Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

I think we can make a big step toward fixing everything...

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

Re: I think we can make a big step toward fixing everything.

Unread postby SILENTTODD » Fri 13 Jun 2008, 04:27:16

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SILENTTODD', 'D')ezakin, we've been hearing this crap since 1979 (I don't know if your old enough to remember the "2nd Oil Crisis", I came of age during the 1st one of 1973). It always seems if the price of oil was 'just' $20 a barrel more, shale oil would come into it's own.

I remember hearing this when oil was under $30 a barrel! If only the price rose to $60 shale oil would come pouring into the world market!

Well Dazakin? What happened? Oil at this moment is over $130 a barrel and I haven't heard of drop entering the system for the reason I've already pointed out.

That has nothing to do with it. The reason shale oil was, is, and allways will be too expensive is theres a limited amount of capital in the world. In 1973, 1979, and today that capital first chased slightly more expensive oil, deepwater oil, and now CTL. Its not about production cost... theoretically Shell could turn a profit today, according to their own studies. But they could turn a bigger profit investing their dollars elsewhere, like deepwater oil, arctic oil, or CTL.

And CTL plants are being built today around the globe, because its cheaper than shale.


I already made this point, "Energy Of The Future And Always Be". You don't seem to understand that seeing is believing. How high does oil have to go a barrel in your estimate before shale oil becomes viable? $200?, $300?, $500? $1000?!! Give me a figure, I like to hold you to it.
Last edited by SILENTTODD on Fri 13 Jun 2008, 05:33:58, edited 1 time in total.
Skeptical scrutiny in both Science and Religion is the means by which deep thoughts are winnowed from deep nonsense-Carl Sagan
User avatar
SILENTTODD
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 928
Joined: Sat 06 May 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Corona, CA
Top

Re: I think we can make a big step toward fixing everything.

Unread postby Dezakin » Fri 13 Jun 2008, 04:28:55

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('wisconsin_cur', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('wisconsin_cur', 'T')Y for the answers... I'm still pretty "doomy" but appreciate the effort that went into the responses.

Well, a good example of how fast we could ramp up production with strong public policy support is France. They went from almost no nuclear power supply in 1970 to about 80% in 1990, as a political response to the 1970's oil shocks. I would like the US to pursue such a rush to nuclear power policy, but I think it'll be a bumpier ride than that. Still, it gives an idea of what is possible.
bold mine.

Do you think it is likely?

Sadly, no.

I think its likely we'll really start in building reactors in ten or fifteen years when the pain becomes obviously long lasting, and the whole world will endure an inflationary cycle of infrastructure adjustment. Real income for everyone goes down for a generation.

However who can tell. Theres far more weight put behind nuclear build than I thought possible 3 years ago. The first reactors were ordered in the US in over 30 years last year. The DOE hydrogen program (which honestly has lots of stupid garbage in it also) is funding development of various thermochemical hydrogen generation cycles which could easily be used in high temperature reactors.

Sorry for the long winded post. In the short term, I think its unlikely, and in the long term, inevitable. I'm absolutely sure its not happening as fast as it could or should.
User avatar
Dezakin
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: I think we can make a big step toward fixing everything.

Unread postby Dezakin » Fri 13 Jun 2008, 04:34:07

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SILENTTODD', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SILENTTODD', 'D')ezakin, we've been hearing this crap since 1979 (I don't know if your old enough to remember the "2nd Oil Crisis", I came of age during the 1st one of 1973). It always seems if the price of oil was 'just' $20 a barrel more, shale oil would come into it's own.

I remember hearing this when oil was under $30 a barrel! If only the price rose to $60 shale oil would come pouring into the world market!

Well Dazakin? What happened? Oil at this moment is over $130 a barrel and I haven't heard of drop entering the system for the reason I've already pointed out.

That has nothing to do with it. The reason shale oil was, is, and allways will be too expensive is theres a limited amount of capital in the world. In 1973, 1979, and today that capital first chased slightly more expensive oil, deepwater oil, and now CTL. Its not about production cost... theoretically Shell could turn a profit today, according to their own studies. But they could turn a bigger profit investing their dollars elsewhere, like deepwater oil, arctic oil, or CTL.

And CTL plants are being built today around the globe, because its cheaper than shale.


I already this point, "Energy Of The Future And Always Be". You don't seem to understand that seeing is believing. How high does oil have to go a barrel in your estimate before shale oil becomes viable? $200?, $300?, $500? $1000?!! Give me a figure, I like to hold you to it.

You're not listening to me at all.

You could have oil go to 1 zillion dollars a barrel, and if CTL is cheaper to produce, shale oil still wont be developed.

Shale oil will only be developed if the alternatives become more expensive. When the production cost of deepwater oil is over $80 dollars per barrel, and the demand for coal has jacked its price so high that CTL is over $80 dollars per barrel, and shale is still $70 dollars per barrel, then it will be produced. When is that going to happen?

Not for another 30 years I doubt. If nuclear hydrogen based synfuel is cheaper to produce, never.
User avatar
Dezakin
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: I think we can make a big step toward fixing everything.

Unread postby wisconsin_cur » Fri 13 Jun 2008, 04:51:11

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('wisconsin_cur', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('wisconsin_cur', 'T')Y for the answers... I'm still pretty "doomy" but appreciate the effort that went into the responses.

Well, a good example of how fast we could ramp up production with strong public policy support is France. They went from almost no nuclear power supply in 1970 to about 80% in 1990, as a political response to the 1970's oil shocks. I would like the US to pursue such a rush to nuclear power policy, but I think it'll be a bumpier ride than that. Still, it gives an idea of what is possible.
bold mine.

Do you think it is likely?

Sadly, no.

I think its likely we'll really start in building reactors in ten or fifteen years when the pain becomes obviously long lasting, and the whole world will endure an inflationary cycle of infrastructure adjustment. Real income for everyone goes down for a generation.

However who can tell. Theres far more weight put behind nuclear build than I thought possible 3 years ago. The first reactors were ordered in the US in over 30 years last year. The DOE hydrogen program (which honestly has lots of stupid garbage in it also) is funding development of various thermochemical hydrogen generation cycles which could easily be used in high temperature reactors.

Sorry for the long winded post. In the short term, I think its unlikely, and in the long term, inevitable. I'm absolutely sure its not happening as fast as it could or should.

bold is mine.

Not long winded at all. I would like to follow up with the "inevitable" part however.

Where we might have disagreement is the power of human cohesion as we go through the "rough patch." The amount of human cooperation we have seen over the last 60 years really is amazing and not typical. I would argue that it flows from the ready availability of cheap and easy fuel (ie light sweet crude). When that cheap and easy fuel goes away I would expect that we would revert to the mean in human interactions as I have outlined in this thread.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('wisconsin_cur', 'I')t is my contention that as the nations and peoples of the globe re-evaluate their relative situations in light of a renewed perception of scarcity that we would see a rise in xenophobia and general intolerance of those who are different. The first victim of peak oil will be globalization, followed quickly by the value we place on diversity.



In an age of ballistic missiles it is hard to see how any nation, the united states included, could sail through the rough patch without overcoming a) its own growing disparities and balkanization within its borders but also b) the envy or desperation of other nations. We will make scapegoats of others and we will be scapegoated by others who are driven by expediency (one could argue that to blame America would not be scapegoating since we use a largely disproportionate amount of world oil but I digress).

To call the situation a "rough patch" and not factor it into our calculations of what is the likely human response to the rough patch seems to me to an abstraction of a material problem. Since I do not live in an abstract world but a real one, filled with real people who do all of the irrational and damaging things real people do, I do not take a whole lot of hope from what is abstractly possible but try to plan for what is pragmatically likely.

just my 2... hey since when did they take the cent sign off of the keyboard... ok just my $0.02
http://www.thenewfederalistpapers.com
User avatar
wisconsin_cur
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4576
Joined: Thu 10 May 2007, 03:00:00
Location: 45 degrees North. 883 feet above sealevel.
Top

Re: I think we can make a big step toward fixing everything.

Unread postby SILENTTODD » Fri 13 Jun 2008, 04:59:03

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', 'A')nd CTL plants are being built today around the globe, because its cheaper than shale.



"CTL"? "Coal To Liquids"? Why don't you just say that? There's a lot of newbie’s out here that don't know what you’re talking about. It's called the Fischer-Tropsch process for all you unfamiliar out there. It was developed in Germany in the 1920's.

Yeh I agree that is more viable than Shale Oil. Hitler and Nazi's did that in the early 1940’s. But of course we all don't speak German today so that didn't work out too well.

It will never replace the amount of oil the world is currently using a day, 85 million barrels, or even the amount America is using. It produces a huge amount of carbon dioxide; you might as well be burning the coal itself.

And for all claims of clean coal (not that it's going to matter) no one has shown that it can be done on a commercial scale. If it was why isn't it being done now? You could be making a fortune beyond the dreams of avarice!

Don't agree? See my Sagan quote below.
Last edited by SILENTTODD on Fri 13 Jun 2008, 05:03:26, edited 2 times in total.
Skeptical scrutiny in both Science and Religion is the means by which deep thoughts are winnowed from deep nonsense-Carl Sagan
User avatar
SILENTTODD
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 928
Joined: Sat 06 May 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Corona, CA
Top

Re: I think we can make a big step toward fixing everything.

Unread postby Judgie » Fri 13 Jun 2008, 04:59:39

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Judgie', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SILENTTODD', 'S')oberGoose, I don't want to come off like some of the flamers who you will see after me (or even before me) who will be replying to your post. This site has been going on for nearly 4 years, don't you think everyone who is involved with this subject has heard and investigated what you just stated? Let me just cut to the chase, Shale Oil is a joke within the Oil industry, "Shale Oil, the Energy of the Future, and always will be". No one has yet shown how you can produce more liquid fuel energy (gasoline) from shale oil than you use to produce it!

Learn this acronym by heart "EROEI"- Energy Return On Energy Investment

Thats meaningless conventional wisdom. First its wrong, based on the Shell studies. Second its irrelevant as long as you have an energy source to convert to liquid fuel (such as a nuclear reactor, or natural gas in the case of the Alberta oil sands)

The real reason oil shale won't be useful is production cost. If it costs over twice what CTL costs (which it does), you wont be producing oil shale for liquid fuels untill coal costs go that high. If it costs more than doing synfuel from nuclear hydrogen and limestone (which is possible) it'll never be produced.

Oil shale certainly is viable, and everyone shoots it down for the wrong reason. The real reason it wont compete is because theres something better for a long time to come.


I really REALLY wish this guy was a pollie, and I a cartoonist! :D

When you can't actually argue, mock.


When someone does not argue but mocks, and all you can do is to open your trap and mock in return, what does that make you?

a bait taker perhaps in this instance?
"That the cream cannot help but always rise up to the top, well I say, <censored by peakoil.com> floats"

Jarvis Cocker - "Running the World"
Judgie
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 418
Joined: Mon 07 May 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Top

Re: I think we can make a big step toward fixing everything.

Unread postby Dezakin » Fri 13 Jun 2008, 05:07:56

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('wisconsin_cur', 'N')ot long winded at all. I would like to follow up with the "inevitable" part however.

Inevitable because nuclear power will offer the biggest profit margins in the energy industry when other energy supplys deplete, and all the worlds capital will flood into it. In my crystal ball, this doesn't happen only because some other energy source is cheaper somehow. Maybe wind or solar could be, but I wouldn't bet on that with tenfold odds.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')here we might have disagreement is the power of human cohesion as we go through the "rough patch." The amount of human cooperation we have seen over the last 60 years really is amazing and not typical. I would argue that it flows from the ready availability of cheap and easy fuel (ie light sweet crude). When that cheap and easy fuel goes away I would expect that we would revert to the mean in human interactions as I have outlined in this thread.

Hey, we're getting out of engineering and raw economics and into sociopolitical responses to pressure. All I can do here is offer my opinion. I know we can develop nuclear power production infrastructure to run the entire world, and I know business will eventually fund it. I dont know if people will vote to bomb the shit out of each other beforehand, and I cant prove that scenario one way or another.

That said, my opinion: I suspect humanity wont be as willing to rush off to war because the price has gotten too high. Nuclear deterant makes it too high for the leaders and even though the global economy over the next forty years might be more challenged than the last forty, by and large most people are unlikely to be starving and still have too much to lose.

But I can't prove that sunny picture that I happen to believe. If you still believe the worst of man, theres room for doom yet.
User avatar
Dezakin
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: I think we can make a big step toward fixing everything.

Unread postby SILENTTODD » Fri 13 Jun 2008, 05:12:45

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Judgie', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Judgie', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SILENTTODD', 'S')oberGoose, I don't want to come off like some of the flamers who you will see after me (or even before me) who will be replying to your post. This site has been going on for nearly 4 years, don't you think everyone who is involved with this subject has heard and investigated what you just stated? Let me just cut to the chase, Shale Oil is a joke within the Oil industry, "Shale Oil, the Energy of the Future, and always will be". No one has yet shown how you can produce more liquid fuel energy (gasoline) from shale oil than you use to produce it!

Learn this acronym by heart "EROEI"- Energy Return On Energy Investment

Thats meaningless conventional wisdom. First its wrong, based on the Shell studies. Second its irrelevant as long as you have an energy source to convert to liquid fuel (such as a nuclear reactor, or natural gas in the case of the Alberta oil sands)

The real reason oil shale won't be useful is production cost. If it costs over twice what CTL costs (which it does), you wont be producing oil shale for liquid fuels untill coal costs go that high. If it costs more than doing synfuel from nuclear hydrogen and limestone (which is possible) it'll never be produced.

Oil shale certainly is viable, and everyone shoots it down for the wrong reason. The real reason it wont compete is because theres something better for a long time to come.


I really REALLY wish this guy was a pollie, and I a cartoonist! :D

When you can't actually argue, mock.


When someone does not argue but mocks, and all you can do is to open your trap and mock in return, what does that make you?

a bait taker perhaps in this instance?

When someone is proposing a new version of perpetual motion, I'm sorry, all you can do sometimes is roll you eyes.
Skeptical scrutiny in both Science and Religion is the means by which deep thoughts are winnowed from deep nonsense-Carl Sagan
User avatar
SILENTTODD
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 928
Joined: Sat 06 May 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Corona, CA
Top

Re: I think we can make a big step toward fixing everything.

Unread postby Dezakin » Fri 13 Jun 2008, 05:19:12

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SILENTTODD', 'I')t will never replace the amount of oil the world is currently using a day, 85 million barrels, or even the amount America is using. It produces a huge amount of carbon dioxide; you might as well be burning the coal itself.

You could produce tens of millions of barrels per day of synthetic fuel from coal. Theres enough supply. Lots of CO2? Like anyones going to care at $10 dollars a gallon.

It gets better if you have a source of natural gas for excess hydrogen. I dont know how many people care enough now to bother with it though.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')nd for all claims of clean coal (not that it's going to matter) no one has shown that it can be done on a commercial scale. If it was why isn't it being done now? You could be making a fortune beyond the dreams of avarice!

I'm not arguing the environmental desirability of coal. Only its profitability and its ability to supply liquid fuels. Its quite capable of that. Its why shale oil will never take off.

And we'll see plenty of it
User avatar
Dezakin
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: I think we can make a big step toward fixing everything.

Unread postby wisconsin_cur » Fri 13 Jun 2008, 05:20:00

People (almost) never vote to bomb the hell out of each other. They are convinced (rightly or wrongly) that there is a threat to their "way of life" from some outside force and are then led into war. I will not try to pass the social sciences as if they are capable of the same predictive abilities of the hard sciences but there is a long stream of examples of wars that worked against the interests of those who initiated them in order to meet some expedient political interest.

I think we must take into account the socio-political dynamics because we live in a socio-political world. It does me little good to think of what could be done in an abstract world when I live in a physical one filled with fallible homo sapiens.

Hitler invaded Russia. Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. The USA interned the most valuable asset they had for the war in the Pacific (its Japanese speaking citizens). We invested in suburbia, we click on the links sent to our email inbox from Nigeria, we smoke, we play with guns, we get into bar fights, we throw agent orange on one another in the jungle, we... and we... and we...
http://www.thenewfederalistpapers.com
User avatar
wisconsin_cur
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4576
Joined: Thu 10 May 2007, 03:00:00
Location: 45 degrees North. 883 feet above sealevel.
Top

Re: I think we can make a big step toward fixing everything.

Unread postby SILENTTODD » Fri 13 Jun 2008, 05:29:02

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SILENTTODD', 'I')t will never replace the amount of oil the world is currently using a day, 85 million barrels, or even the amount America is using. It produces a huge amount of carbon dioxide; you might as well be burning the coal itself.

You could produce tens of millions of barrels per day of synthetic fuel from coal. Theres enough supply. Lots of CO2? Like anyones going to care at $10 dollars a gallon.

It gets better if you have a source of natural gas for excess hydrogen. I dont know how many people care enough now to bother with it though.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')nd for all claims of clean coal (not that it's going to matter) no one has shown that it can be done on a commercial scale. If it was why isn't it being done now? You could be making a fortune beyond the dreams of avarice!

I'm not arguing the environmental desirability of coal. Only its profitability and its ability to supply liquid fuels. Its quite capable of that. Its why shale oil will never take off.

And we'll see plenty of it


Tens of Millions? hmmm? As I said, seeing is believing. Want to say how many millions? 10, 20, 30, 80 Million?

And P.S. Natural Gas in North America may deplete before the oil does.
Skeptical scrutiny in both Science and Religion is the means by which deep thoughts are winnowed from deep nonsense-Carl Sagan
User avatar
SILENTTODD
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 928
Joined: Sat 06 May 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Corona, CA
Top

Re: I think we can make a big step toward fixing everything.

Unread postby Dezakin » Fri 13 Jun 2008, 05:42:41

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SILENTTODD', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SILENTTODD', 'I')t will never replace the amount of oil the world is currently using a day, 85 million barrels, or even the amount America is using. It produces a huge amount of carbon dioxide; you might as well be burning the coal itself.

You could produce tens of millions of barrels per day of synthetic fuel from coal. Theres enough supply. Lots of CO2? Like anyones going to care at $10 dollars a gallon.

It gets better if you have a source of natural gas for excess hydrogen. I dont know how many people care enough now to bother with it though.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')nd for all claims of clean coal (not that it's going to matter) no one has shown that it can be done on a commercial scale. If it was why isn't it being done now? You could be making a fortune beyond the dreams of avarice!

I'm not arguing the environmental desirability of coal. Only its profitability and its ability to supply liquid fuels. Its quite capable of that. Its why shale oil will never take off.

And we'll see plenty of it


Tens of Millions? hmmm? As I said, seeing is believing. Want to say how many millions? 10, 20, 30, 80 Million?

More than 10. Probably less than 80. I dont have perfect vision into the future, its clouded by production costs of conventional oil and tar sands and the like. But over 500,000 bpd capacity has been ordered in the last couple of years and I can only imagine it will accelerate as the oil starts to deplete.

But what will really send capital into CTL is when new oil has higher production costs than CTL.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')nd P.S. Natural Gas in North America may deplete before the oil does.
Quite possibly.
User avatar
Dezakin
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: I think we can make a big step toward fixing everything.

Unread postby FrankRichards » Fri 13 Jun 2008, 06:20:57

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', '
')Oh no! If I could only synthesize that stuff from CO and H in some sort of reactor with some sort of catalysts! Sounds like strange Nazi science that some evil regime in South Africa would persue though, and everyone knows that thats science fiction.


And to get back to oil shale, there was a link yesterday on The Oildrum about just that. Shell did a presentation at the Colorado School of Mines about the bazillions of tons of coal they would burn to extract the kerogen. Somebody asked them if it wouldn't just be better to use Fischer-Tropsche to make coal into oil. Answer: "Yes"

This from Shell's own engineers.
User avatar
FrankRichards
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 115
Joined: Mon 11 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: I think we can make a big step toward fixing everything.

Unread postby TheDude » Fri 13 Jun 2008, 06:23:46

For the Original Poster (OP) ( :-D ) - suggest you take a look at what is called the Hirsch report,a 2004 DOE document about mitigating peak oil. The authors passingly mention oil shale but disregard it as not being a viable source of fuel in volumes large enough to warrant attention. Instead, they advise CTL, GTL (Gas to liquids), improved vehicle efficiency, etc., to compensate for declining oil production. People are impressed by the volume of shale, not realizing what would be involved in processing it to any meaningful degree. Also the various processes would involve using huge amounts of electricity and/or water, and the shale formations are in a very arid part of the country.

There's some current interest in CTL in Chindia:

China turns to coal for oil, may fuel controversy

India Government To Allocate Coal Mines For Coal-To-Liquid Plants
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: I think we can make a big step toward fixing everything.

Unread postby bkwillia » Fri 13 Jun 2008, 09:36:20

I think shale and tar sands will continue to provide oil for thousands of years. Nuclear devices can be made very cheaply if you drop them down a deep hole and let the shale absorb the radiation. Oil Shale + heat + pressure = oil.

I think the real issue is environmental. A certain number of CTL plants can be built, but then a NIMBY movement will slow that down. Once peak oil hits hard, EROEI will take a back seat to maximizing liquid fuel production at any cost.
User avatar
bkwillia
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Mon 20 Aug 2007, 03:00:00
Top

Re: I think we can make a big step toward fixing everything.

Unread postby JoeW » Fri 13 Jun 2008, 11:02:33

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SoberGoose', '
')In the western United States (Colorado, Utah, Wyoming) we hvae ENORMOUS deposits of oil-shale...which is for the most part, solid oil.


Yes, just invest enough money and we'll get the oil out. It's exactly that kind of thinking that got us into this mess.

The most recent news I heard regarding oil shale production was some company (Shell?) was testing a process of heating up the oil shale using electricity so that the kerogen could be extracted. I don't think that the energy return was very good, but the dollars were there because electricity can be generated from sources cheaper than oil.
User avatar
JoeW
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 647
Joined: Tue 12 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: The Pit of Despair
Top

Re: I think we can make a big step toward fixing everything.

Unread postby Twilight » Fri 13 Jun 2008, 12:47:56

Basically you can't get it out fast enough to do what you do today at the price you want today. You will have to change. Sorry. Actually I'm not.
Twilight
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 3027
Joined: Fri 02 Mar 2007, 04:00:00
Top

Re: I think we can make a big step toward fixing everything.

Unread postby Dezakin » Fri 13 Jun 2008, 15:01:25

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JoeW', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SoberGoose', '
')In the western United States (Colorado, Utah, Wyoming) we hvae ENORMOUS deposits of oil-shale...which is for the most part, solid oil.


Yes, just invest enough money and we'll get the oil out. It's exactly that kind of thinking that got us into this mess.

The most recent news I heard regarding oil shale production was some company (Shell?) was testing a process of heating up the oil shale using electricity so that the kerogen could be extracted. I don't think that the energy return was very good, but the dollars were there because electricity can be generated from sources cheaper than oil.

Repeating myself... This wont take off because turning coal into liquid fuels will be cheaper for decades. If big capital starts dumping money into oil alternatives, CTL is where its going, not shale unless the economics seriously change.
User avatar
Dezakin
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: I think we can make a big step toward fixing everything.

Unread postby Serial_Worrier » Fri 13 Jun 2008, 15:54:30

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JoeW', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SoberGoose', '
')In the western United States (Colorado, Utah, Wyoming) we hvae ENORMOUS deposits of oil-shale...which is for the most part, solid oil.


Yes, just invest enough money and we'll get the oil out. It's exactly that kind of thinking that got us into this mess.

The most recent news I heard regarding oil shale production was some company (Shell?) was testing a process of heating up the oil shale using electricity so that the kerogen could be extracted. I don't think that the energy return was very good, but the dollars were there because electricity can be generated from sources cheaper than oil.

Repeating myself... This wont take off because turning coal into liquid fuels will be cheaper for decades. If big capital starts dumping money into oil alternatives, CTL is where its going, not shale unless the economics seriously change.


Don't listen to these genocidal crackpots. They have an agenda, which is promoting the extinction of humanity.
User avatar
Serial_Worrier
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1549
Joined: Thu 05 Jun 2008, 03:00:00
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest