Peak Oil
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.
Post a reply

Re: Shale

Postby TonyPrep » Sun 27 Jan 2008, 06:43:54

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Oil-Finder', 'J')ust so you can be sure of my calculation, 1.8 trillion barrels / 2 = 900 billion barrels / 31 billion barrels yearly consumption = 29 years.
I can't believe you really meant that post. Do you really not see a difference between conventional oil (the stuff that comes out of the ground under pressure (or with some pumping assistance) and oil that is contained in shale (or oil sands, for that matter)? Oil sands production in Canada is estimated to peak at somewhere between 3 and 5 million barrels per day, eventually (if societies and economies largely hold together), but that peak won't happen when half the oil, in the oil sands, is gone, and it could, theoretically continue for many decades, even centuries, at that level. I'm sure oil shale, if significant quantities ever get produced, will be similar. World-wide, unconventional oil, such as this, probably will have a peak and slow decline, because deposits naturally vary in quality and concentration, and the best/easiest are produced first.

But your calculation is just not credible, because it shale is not conventional oil. It can't be produced at anywhere near the rates that equivalent sized conventional oil fields can.

To me, this all seems rather obvious and I would not have thought that the comments I've made about the author of the article and the calculation I worked through would warrant more than an "oh", but we've used many posts to drag through this point that the article's author made a completely useless comment.

(By the way, even if the oil shale was conventional oil, your calculation would not be correct, though it's probably in the right ball park; when calculating the delay in peak, a small number of months or years probably is quite close, but increasing demand also needs to be taken into consideration; e.g. if oil consumption increased at 2% per year, consumption would be 55 billion barrel per year, in 29 years, and the delay would be significantly shorter).
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: Shale

Postby Oil-Finder » Sun 27 Jan 2008, 06:56:40

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'B')y the way, even if the oil shale was conventional oil, your calculation would not be correct, though it's probably in the right ball park

I was just doing my calculation the same way you were doing yours. It was just a "finger in the air calculation."
User avatar
Oil-Finder
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 630
Joined: Tue 11 Dec 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Seattle
Top

Re: Shale

Postby TonyPrep » Sun 27 Jan 2008, 07:07:43

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Oil-Finder', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'B')y the way, even if the oil shale was conventional oil, your calculation would not be correct, though it's probably in the right ball park

I was just doing my calculation the same way you were doing yours. It was just a "finger in the air calculation."
I'm well aware of that, Oil-Finder. I said that for small quantities, that calculation will be about right. For much larger quantities, rising demand will play a bigger part.

However, it's all moot since the quantity of oil from shale cannot be produced at rates similar to conventional oil and so the calculation will be very different and it's doubtful that peak would be affected at all, only the decline slope angle.
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: Shale

Postby dinopello » Sun 27 Jan 2008, 10:29:05

$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?

I don't know what the economics of it look like, but the chemistry works.


I take it to mean you did not read this anywhere? That's fine, it's an area to research for investors. I'm not sure the 'every hydrocarbon is the same' argument is true though. Economics of it was what I was interested in.
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

Postby Tyler_JC » Sun 27 Jan 2008, 13:43:44

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dinopello', '')$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?

I don't know what the economics of it look like, but the chemistry works.


I take it to mean you did not read this anywhere? That's fine, it's an area to research for investors. I'm not sure the 'every hydrocarbon is the same' argument is true though. Economics of it was what I was interested in.


Department of Energy report on shale oil.
"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

Postby dinopello » Mon 28 Jan 2008, 10:06:06

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dinopello', '')$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?

I don't know what the economics of it look like, but the chemistry works.


I take it to mean you did not read this anywhere? That's fine, it's an area to research for investors. I'm not sure the 'every hydrocarbon is the same' argument is true though. Economics of it was what I was interested in.


Department of Energy report on shale oil.


Thanks, the report makes a case for why we need to get at the resource, and also why massive subsidies are needed from taxpayers to make it economically viable.
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

Postby Tyler_JC » Mon 28 Jan 2008, 14:17:18

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dinopello', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dinopello', '')$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?

I don't know what the economics of it look like, but the chemistry works.


I take it to mean you did not read this anywhere? That's fine, it's an area to research for investors. I'm not sure the 'every hydrocarbon is the same' argument is true though. Economics of it was what I was interested in.


Department of Energy report on shale oil.


Thanks, the report makes a case for why we need to get at the resource, and also why massive subsidies are needed from taxpayers to make it economically viable.


2004 was the world of $50 oil. We are in the world of $90 oil. There's a big difference there...but it still isn't enough to push oil shale into the black.

As an energy source, shale is a waste of effort. But as a chemical feedstock, in a hydrocarbon-starved 23rd century, it might make sense. :)

I wouldn't count on shale as a good investment right now. We need some technological breakthroughs before it can become profitable.
"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

Postby FreddyH » Mon 28 Jan 2008, 16:38:21

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', '2')004 was the world of $50 oil. We are in the world of $90 oil. There's a big difference there...but it still isn't enough to push oil shale into the black.


Untrue. The tar sands break even at $45/barrel and yield 21-gallons/ton. The richest kerogen deposits (850-Gb) yield 25-gal/ton.
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

Postby Oil-Finder » Mon 28 Jan 2008, 17:05:17

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'N')either of these boondoggles will ever prove to be economic in the long run because the energy return of neither is positive.

As already pointed out numerous times in this thread, Shell says the energy return on its shale process is 3:1 to 6:1, depending on the scale of the project.

Tar sands are EROEI positive too.

But maybe if you repeat your false claim to yourself several more times, you'll convince yourself it's true. :roll:
User avatar
Oil-Finder
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 630
Joined: Tue 11 Dec 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Seattle
Top

Re: Shale

Postby LoneSnark » Mon 28 Jan 2008, 17:11:05

Nevermind that even if the EROEI was negative it would still not mean anything. We as a species need liquid fuel for transportation. If we have non-liquid fuel in abundance then even a EROEI negative process turning it into liquid fuel makes both logical and economic sense.
User avatar
LoneSnark
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 514
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Shale

Postby joewp » Mon 28 Jan 2008, 17:26:39

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('LoneSnark', 'N')evermind that even if the EROEI was negative it would still not mean anything. We as a species need liquid fuel for transportation.


You're not serious, are you? For 99.99% of our species' history, we didn't have liquid fuel for transport. We don't "need" anything except food, water and shelter. Where did you get this idea we "need" liquid fuel?
Joe P. joeparente.com
"Only when the last tree is cut; only when the last river is polluted; only when the last fish is caught; only then will they realize that you cannot eat money." - Cree Indian Proverb
User avatar
joewp
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2054
Joined: Tue 05 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Keeping dry in South Florida
Top

Re: Shale

Postby Tyler_JC » Mon 28 Jan 2008, 17:59:54

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('LoneSnark', 'N')evermind that even if the EROEI was negative it would still not mean anything. We as a species need liquid fuel for transportation. If we have non-liquid fuel in abundance then even a EROEI negative process turning it into liquid fuel makes both logical and economic sense.
This assumes there is another better, cruder, cheaper, more abundant, or easier-to-get and available energy for the conversion. What would that be? dilithium crystals perhaps? fusion? wind? tesla black light energy? good vibes?

nah. all we have is petroleum and that is running out. oh damn :shock:


And what's wrong with the sun?

I don't think we really need liquid transport fuel, or at least the amount of fuel we use now to keep project civilization going. The airlines are the only transportation industry that can't easily switch to electric. But would modern civilization be impossible without aircraft? I think it's a survivable loss.
"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

Postby TonyPrep » Mon 28 Jan 2008, 18:15:25

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'Y')ou need to show me a simple, concise peer-reviewed energy accounting that includes all inputs interated out to reasonable boundry. I expect to see a simple life-cycle energy-return list, not meta-analytic crap from bogus review paper pumped by the investment firm propping up the scam.
That's a good point. When this sort of analysis is attempted and comes up negative, it attracts derision. When this sort of analysis is attempted and comes up positive, we get the told-you-sos. One side will always find some ammunition to attack the other side; "they didn't include all the inputs", "not all BTUs are the same", ...

IMHO, a lot of the unconventional sources of liquid fuel could well turn out to be energy negative, but I don't know for sure. Isn't it important to our societies to know which sources are worth pursuing, energy-wise, and which aren't?
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: Shale

Postby FreddyH » Mon 28 Jan 2008, 18:19:25

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '
')nah. all we have is petroleum and that is running out. oh damn :shock:


Really? Would u like to share with us your date?
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

Postby Oil-Finder » Mon 28 Jan 2008, 18:37:35

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'S')hell has been also been chasing profitability since before you were born. No proof there.

That made no sense. But I digress . . .

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'A')s for energy-return claims. You need to show me a simple, concise peer-reviewed energy accounting that includes all inputs interated out to reasonable boundry. I expect to see a simple life-cycle energy-return list, not meta-analytic crap from bogus review paper pumped by the investment firm propping up the scam.

Of course you are asking for something which will probably never be produced, because it lets you continue with your fantasy that they will be unprofitable and have a negative energy return. Never mind the fact that the tar sands, at least, have been producing for years with no sign of anyone pulling up stakes.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'W')hy do I ask so much? Nothing has ever been powered by shale or tar sand energy.

This is false. There are millions of cars, trucks and planes now being powered by tar sands oil.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'I')f this junk had a 6:1 energy return than I should expect a 500% energy profit somewhere . The technology is not new. Dig it. Cook it. Hydrate it. Refine it. Where are 500% ROI billionaires? :razz:

Actually, if you knew anything about the oil shale, you'd know there is no need to "dig it" anymore.
User avatar
Oil-Finder
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 630
Joined: Tue 11 Dec 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Seattle
Top

Re: Shale

Postby LoneSnark » Mon 28 Jan 2008, 20:20:41

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')his assumes there is another better, cruder, cheaper, more abundant, or easier-to-get and available energy for the conversion. What would that be? dilithium crystals perhaps? fusion? wind? tesla black light energy? good vibes?

Right now it is natural gas. Then we have coal, then nuclear, then whatever else you have lying around and is priced cheaper than refined petroleum products.

Here is a neat site:
Fuel Cost Calculator
At $2.40 a gallon, oil costs $15.71 per Million BTU of Heat
At $74 a ton, coal costs $2.66 per Million BTU of Heat
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/acr/table28.html

So, just at current prices, a process which turns coal into oil which requires 5.9 BTU from coal to produce a single BTU of oil just breaks even.
User avatar
LoneSnark
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 514
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest



cron