Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Peak Oil dead?

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

Re: Peak Oil dead?

Unread postby sparky » Sat 02 Nov 2013, 19:22:42

.
The commercial mining of hydrates is not a valid projection ,
so far the deposits are very dilute , requiring a lot of high volumes pumping , and a fair bit of processing
more energy spend that gained , certainly as a cost eroei and probably as an exploitation process
Jean Laherrère wrote a paper about it .
User avatar
sparky
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3587
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Sydney , OZ
Top

Re: Peak Oil dead?

Unread postby John_A » Sun 03 Nov 2013, 00:20:40

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('sparky', '.')
The commercial mining of hydrates is not a valid projection ,
so far the deposits are very dilute , requiring a lot of high volumes pumping , and a fair bit of processing
more energy spend that gained , certainly as a cost eroei and probably as an exploitation process
Jean Laherrère wrote a paper about it .


The problem for those writing a paper saying that it can't happen is that IT ALREADY DID.

Jean Lahrrere writing a paper on something doesn't change the history of it already happening nearly as an accident, and won't stop it from happening tomorrow on purpose if it becomes economically viable any more than said paper will stop the sun from rising tomorrow.
45ACP: For when you want to send the very best.
John_A
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1193
Joined: Sat 25 Jun 2011, 21:16:36
Top

Re: Peak Oil dead?

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Sun 03 Nov 2013, 10:45:05

"Journalists don't write about things to NOT attract attention." Honest journalists don't pollute the world with propaganda. Tagging any process that has yet to show any potential for commercial application as a "boom" is pure propaganda worthy of praise from Hermann Göring. Hydrates may or may not develop commercial potential. Testing the potential is appropriate. Hyping it as a "boom" to the Joe6packs of the world that don't to read the details is nothing more than a lie.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11397
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS
Top

Re: Peak Oil dead? --Reading Too Literally

Unread postby John_A » Sun 03 Nov 2013, 11:01:13

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('step back', '@')John_A, I think he means it won't happen on any kind of significant grand scale, not that some tiny insignificant attempt at it won't ever ever happen. You can't read everything so literally. :mrgreen:


To many years of technical writing. I like to write what I mean, and I assume others do the same usually. Sarcasm, hyperbole, general ignorance on a topic or amateurs dabbling in technical fields and screwing up the jargon can all lead me astray.
45ACP: For when you want to send the very best.
John_A
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1193
Joined: Sat 25 Jun 2011, 21:16:36
Top

Re: Peak Oil dead?

Unread postby John_A » Sun 03 Nov 2013, 11:07:02

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', '&')quot;Journalists don't write about things to NOT attract attention." Honest journalists don't pollute the world with propaganda.


Incorrect. Honest journalists don't necessarily even know what propaganda is...their job is to just talk about something. So they mistake reserves for resources even after being TOLD they will do it (I was in the room for this one), they pitch whatever hype comes their way because it is their job. Certainly asking them to understand how pimping one gangs hydrate story versus calling up and asking some resource expert somewhere or another to try and figure it out requires time they don't usually want to take.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Rockman', '
') Tagging any process that has yet to show any potential for commercial application as a "boom" is pure propaganda worthy of praise from Hermann Göring.


But it isn't propaganda, they are just pimping someone's hype. That hype might be propaganda of course, but as I mentioned previously, you can't count on a report to know the difference.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Rockman', '
')Hydrates may or may not develop commercial potential. Testing the potential is appropriate. Hyping it as a "boom" to the Joe6packs of the world that don't to read the details is nothing more than a lie.


No more a lie than Dewey defeating Truman. No more a lie than hype going the OTHER way, running out of oil before the end of the 80's for examples. Was that a lie, just because Jimmy Carter was a resource incompetent? No. He just didn't know anything about how resources work. Is a reporter telling a lie about a future resource? We certainly don't know NOW if it is a lie, only that it isn't economically viable.

Like tar sands once were. From such small beginnings....

Image
45ACP: For when you want to send the very best.
John_A
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1193
Joined: Sat 25 Jun 2011, 21:16:36
Top

Re: Peak Oil dead?

Unread postby John_A » Mon 04 Nov 2013, 11:33:02

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('step back', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'L')ike tar sands once were. From such small beginnings....

If we had a process that made "money" and at the same time filled the air with cyanide ... we'd do it.

That's who and what we are.


Pretty much. This then allows easy predictions on which way humans will jump, when given the choice.

If Japan can make the sub-sea hydrates work, boom will be a perfect description for what happens next.
45ACP: For when you want to send the very best.
John_A
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1193
Joined: Sat 25 Jun 2011, 21:16:36
Top

Re: Peak Oil dead?

Unread postby Strummer » Mon 04 Nov 2013, 12:34:22

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('John_A', 'I')f Japan can make the sub-sea hydrates work, boom will be a perfect description for what happens next.


Can you elaborate on what you mean by "making them work"? Do you expect them to:

a) extract the hydrates somehow using drastically lower energy inputs

or

b) find some new source of energy, which they can use to extract the hydrates at current input requirements?

or something else?
Strummer
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 691
Joined: Thu 04 Jul 2013, 04:42:14
Top

Re: Peak Oil dead?

Unread postby dsula » Mon 04 Nov 2013, 18:09:28

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'S')trummer, that would be the "something else" button.

And the answer is . . . "wishful thinking" for absolutely no money!


No, it will be his standard blabber answer of how EROEI is not important. And because it's not important hydrates can be extracted using energy from shale gas, while the shale gas was extracted using energy from super deep gulf oil, while the super deep gulf oil can be extracted using hydrates. Because, didn't ya know? EROEI don't matter, as long as people are willing to pay. :-D Ahhh, Shorty, entertainment at its finest.
User avatar
dsula
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 982
Joined: Wed 13 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Peak Oil dead?

Unread postby John_A » Mon 04 Nov 2013, 22:53:17

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Strummer', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('John_A', 'I')f Japan can make the sub-sea hydrates work, boom will be a perfect description for what happens next.


Can you elaborate on what you mean by "making them work"? Do you expect them to:

a) extract the hydrates somehow using drastically lower energy inputs


Nobody cares about how much energy goes into producing hydrates, only how much money. If it costs more to find, develop, distribute and sell than it does to get it, you lose. Otherwise, you win! Energy doesn't come into play other than as a cost you use to do the work necessary to get it.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('strummer', '
')b) find some new source of energy, which they can use to extract the hydrates at current input requirements?

or something else?


You don't need any new sources of energy to extract hydrates...you just warm them up and/or depressurize them and presto...you have methane. Kids stuff. The problem is doing it in a controlled manner from the seabed, if you are pulling them from the GOM, or under the permafrost in a real expensive place to operate, like the North Slope.

If you are really interested, give Tim Collett a call with the USGS, the guy knows everything there is to know about hydrates and is a hoot to talk to as well.
45ACP: For when you want to send the very best.
John_A
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1193
Joined: Sat 25 Jun 2011, 21:16:36
Top

Re: Peak Oil dead?

Unread postby John_A » Mon 04 Nov 2013, 22:55:41

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dsula', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'S')trummer, that would be the "something else" button.

And the answer is . . . "wishful thinking" for absolutely no money!


No, it will be his standard blabber answer of how EROEI is not important.


WRONG. The word you were looking for was irrelevant.

In millions of drilled wells, tens of thousands of oil and gas fields, hundreds of thousands of oil and gas development projects, going all the way back to 1859 and Drake, there has not been a single decision to do ANY of this stuff based on the energy input. Not one.

That qualifies as irrelevant, rather than "not important".
45ACP: For when you want to send the very best.
John_A
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1193
Joined: Sat 25 Jun 2011, 21:16:36
Top

Re: Peak Oil dead?

Unread postby Strummer » Tue 05 Nov 2013, 05:38:58

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('John_A', 'N')obody cares about how much energy goes into producing hydrates, only how much money. If it costs more to find, develop, distribute and sell than it does to get it, you lose. Otherwise, you win! Energy doesn't come into play other than as a cost you use to do the work necessary to get it.


Yeah, but money is just a number, showing the costs of the physical inputs (raw resources, tools, labour, energy...) that go into the physical process of extraction. Do you have a breakdown of those costs for the methane hydrates, and can you show which of those inputs you expect to come down in price drastically?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('John_A', 'I')n millions of drilled wells, tens of thousands of oil and gas fields, hundreds of thousands of oil and gas development projects, going all the way back to 1859 and Drake, there has not been a single decision to do ANY of this stuff based on the energy input. Not one.


Yes, but we are not talking about decisions here, we are talking about probable outcomes. Those are two completely separate things. You can make a decision based on your expectation, throwing endless amnounts of money at it, and still fail catastrophically. If energy extraction were just a matter of money and decisions, then this guy would be the richest man on earth right now:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/31/brazil-oil-tycoon-bankruptcy

Also, it would be interesting to see the total amount of sunken cost for the other hundreds of thousands of development projects between 1859 and today, those that went nowhere. Maybe that number would show that they actually should have looked at the energy inputs, instead of just money.
Strummer
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 691
Joined: Thu 04 Jul 2013, 04:42:14
Top

Re: Peak Oil dead?

Unread postby dorlomin » Tue 05 Nov 2013, 05:46:25

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('John_A', ' ')there has not been a single decision to do ANY of this stuff based on the energy input. Not one.
Energy is a cost. Companies do not go ahead with projects because the costs do not meet the profit. This is why the shale oil sat undrilled for so long. No one said "it takes too much energy", they said "the cost does not justify the rate of return". Energy input is a big part of that cost.

You know this. So you are once again fishing for a reaction.
User avatar
dorlomin
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5193
Joined: Sun 05 Aug 2007, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Peak Oil dead?

Unread postby John_A » Tue 05 Nov 2013, 10:38:46

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Strummer', '
')Yeah, but money is just a number, showing the costs of the physical inputs (raw resources, tools, labour, energy...) that go into the physical process of extraction. Do you have a breakdown of those costs for the methane hydrates, and can you show which of those inputs you expect to come down in price drastically?


I have no information on the full cycle costs of hydrate development. Yet.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Strummer', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('John_A', 'I')n millions of drilled wells, tens of thousands of oil and gas fields, hundreds of thousands of oil and gas development projects, going all the way back to 1859 and Drake, there has not been a single decision to do ANY of this stuff based on the energy input. Not one.


Yes, but we are not talking about decisions here, we are talking about probable outcomes.


Oh, in the oil field, we are most CERTAINLY talking about decisions. And to make those decisions, yes, we certainly discuss and calculate potential outcomes.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Strummer', '
')Those are two completely separate things. You can make a decision based on your expectation, throwing endless amnounts of money at it, and still fail catastrophically. If energy extraction were just a matter of money and decisions, then this guy would be the richest man on earth right now:


Certainly his lot in life would not change in the least if he had incorrectly based his decision on energy inputs either. There are bad decisions, and bad outcomes, and if someone is being honest about a prospect, well, or project, they certainly want to think about the outcome and the how much they stand to lose (in $$) if they get it wrong.

I am trying to think if there is ANY way you can make a decision if you haven't at least gamed out the outcome first, and can't think of one. If you haven't, there isn't any value in making the decision. Of course, you can still make the wrong decision, or have your outcome estimate come off the rails. Certainly no one measures success or failure in either case based on an energy basis either.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Strummer', '
')Also, it would be interesting to see the total amount of sunken cost for the other hundreds of thousands of development projects between 1859 and today, those that went nowhere. Maybe that number would show that they actually should have looked at the energy inputs, instead of just money.

Maybe it would. Certainly there are many cases of wells drilled with zippo outcomes. But in some cases, outcome has nothing to do with what you expect, or invest. I drill two offset wells in what the geologists have said is the same trend. It required the same amount of energy, and money, to drill each of them. One makes zero oil and gas, and the other is spectacular.

The decision was made to drill both, expecting the same result. But in the oil field, you had better be prepared to live on the average result, because you can't predict the outcome with near the certainty you might wish.
45ACP: For when you want to send the very best.
John_A
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1193
Joined: Sat 25 Jun 2011, 21:16:36
Top

Re: Peak Oil dead?

Unread postby John_A » Tue 05 Nov 2013, 10:52:19

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dorlomin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('John_A', ' ')there has not been a single decision to do ANY of this stuff based on the energy input. Not one.
Energy is a cost.


Of course energy is a cost. And different types and amounts of energy cost different. Diesel doesn't cost what gasoline does. Electricity from the grid to run the drawworks does not cost the same as using a diesel powered generator to create the electricity. Natural gas from the well head to run your compressors on site is free. So is associated natural gas to run your pumpjack. If I wanted to set up solar panels to run the company man and toolpushers trailer that is yet more OpEx avoided for CapEx expended.

All those costs are accounted for in $$$$$. Not BTUs.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dorlormin', '
') Companies do not go ahead with projects because the costs do not meet the profit. This is why the shale oil sat undrilled for so long. No one said "it takes too much energy", they said "the cost does not justify the rate of return". Energy input is a big part of that cost.


What are you talking about? Devonian shale gas drilled in the Big Sandy gas field was once the largest known accumulation of natural gas known on the PLANET...it didn't sit there undrilled. Even today that old shale field is listed as being perhaps in the top 20 in the United States according to Richard Nehring's database of US oil and gas fields. And they didn't decide to drill, or not drill, because of energy either.

Shale gas fields along the shores of Lake Erie started production between 1860 and 1880 and when the Appalachian gas atlas came out in the 1990's, those fields were still producing according to the USGS authors who participated in that tome. Shale oil was coming out of the Ohio Valley back in the 1880's, yet more Devonian sourced crude, before anyone ever thought about Texas as being worth much.

And of COURSE people talk about the COST of what it takes to drill and not the amount of energy, that is my entire point.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dorlormin', '
')You know this. So you are once again fishing for a reaction.


Of course I know that AFE's are based on cost, not energy. Of course I know that EROEI is irrelevant because no one uses ENERGY metrics to make decisions in the oil field. If you are agreeing with me just to fight about how right I am, STOP already. You win!
45ACP: For when you want to send the very best.
John_A
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1193
Joined: Sat 25 Jun 2011, 21:16:36
Top

Re: Peak Oil dead?

Unread postby dorlomin » Tue 05 Nov 2013, 13:09:41

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('John_A', '
')All those costs are accounted for in $$$$$. Not BTUs.

So among all your blustering, you agree with me.

Well done shorty. You got a bite on your fishing expedition. :lol:
User avatar
dorlomin
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5193
Joined: Sun 05 Aug 2007, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Peak Oil dead?

Unread postby Loki » Tue 05 Nov 2013, 23:03:34

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dorlomin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('John_A', '
')All those costs are accounted for in $$$$$. Not BTUs.

So among all your blustering, you agree with me.

Well done shorty. You got a bite on your fishing expedition. :lol:

He's a specialist in half truths, carefully crafted by his years of technical writing experience :lol:

He is right, in his usual half-assed way. EROEI isn't a metric the oil industry uses, obviously, nor does anyone else. But as you say, the costs of energy inputs are part of the overall ROI. A 10 year old could immediately grasp this concept. John_A on the other hand....

People who disagree with my views I can handle, opinions are like assholes. But those who knowingly peddle half-truths I don't understand. But I've never understood liars. I'm pathologically honest, I can squeeze out a fib if my back is against the wall, but it goes against every grain of my being. One reason I keep my mouth shut most of the time.
A garden will make your rations go further.
User avatar
Loki
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 3509
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Oregon
Top

Re: Peak Oil dead?

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Wed 06 Nov 2013, 08:35:54

"...no one uses ENERGY metrics to make decisions in the oil field." True...I never have and never will. But I use the cost of energy as one factor along with the cost of every component. The amount of energy used to drill a well is no less relevant than the cost of the drilling mud, the casing, etc. It's just one of the components used to calculate the economic potential of a well. And no one cost factor determines if I'll drill or not. It's the cumulative $'s at risk so no one factor is more important than any other one.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11397
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS
Top

Re: Peak Oil dead?

Unread postby dcoyne78 » Wed 06 Nov 2013, 10:17:58

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', '&')quot;...no one uses ENERGY metrics to make decisions in the oil field." True...I never have and never will. But I use the cost of energy as one factor along with the cost of every component. The amount of energy used to drill a well is no less relevant than the cost of the drilling mud, the casing, etc. It's just one of the components used to calculate the economic potential of a well. And no one cost factor determines if I'll drill or not. It's the cumulative $'s at risk so no one factor is more important than any other one.


One problem with looking at energy from the perspective of an oil company is that it misses the big picture.

It is true that only cost, revenue, and profit are relevant for a business. For the system as a whole however, the net energy of all consumption and production must be positive. EROEI does not matter for any single company, it does matter for society. This will become increasingly apparent as more extractive industries approach an EROEI of unity. This (an EROEI of 1)works for some processes when they are subsidized by other higher net energy processes, but when all social processes taken together reach an EROEI of less than 5, there will need to be much more efficient use of energy.

DC
dcoyne78
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 476
Joined: Thu 30 May 2013, 19:45:15
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests