x years at current consumption levels. They are about how much peak could be pushed back by a discovery, which is nothing like an R/P ratio.

By saying things like, "Stop the presses. Peak oil has been pushed back 6 to 12 hours by this recent discovery," that person is saying the discovery I linked would last 6 to 12 hours at current rates of consumption. And your quote, "a 100 billion barrel discovery . . . would only push the peak out by a year or two," is saying that a 100 billion barrel discovery would last a year or two at current rates of consumption. Those are no different than the writer of that article saying that the oil in shale could supply the US for 250 years at current rates of consumption.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '
')But I still don't see why that's promising. All it promises to do is lower the decline rate a little. I suppose some might find that encouraging.

Well, I suppose that depends on whether or not you want oil production to peak. For anyone who doesn't want it to happen, it is relative good news.
User avatar
Oil-Finder
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 630
Joined: Tue 11 Dec 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Seattle
Top

Re: Shale

Unread postby TonyPrep » Sat 26 Jan 2008, 07:37:40

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Oil-Finder', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'A')nd none of them are examples of peak oilers talking about x years at current consumption levels. They are about how much peak could be pushed back by a discovery, which is nothing like an R/P ratio.

By saying things like, "Stop the presses. Peak oil has been pushed back 6 to 12 hours by this recent discovery," that person is saying the discovery I linked would last 6 to 12 hours at current rates of consumption. And your quote, "a 100 billion barrel discovery . . . would only push the peak out by a year or two," is saying that a 100 billion barrel discovery would last a year or two at current rates of consumption. Those are no different than the writer of that article saying that the oil in shale could supply the US for 250 years at current rates of consumption.
None of your quotes say what you claim. Pushing peak back by x months or x years simply means that the likely production profile of that discovery would move the peak back by some small time, it does not mean that the discovery will last a few months or a few years. I find it odd that you don't see the distinction.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Oil-Finder', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '
')But I still don't see why that's promising. All it promises to do is lower the decline rate a little. I suppose some might find that encouraging.

Well, I suppose that depends on whether or not you want oil production to peak. For anyone who doesn't want it to happen, it is relative good news.
But only some of the abiotic believers think oil production won't peak. Production of oil from shale will probably be lower than production from the vast resources of oil sands. Consequently, it is only likely to lessen the decline a little. I would only find that promising if the lessening of decline was done on the back of some plan to move to a lower energy society. If it is simply an attempt to keep business as usual going a bit longer, I don't find that promising at all.
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: Shale

Unread postby FreddyH » Sat 26 Jan 2008, 07:43:13

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'S')o he thinks they can produce 21 million net barrels a day from oil shale? If not, what was the point of such a throw-away remark? Tell us the production rate, not how long it could mathematically last.


It's 20.2-mbd from 2132 AD to 2267 ... plus ramp up & decline. And remember, USA consumption is tracking to decline from it present highs.
www.TrendLines.ca/scenarios.htm Home of the Real Peak Date ... set by geologists (not pundits)
User avatar
FreddyH
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 321
Joined: Mon 14 Jan 2008, 04:00:00
Location: The Yukon
Top

Re: Shale

Unread postby vampyregirl » Sat 26 Jan 2008, 07:46:46

TonyPrep you don't think we are moving to a lower energy use society? Read my Next generation automobiles post. it seems to me that we are albeit slowly
vampyregirl
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 429
Joined: Wed 19 Dec 2007, 04:00:00

Re: Shale

Unread postby TonyPrep » Sat 26 Jan 2008, 07:59:18

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vampyregirl', 'T')onyPrep you don't think we are moving to a lower energy use society? Read my Next generation automobiles post. it seems to me that we are albeit slowly
No I don't and, as you haven't provided a link, I have no idea what post you are talking about. There may be efficiency drives and even conservation drives, from time to time. This doesn't mean that we recognise that the future is a lower energy future than now. There is no attempt to plan for such a future, that I can see. In particular, there is no attempt to move toward sustainable societies, at least not by societies, as a whole, or their governments.
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: Shale

Unread postby vampyregirl » Sat 26 Jan 2008, 08:01:14

It is in the current energy news section
vampyregirl
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 429
Joined: Wed 19 Dec 2007, 04:00:00

Re: Shale

Unread postby TonyPrep » Sat 26 Jan 2008, 16:56:41

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vampyregirl', 'I')t is in the current energy news section
Vampreygirl, you should provide a link, rather than expect others to go trawling around the forums to find your post. Even telling me the forum still makes me check through the discussions to find the one you're referring to. When composing, links can be added using the Image button above the composing panel. A link to the individual post can be found at the Image icon just left of the time of the post.

As regards the post itself, it says nothing about planning for a low energy future, it merely hypothesises that the best marketing will decide the next main fuel type.
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: Shale

Unread postby Tyler_JC » Sat 26 Jan 2008, 18:08:51

Next Generation Autos

(The post in question)

I don't know enough about oil shale to comment but I do know that it could be a useful chemical feedstock, regardless of the EROEI.
"www.peakoil.com is the Myspace of the Apocalypse."
Tyler_JC
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5438
Joined: Sat 25 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Boston, MA

Re: Shale

Unread postby Oil-Finder » Sat 26 Jan 2008, 22:03:40

Tony, let's look at what you said earlier in that quote:

"For example, a 100 billion barrel discovery (if it was additional to any estimate of discovery) would only push the peak out by a year or two."

How did you arrive at that "year or two" number?

You did it by dividing the hypothetical new discovery (100 billion barrels) by the current world rate of consumption (30 billion barrels/year). Actually that would be more like 3 years, but that's just a detail. It's still how you arrived at the figure.

In the shale article, the writer said:

"The Green River Formation of western Colorado, eastern Utah and southwest Wyoming contains the equivalent of an estimated 1.8 trillion barrels of crude oil, enough, Raytheon said, to meet current U.S. demand for 250 years."

How did they arrive at that "meet current US demand for 250 years" figure?

They did it by dividing the size of the resource (1.8 trillion barrels) by the current US rate of consumption (7.5 billion barrels/year). Actually that would be more like 237 years, but that's just a detail.

In other words, you did the exact same thing the writer of this article did. You just made it appear different by stating it in terms of "delaying the peak" rather than stating it as "it could satisfy world demand for 2 years." But in the end, your methodology was the same.
User avatar
Oil-Finder
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 630
Joined: Tue 11 Dec 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Seattle

Re: Shale

Unread postby TheDude » Sat 26 Jan 2008, 23:33:04

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('FreddyH', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'S')o he thinks they can produce 21 million net barrels a day from oil shale? If not, what was the point of such a throw-away remark? Tell us the production rate, not how long it could mathematically last.


It's 20.2-mbd from 2132 AD to 2267 ... plus ramp up & decline. And remember, USA consumption is tracking to decline from it present highs.


2132. Will mankind still be alive...in 2125?

Image

MAKE IT SO!

Wait a minute. Predicting what will be economical 114 years in the future?

Image
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: Shale

Unread postby dinopello » Sat 26 Jan 2008, 23:48:58

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', 'I') don't know enough about oil shale to comment but I do know that it could be a useful chemical feedstock, regardless of the EROEI.


Did you read that somewhere? I'm curious about this since I have a lot invested with these energy companies and a bit worried about them blowing a lot of money down a rat hole. If they believe they can make money on chemicals by mining the shale that could be another perspective.
User avatar
dinopello
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6088
Joined: Fri 13 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: The Urban Village
Top

Re: Shale

Unread postby Tyler_JC » Sun 27 Jan 2008, 02:22:28

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dinopello', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', 'I') don't know enough about oil shale to comment but I do know that it could be a useful chemical feedstock, regardless of the EROEI.


Did you read that somewhere? I'm curious about this since I have a lot invested with these energy companies and a bit worried about them blowing a lot of money down a rat hole. If they believe they can make money on chemicals by mining the shale that could be another perspective.


A hydrocarbon is a hydrocarbon. If your goal is to make a chemical, you don't care how much energy it takes to get the feedstock, right?

I don't know what the economics of it look like, but the chemistry works.
"www.peakoil.com is the Myspace of the Apocalypse."
Tyler_JC
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5438
Joined: Sat 25 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Boston, MA
Top

Re: Shale

Unread postby TonyPrep » Sun 27 Jan 2008, 04:53:54

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Oil-Finder', 'T')ony, let's look at what you said earlier in that quote:

"For example, a 100 billion barrel discovery (if it was additional to any estimate of discovery) would only push the peak out by a year or two."

How did you arrive at that "year or two" number?
That was just a finger in the air calculation, but let's do the calculation now. Suppose this discovery added to the estimate of undiscovered oil (estimates of peak try to estimate the conventional oil yet to be discovered, so to affect the peak date, this discovery would have to be additional). Then that puts peak out by 50 billion barrels (half of the 100 billion URR discovery). At 31 billion barrels per year of current consumption, that would push the peak back by 1.6 years, which is within the "year or two" estimate, so that wasn't a bad finger in the air. :)

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Oil-Finder', 'I')n other words, you did the exact same thing the writer of this article did.
Except that I didn't. You just jumped to a conclusion that you hoped would make your case. It did nothing of the sort. the 250 years estimate is a completely different type of estimate from the quotes you found.

You know, sometimes you're wrong, just as I am, sometimes.
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: Shale

Unread postby TonyPrep » Sun 27 Jan 2008, 04:56:40

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', 'A') hydrocarbon is a hydrocarbon. If your goal is to make a chemical, you don't care how much energy it takes to get the feedstock, right?
If energy costs nothing, that would be true. I don't think it likely that getting the oil from the shale will cost nothing.
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: Shale

Unread postby Oil-Finder » Sun 27 Jan 2008, 05:15:45

OK Tony, we'll do it your way. Let's correct the author of the article.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '"')The Green River Formation of western Colorado, eastern Utah and southwest Wyoming contains the equivalent of an estimated 1.8 trillion barrels of crude oil, enough, Raytheon said, to meet current U.S. demand for 250 years."

Should read:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '"')The Green River Formation of western Colorado, eastern Utah and southwest Wyoming contains the equivalent of an estimated 1.8 trillion barrels of crude oil, enough, Raytheon said, [s]to meet current U.S. demand for 250 years[/s] delay the peak in world oil production for 29 years"

Just so you can be sure of my calculation, 1.8 trillion barrels / 2 = 900 billion barrels / 31 billion barrels yearly consumption = 29 years.
User avatar
Oil-Finder
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 630
Joined: Tue 11 Dec 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Seattle
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron