Peak Oil
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.
Post a reply

Re: 1.53 Trillion Barrels of Oil

Unread postby bencole » Thu 30 Apr 2009, 05:52:30

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', 'A')nd if I may say so . . .

You "oil shale will never happen" crowd are taking a huge risk in your nonstop proclamations that oil shale is never going to happen.


Not nearly as big a risk as you and your kind are taking by believing that this resource will make even the slightest difference in resolving America's future energy crisis, you and your crowd are blind to the situation at hand, if I may say so.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')Why? Because if it does someday happen, you will never hear the end of it from us Cornucopians.


Like I said, the risk of placing misguided hope in this resource is far greater. Besides no one really cares what cornucopians have to say about anything anyways, most reasonable people come to this site out of a genuine concern over the disastrous energy course the world is headed on, not to hear some fool blab on and on with delusions of how everything is perfectly fine, and how we really live in some sort of infinite energy utopia.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')Your nonstop and incessant claims about its lack of viability will discredit your own movement even more than it already has if and when they start turning this stuff into gasoline and cars start running on it.


Rubbish, It's lack of viabilty is evident based entirely on established fact. Once again you miss the entire point of this website by focusing on the small while avoiding the larger picture. Who cares if you can demonstrate that it's technically possible to run a car on this resource, that's not the point, the problem is that it won't run the countless millions of cars cheaply, required to replace convention resources, hence it's useless. They can "run" cars on a whole bunch of weird things ( coal, fruits and vegetables) but nobody cares because none are viable substitutes for crude oil.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ut hey, if you want to set yourself up for a potential big embarrassment, go ahead! :razz:


Once your argument falls apart, this is what you resort to?, trying to make someone fearful of a potential embarrassment? The gravity of the situation at hand is so completely lost on you, where talking about a major energy crisis facing the world here, your talking about issues of personal pride, get a clue.
bencole
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 359
Joined: Thu 26 Feb 2009, 03:29:52
Top

Re: 1.53 Trillion Barrels of Oil

Unread postby rangerone314 » Thu 30 Apr 2009, 09:43:05

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', 'A')nd if I may say so . . .

You "oil shale will never happen" crowd are taking a huge risk in your nonstop proclamations that oil shale is never going to happen. Why? Because if it does someday happen, you will never hear the end of it from us Cornucopians. Your nonstop and incessant claims about its lack of viability will discredit your own movement even more than it already has if and when they start turning this stuff into gasoline and cars start running on it. One would think y'all would have learned the lesson to "never say never" after so many of you last spring and summer said that oil would "never" go below $100 again. But it looks like you haven't.

But hey, if you want to set yourself up for a potential big embarrassment, go ahead! :razz:


I think the oil @ $147 a bbl was a pretty sad overreaction & I figured it would go down to $50. (The $40 kind of surprised me though)

I'd be the happiest person if they go it to work. But I've heard this kind of thing all before. Palladium and cold fusion ring a bell anyone? Cold fusion, cheap & easy oil shale. If you love those, you'll love my perpetual motion machine and I also could sell you some beachfront property in Arizona.

Maybe they didn't invent the oil shale technology themselves; they might have gotten it from Area 51 or Roswell. Maybe kerogen will turn out to cure the common cold and cancer.

About penny stock companies : A lot of penny stock companies make really big claims, claim to have a "relationship" with some big company (e.g. Dovarri with HP). Some of them will change their names after a few years, and shift to an entirely different industry, like from paint to nursinghome care to 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
Top

Re: 1.53 Trillion Barrels of Oil

Unread postby rangerone314 » Thu 30 Apr 2009, 12:39:28

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', 'A')nd if I may say so . . .

You "oil shale will never happen" crowd are taking a huge risk in your nonstop proclamations that oil shale is never going to happen. Why? Because if it does someday happen, you will never hear the end of it from us Cornucopians. Your nonstop and incessant claims about its lack of viability will discredit your own movement even more than it already has if and when they start turning this stuff into gasoline and cars start running on it. One would think y'all would have learned the lesson to "never say never" after so many of you last spring and summer said that oil would "never" go below $100 again. But it looks like you haven't.

But hey, if you want to set yourself up for a potential big embarrassment, go ahead! :razz:
I make the ceremonial offering of a large quantity of digested mammal nutrition in the form of a a lump :)

OF2, in spite of your agenda, learning disability, psychologic block, or whatever, you may interested to know that:

IT TAKES MORE ENERGY TO CONVERT THIS GUNK (digging devices, hydrolysis, hydrogenation, etc.) INTO AN ENERGY-CARRYING LIQUID THAN IS CONTAINED IN THE LIQUID. Oily study the sentence.

You may just as well apply those industrial processes to baked potatoes as to kerogen. That would save digging up the beautiful Colorado countryside.


Also OF2 might end up with a few million Los Angelenos camped outside his house wondering why their water supply is turned off... (ironically to provide those LA cars with fuel)
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
Top

Re: 1.53 Trillion Barrels of Oil

Unread postby copious.abundance » Thu 30 Apr 2009, 13:13:47

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'I')T TAKES MORE ENERGY TO CONVERT THIS GUNK (digging devices, hydrolysis, hydrogenation, etc.) INTO AN ENERGY-CARRYING LIQUID THAN IS CONTAINED IN THE LIQUID. Oily study the sentence.

This is where you are WRONG. Do you understand the meaning of the word WONG? I hope so. I can provide proof that you are WRONG, but I'm sure you wouldn't believe it. In fact I'm almost certain this proof has been presented to you before, and you've chosen not to believe 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 rangerone314 » Thu 30 Apr 2009, 13:20:58

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'I')T TAKES MORE ENERGY TO CONVERT THIS GUNK (digging devices, hydrolysis, hydrogenation, etc.) INTO AN ENERGY-CARRYING LIQUID THAN IS CONTAINED IN THE LIQUID. Oily study the sentence.

This is where you are WRONG. Do you understand the meaning of the word WONG? I hope so. I can provide proof that you are WRONG, but I'm sure you wouldn't believe it. In fact I'm almost certain this proof has been presented to you before, and you've chosen not to believe it.


I suppose you could sink a few thousand into this penny stock and come laugh at all of us when you have more money than Warren Buffett. That would constitute proof.
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
Top

Re: 1.53 Trillion Barrels of Oil

Unread postby copious.abundance » Thu 30 Apr 2009, 13:50:14

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rangerone314', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'I')T TAKES MORE ENERGY TO CONVERT THIS GUNK (digging devices, hydrolysis, hydrogenation, etc.) INTO AN ENERGY-CARRYING LIQUID THAN IS CONTAINED IN THE LIQUID. Oily study the sentence.

This is where you are WRONG. Do you understand the meaning of the word WONG? I hope so. I can provide proof that you are WRONG, but I'm sure you wouldn't believe it. In fact I'm almost certain this proof has been presented to you before, and you've chosen not to believe it.


I suppose you could sink a few thousand into this penny stock and come laugh at all of us when you have more money than Warren Buffett. That would constitute proof.

I don't need to rely on information from a penny stock, I can give you information from a multinational company whose stock as I write this is $45.83.
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 » Thu 30 Apr 2009, 15:02:03

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'I') challenge you to present you evidence.

Here ya go, as shown to you before:
>>> Fortune magazine <<<
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')ll this cooling and heating, of course, consumes energy. Can it possibly be worth it? Yes, says Vinegar, who estimates ICP's ratio of energy produced to energy consumed will range from 3-to-1 to 7-to-1, depending upon the scale of the project. Moreover, the power needed to perform the heating and cooling will be generated entirely from natural gas produced onsite by the ICP process. Shell plans on building its own large power plant and is exploring ways to sequester any CO2 produced.

And another one:
>>> Wiki <<<
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A') critical measure of the viability of oil shale is the ratio of energy used to produce the oil, compared to the energy returned (Energy Returned on Energy Invested - EROEI). This is because the extraction process is energy intensive, and so the increased cost of oil, or energy generally, will raise the cost of extracting oil from shale oil. Generally, for ex-situ processes the oil shale has to be mined, transported, and retorted, and the waste materials must be disposed of, so at least 40% of the energy value is consumed in production. A 1984 study estimated the EROEI of the different oil shale deposits to vary between 0.7-13.3.[17] Royal Dutch Shell has reported an EROEI about three to four on its in-situ development, Mahogany Research Project, which uses electric heating of the shale up to 500 °F (260 °C). [18] [9] [19] This compares to a figure of typically 5:1 for conventional oil extraction. EROEI will be less important to the extent that lower-cost energy sources are used to fuel the extraction process.

Click on the Wiki link and it's got a link to the source.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'I') expect to see a peer-reviewed study in a legitimate science journal. I also need to see an open discussion of the methods, analysis, and conclusions by reputable people in another forum (such as the Oil Drum, etc.)

Here ya go. :razz:
>>> The Oil Drum <<<
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]EROI [of oil shale]

Reported EROIs (energy return on investments) are generally in the range of 1.5:1 to 4:1, with a few extreme values between 7:1 and 13:1. The main difference between oil sands and oil shale is that the oil sands are particles of sand, surrounded by a microscopic layer of water that is itself surrounded by heavy bitumen (thick oil). Separating the oil from the oil sands is much easier because of this water layer, since the oil is ‘‘suspended’’ in the water/sand layer and not directly stuck on or in the sand as is the case for oil shale. This makes oil shale much more energy intensive to separate (Ibid). As such, shale oil production - whether through surface retorting or ICP - is more energy-intensive than conventional oil production or from tar sands, and even enhanced recovery from oil fields. In fact, upstream energy consumption per unit of final fuel delivered is roughly 1.75-2.75 times that of conventional petroleum production (Brandt 2007). Tar sands and oil shales seem to be in the same “EROI ballpark”.

Shell reports that in their ICP in situ process they consume 1 Btu for every 3 Btu’s of energy produced, corresponding to an EROI of 3:1 (Ibid). However, if the energy input is electricity and the output oil this would imply a quality-corrected EROI of close to unity. On the other hand the utilization of natural gas produced during the ICP in-situ process doubles the energy efficiency to 6 Btu of energy produced for each Btu consumed corresponding to an EROI of 6:1. In addition shale oils are a special case, like tar sands, where a large proportion of the energy can be generated from the resource itself (Ibid).

For the mining and retort process, the net energy return (NER) is very low if total energy inputs are counted (NER < 1.5) (Brandt 2006, 2007). In a more recent study, Brandt concludes that the EROI for shale oil production using an ATP retort (a method reported to have the highest conversion efficiency – 88%) is somewhere between 1.9 and 2.5 (2007). However, based on a study in Kentucky USA, if some of the measurable environmental costs associated with shale oil production are included, the EROI drops another 3-9% (Lind and Mitsch 1981). Furthermore, Cleveland concludes that the EROI for shale oil ranges above and below the break even point, depending on assumptions regarding location, resource quality, and technology characterization (2005). The use of microwaves, an old technology with new enthusiasts behind it, supposedly would generate higher EROIs but there have been studies of this yet in actually field conditions.
You lose, dingbat! :twisted:
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 » Thu 30 Apr 2009, 16:57:42

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', 'I') can provide proof that you are WRONG, but I'm sure you wouldn't believe it.

I stand vindicated.
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 vision-master » Thu 30 Apr 2009, 17:32:39

I don't believe one word from Oily. Zero, Notta, Zelch. :badgrin:
vision-master
 
Top

Re: 1.53 Trillion Barrels of Oil

Unread postby vision-master » Thu 30 Apr 2009, 17:46:02

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vision-master', 'I') don't believe one word from Oily. Zero, Notta, Zelch. :badgrin:
ever.


'Ever', even if he's right, I blow him off. :)
vision-master
 
Top

Re: 1.53 Trillion Barrels of Oil

Unread postby Serial_Worrier » Thu 30 Apr 2009, 19:31:21

Not only that but OF2 has no concern for the environmental devastation from all those shale/tar sands projects. I wonder if he breaths coal dust and likes it!
User avatar
Serial_Worrier
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1549
Joined: Thu 05 Jun 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: 1.53 Trillion Barrels of Oil

Unread postby copious.abundance » Thu 30 Apr 2009, 20:58:41

Go ahead pstarr, scream it as loud as you can: "OIL SHALE WILL NEVER HAPPEN!!"

Climb to the top of the highest mountain you can find, and scream at the top of your lungs, "OIL SHALE WILL NEVER HAPPEN!"

Buy advertisements in newspapers, pass out pamphlets and hand them out in front of your local supermarket, and put a big fat bumper sticker on your car proclaiming in no uncertain terms, "OIL SHALE WILL NEVER HAPPEN!"

Make my day. :twisted:
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
Post a reply

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests