Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Insidious Censorship In Our Oil related information streams?

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

Re: Insidious Censorship In Our Oil related information streams?

Unread postby shortonsense » Fri 23 Oct 2009, 20:42:17

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', ']')What if I were to sell you 10 cords of wood split and delivered for $500 dollars. Do you think you could convert them to 10 barrels of petroleum for less than $800?


What a fine example of how well you misunderstand. Did the school which didn't teach you about sublimation also teach you that conversions from wood to crude oil aren't quite as easy as a form conversion from one hydrocarbon molecule to a longer one? Which is why such a conversion makes such excellent sense when you have more of one than another, or one is differentially priced when compared to the other?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '
')You do not understand industrial life-cycle and embodied energy analysis. That is obvious. What is not so obvious to you, is that you should not lecture others on this subject.


I did not claim to do whatever you might hallucinate as an "embodied energy analysis", I did the worlds simplest example of how a basic, EROEI < 1 process can create fuels to power an airliner in flight. Deny reality all you wish. The plane flew. It did so off of fuels derived from natural gas.

Fortunately, the basic laws of the universe do not stop functioning because of your inability to understand them.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonsense', '
')Then you don't understand EROEI. The natural gas energy equivalent to a barrel of crude is approximately 6000 scf to 1 barrel. It requires 10,000 scf to make that barrel, resulting in a basic EROEI calculation of 10 units of natural gas energy in to create 6 units of natural gas energy (now in liquid form) out....EROEI = Energy Returned ( 6 ) on Energy Invested ( 10 ) = 0.6 not counting anything else, which only makes that number worse.

Energy equations do not care about form.
Wrong. The energy returned is zero. 10,000 goes in and nothing comes out. If 10,000 went in and 11,000 then the EROEI would be 11:10 or 1.1:1 and the net energy coefficient would be 10%


If you wish to argue about the basics of the energy value conversion from 10 natural gas units at 1000 scf each to 6 natural gas energy units in liquid form, I would be amenable. But I might suggest wiki'ing up some basic knowledge on the terms and basics of the conversion I just did which you have already managed to mangle, I certainly said nothing about 11,000 scf being involved in this process anywhere, and I certainly said nothing about energy coefficients. I did a basic energy in, energy out calculation which at the least you should be able to repeat without misrepresenting.
User avatar
shortonsense
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Insidious Censorship In Our Oil related information streams?

Unread postby Dr. Ofellati » Fri 23 Oct 2009, 21:28:22

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mos6507', 'H')ere is the thing. Not having read Hubbert's original work, but based on the era in which he lived, I do not think he factored in shale and tar sands.


Hey Mos, my favorite Zionist. Glad to see you back here at PO.com. I guess the revolution got a little boring over at Mal-bore-my-ass dot com? Hah!

Man dude, I get called dramatic by OF2!! I suppose that makes you the Elizabeth Taylor of this board.

I will say this Mos - while your latent Marxism and your prior descriptions of your personal life ensure that you and I will always be philosophical antipodes, your post quality has improved substantially over the last few years - from good to excellent.

No, I don't want to be friends, but I do defend truth, even when it makes those contrary to me look good.

Oh, and the Hubbert, no doubt, absolutely knew about shale and, I'd guess, tar sands.

He also knew that they'd never amount to much production.

I won't run the numbers, but whatever piddling stream comes out of tar sands didn't affect the date of peak by more than a few days.

Hubbert was Da Bomb baby.
Dr. O
The Mos theorem - Those who do not reach my conclusions after having reviewed the evidence are either deniers, if they reject my conclusion, or conspiracy theorists, if I reject theirs.
User avatar
Dr. Ofellati
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 236
Joined: Thu 22 Oct 2009, 12:26:37
Top

Re: Insidious Censorship In Our Oil related information streams?

Unread postby Dr. Ofellati » Fri 23 Oct 2009, 21:34:51

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cynthia', '
')OMG! I was thinking the same thing reading the Doc's posts yesterday! :lol: Say, it's true G. I've missed you.
cynthia


I'm not sure who this gidion guy is to whom people seem to be referring, but, Cynthia, you seem to be a nice woman.
What's a classy woman like you doing in a doomer porn house like this?


:)
Dr. O
The Mos theorem - Those who do not reach my conclusions after having reviewed the evidence are either deniers, if they reject my conclusion, or conspiracy theorists, if I reject theirs.
User avatar
Dr. Ofellati
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 236
Joined: Thu 22 Oct 2009, 12:26:37
Top

Re: Insidious Censorship In Our Oil related information streams?

Unread postby copious.abundance » Fri 23 Oct 2009, 22:11:32

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dr. Ofellati', 'O')P and guy right above me - practice makes perfect.

Say it with me - "it's all speculation. The rise in oil price is not based on fundamentals."

Practice practice.

Some day, a few decades from now, our donkey carts will cross paths and you can comment that there's plenty of oil but speculation has caused us to drive donkey carts.

Compare to this
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Schmuto', 'O')FII -

I thought we already went over the "bragging" thing?

Why the hell would I "brag"?

I'd rather have oil stay at 10 bucks a barrel until I'm the hell off this sh-thole.

No bragging at all - I'm not the one raising the price.

It's more like - "wow - look at that train wreck."

We'll see who laughs last here.

I want you to practice typing the following OF -

"It's all speculation."

Because in very short order, that's all you're going to be able to argue. All the facts are on my side.

Your only hope is a murderous depression around the world - you got a respite for 6 months.

Respite is OVER. For now. Pray for another one.

Prices now ratcheting back up.

Say it with me OF - "It's all speculation." It's all you've got.

It may turn out that from September 08 to June 09 was the aberration.

Start a Schmuto index.

It should start in about 05. I said then that prices will be on a ramp up until the oil is gone. I bet my own money at about 65. Did quite well.

The only flaw in that so far was a 6 month drop in prices.

You can take that to mean whatever you want.

I take it to mean one or more of the following:

1. Rapid and deep recession set in.
2. Price climbed too quickly (speculation involved).

The price spike we're seeing now is no "dead cat bounce."

Finally as for your quote that "OPEC has raised production."

I'm sorry, was that over the adjusted production from last month? Was that the adjusted production from this month? Was that yoy?

Give it a few months before you make that call.

Problem with those numbers is this.

month 1 - they say they produced 100.
Headlines "production up to 100!"
later in month 1 - quietly revised to 85.
month 2 - they say they produced 95.
Headlines "production up more than 10%."
later in month - quietly revised to 84.
month 3 - they say they produced 98!!!!

AND SO ON.

You want to know how much they're producing?

Look at price.

Dr. O = Schmuto/cashmere and who knows how many others. Case closed.
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: Insidious Censorship In Our Oil related information streams?

Unread postby mos6507 » Fri 23 Oct 2009, 22:40:29

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonsense', '
')If you wish to argue about the basics of the energy value conversion from 10 natural gas units at 1000 scf each to 6 natural gas energy units in liquid form, I would be amenable. But I might suggest wiki'ing up some basic knowledge on the terms and basics of the conversion I just did which you have already managed to mangle, I certainly said nothing about 11,000 scf being involved in this process anywhere, and I certainly said nothing about energy coefficients. I did a basic energy in, energy out calculation which at the least you should be able to repeat without misrepresenting.


I have seen the future of peak oil flamewars, and its name is shale gas.
mos6507
 
Top

Re: Insidious Censorship In Our Oil related information streams?

Unread postby shortonsense » Fri 23 Oct 2009, 22:52:09

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mos6507', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonsense', '
')If you wish to argue about the basics of the energy value conversion from 10 natural gas units at 1000 scf each to 6 natural gas energy units in liquid form, I would be amenable. But I might suggest wiki'ing up some basic knowledge on the terms and basics of the conversion I just did which you have already managed to mangle, I certainly said nothing about 11,000 scf being involved in this process anywhere, and I certainly said nothing about energy coefficients. I did a basic energy in, energy out calculation which at the least you should be able to repeat without misrepresenting.


I have seen the future of peak oil flamewars, and its name is shale gas.


The topic of this thread has nothing to do with flamewars, it is how the use of censored information may lead some Peakers to draw incorrect conclusions.

Shale gas could, for example, be included on the list of censored information which led, for example, to Duncans incorrect assumptions on how much natural gas would be available to offset his rantings about the Cliff event...back in 2008. By not considering this obvious resource in his calculations for when the Cliff would occur, his predictions went wildly wrong.
User avatar
shortonsense
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Insidious Censorship In Our Oil related information streams?

Unread postby copious.abundance » Sat 24 Oct 2009, 00:38:21

Can't resist . . .
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'G')ive him a break. Duncan didn't know about shale gas because it wasn't a resource that had previously been harvested. And it will remain so.

It will? Well then, here's some major non-harvesting goin' on. :lol:

>>> LINK <<<
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]Four Chesapeake shales set output marks
Oct 22, 2009
By OGJ editors

HOUSTON, Oct. 22 -- Chesapeake Energy Corp., Oklahoma City, achieved record gross operated production from its four main US shale gas plays.

The company reported exceeding 1 bcfd in from the Barnett shale, reaching 500 MMcfd from the Haynesville shale, topping 400 MMcfd from the Fayetteville shale, and attaining 100 MMcfd from the Marcellus shale.

The production levels came from 1,500 Chesapeake-operated Barnett wells, 125 Haynesville wells, 450 Fayetteville wells, and 60 Marcellus wells.

[...]

Among recent completions:

Barnett—The Day Kimball Hill A1 in Tarrant County, Tex., peaked at 16.4 MMcfd and is expected to average more than 13 MMcfd in its first month and exceed the previous monthly industry Barnett output record established by two Chesapeake-operated wells in mid-2009 that averaged more than 9 MMcfd.

Haynesville—Caspiana 13-15-12 H-1 peaked at 20.2 MMcfd, and Bradway 24-15-12 H-1 peaked at 18.6 MMcfd. Both are in Caddo Parish, La.

Fayetteville—Reva Deen 7-8-1-15H9 in White County, Ark, peaked at 8 MMcfd, and Collinsworth 7-16 2-10H in Conway County peaked at 6.2 MMcfd.

Marcellus—Clapper 2H in Susquehanna County, Pa., peaked at 10.1 MMcfd, and Otten 2H in Bradford County peaked at 8.9 MMcfd.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'B')ecause it has <1 EROEI.

Another pstarr non-fact! Pull a statement out of thin air, and believe it's true! :lol:
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: Insidious Censorship In Our Oil related information streams?

Unread postby copious.abundance » Sat 24 Oct 2009, 01:14:03

Barnett Shale production.

Image
Source.

$100 says US natural gas marketed production in 2012 will exceed 2008 production. That will be 5-8 years since these shale plays "took off." Put your money where your mouth is.
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: Insidious Censorship In Our Oil related information streams?

Unread postby shortonsense » Sat 24 Oct 2009, 11:00:26

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonsense', 'S')hale gas could, for example, be included on the list of censored information which led, for example, to Duncans incorrect assumptions on how much natural gas would be available to offset his rantings about the Cliff event...back in 2008. By not considering this obvious resource in his calculations for when the Cliff would occur, his predictions went wildly wrong.
Give him a break. Duncan didn't know about shale gas because it wasn't a resource that had previously been harvested.


Wiki yourself some knowledge prior to typing your usual nonsense.

This one, for example. 1821....gee....never been harvested?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale_gas_ ... ted_States

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pstarr', '
')And it will remain so. Because it has <1 EROEI.


The Barnett shale play originated in the Newark East field in the early 80's.

http://aapgbull.geoscienceworld.org/cgi ... t/91/4/399

So now you are claiming that Duncan wasn't smart enough to pick up even a basic oil and gas production map from Texas a decade before he imagined the Olduvai theory to learn about these shales, and their massive resource potential? Sounds like you are proving my point for me, that Duncan knew nothing about the basic geoscience issues involved and just manufactured Olduvai knowing as little about the pertinent issues as you do.
User avatar
shortonsense
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Insidious Censorship In Our Oil related information streams?

Unread postby shortonsense » Sat 24 Oct 2009, 11:12:34

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'B')ecause it has <1 EROEI.

Another pstarr non-fact! Pull a statement out of thin air, and believe it's true! :lol:


Belief is important in any given religion. Certainly Pstarr has shown no tendency to rely on facts, historical precedent or science as an underlying basis for anything he advocates.
User avatar
shortonsense
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Insidious Censorship In Our Oil related information streams?

Unread postby shortonsense » Sat 24 Oct 2009, 11:16:08

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'C')ome on. We have all seen the other graph. The realistic one that reveals those pretty red bars are inconsequential little blips, in the bigger scheme compared to real gas. But why bother to show it. You will ignore it anyway.


You mean the one which shows the complete reversal of Hubberts natural gas production decline creating a new peak 40 years after the last one? Yeah...you don't want to use THAT example again for how important Hubberts ideas are in general, someone might notice the multiple peaks and ask the question which the lilly livered still haven't taken a crack at.

Call this one censorship of information by not presenting it because anyone who substitutes thinking for wiki might ask some embarassing questions about the entire house of cards.
User avatar
shortonsense
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Insidious Censorship In Our Oil related information streams?

Unread postby shortonsense » Sat 24 Oct 2009, 15:33:56

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonsense', '
')Call this one censorship of information by not presenting it because anyone who substitutes thinking for wiki might ask some embarassing questions about the entire house of cards.
Gambling? Crack? huh?


Your inability to understand the obvious is not in question, and we need no more demonstrations to solidify the impression.

The topic is insidious censorship contained within peaker mythology, and how this effects the validity of conclusions drawn from such information. Feel free to participate honestly, or go troll where they more easily fall for your claims of knowledge and don't compare those claims to the words flowing from your keyboard which contradict them.
User avatar
shortonsense
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Insidious Censorship In Our Oil related information streams?

Unread postby copious.abundance » Sat 24 Oct 2009, 19:41:44

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'C')ome on. We have all seen the other graph. The realistic one that reveals those pretty red bars are inconsequential little blips, in the bigger scheme compared to real gas. But why bother to show it. You will ignore it anyway.

Yet another ignorant statement. In 2007, unconventional natural gas accounted for 47 percent of US natural gas production (source, PDF, page 2 paragraph 1). 47% is not an inconsequential little blip. And you wondered why I called you a dingbat. :lol:

But you did not answer my question: If you believe this is all a flash in the pan, put your money where your mouth is. I repeat: $100 says US marketed natural gas production will be greater in 2012 than it was in 2008. Deal? Or not?
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: Insidious Censorship In Our Oil related information streams?

Unread postby copious.abundance » Sat 24 Oct 2009, 19:46:06

Here's the chart. You can ignore the forecast if you want. Just notice the proportions of production in 2008.

Image
Source

$100 bet awaits if you believe this projection to be a cornucopian fantasy.
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 10 guests



cron