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.

Re: Insidious Censorship In Our Oil related information streams?

Unread postby mcgowanjm » Sun 25 Oct 2009, 10:31:29

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')What none of the boosters want to talk about is the reality of shale gas. It is true that there is most likely a lot of shale gas around, especially in the United States, but after this, the story goes down a rabbit hole. Shale gas is not like the conventional gas finds that gave the US vast supplies of cheap methane. Shale gas is locked in until the rocks holding it are fractured in a process known as hydro-fracing. This requires a lot of work, a lot of wells, a lot of water (2 - 5 million gallons per well), and some rather unpleasant chemicals. Having made all this effort, the production decline rates look like the cliffs at Beachy Head. Within two years production has typcally dropped by 80%.


http://juliandarley.blogspot.com/2009/1 ... rland.html
mcgowanjm
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2455
Joined: Fri 23 May 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Insidious Censorship In Our Oil related information streams?

Unread postby mcgowanjm » Sun 25 Oct 2009, 10:44:09

the Bad News:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'h')ttp://www.warsocialism.com/Murphy.html
mcgowanjm
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2455
Joined: Fri 23 May 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Insidious Censorship In Our Oil related information streams?

Unread postby shortonsense » Sun 25 Oct 2009, 11:52:13

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mcgowanjm', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')What none of the boosters want to talk about is the reality of shale gas. It is true that there is most likely a lot of shale gas around, especially in the United States, but after this, the story goes down a rabbit hole. Shale gas is not like the conventional gas finds that gave the US vast supplies of cheap methane. Shale gas is locked in until the rocks holding it are fractured in a process known as hydro-fracing. This requires a lot of work, a lot of wells, a lot of water (2 - 5 million gallons per well), and some rather unpleasant chemicals. Having made all this effort, the production decline rates look like the cliffs at Beachy Head. Within two years production has typcally dropped by 80%.


http://juliandarley.blogspot.com/2009/1 ... rland.html


Isn't Darley the prognosticater who said we faced a natural gas cliff half a decade ago? Do you think his explanations of why shale gas is so terrible now has anything to do with it having completely negated his High Noon For Natural Gas nonsense? I love it when perfectly known geoscience principles, like the massive availability of shale gas in the US, and elsewhere, comes along and kicks someone in the teeth for not being familiar with the basics prior to proclaiming "High Noon For Natural Gas!"....oops. Lump this guy in with Duncan for missing even the basics on a topic he knew nothing about then, and now feels badly about for having missed the obvious.

Certainly Holditch, an actual expert in the field, wasn't proclaiming the end of the world for natural gas even farther back then this "expert", someone give him an internet title as a consolation prize.

Holditch in 2001 had it figured out, people who ignore the actual experts do so at their own risk.

http://www.spegcs.org/attachments/study ... ch2001.pdf
User avatar
shortonsense
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Insidious Censorship In Our Oil related information streams?

Unread postby mcgowanjm » Sun 25 Oct 2009, 12:23:53

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')What none of the boosters want to talk about is the reality of shale gas. It is true that there is most likely a lot of shale gas around, especially in the United States, but after this, the story goes down a rabbit hole. Shale gas is not like the conventional gas finds that gave the US vast supplies of cheap methane. Shale gas is locked in until the rocks holding it are fractured in a process known as hydro-fracing. This requires a lot of work, a lot of wells, a lot of water (2 - 5 million gallons per well), and some rather unpleasant chemicals. Having made all this effort, the production decline rates look like the cliffs at Beachy Head. Within two years production has typcally dropped by 80%.


http://juliandarley.blogspot.com/2009/1 ... rland.html[/quote]

Isn't Darley the prognosticater who said we faced a natural gas cliff half a decade ago? Do you think his explanations of why shale gas is so terrible now has anything to do with it having completely negated his High Noon For Natural Gas nonsense? I love it when perfectly known geoscience principles, like the massive availability of shale gas in the US, and elsewhere, comes along and kicks someone in the teeth for not being familiar with the basics prior to proclaiming "High Noon For Natural Gas!"....oops. Lump this guy in with Duncan for missing even the basics on a topic he knew nothing about then, and now feels badly about for having missed the obvious.

Certainly Holditch, an actual expert in the field, wasn't proclaiming the end of the world for natural gas even farther back then this "expert", someone give him an internet title as a consolation prize.

Holditch in 2001 had it figured out, people who ignore the actual experts do so at their own risk.

http://www.spegcs.org/attachments/study ... ch2001.pdf[/quote]


You're desperate for that to be the case, huh? And that's a HUGE
Double Standard you're carrying, Short. Must be heavy.

I like that "an actual expert in the field." So we get 10/20%
of the reservoir out of these Shale plays, the wells pull 50% of that in 5
years and this is going to replace the 570 oil fields (not
counting the $$$ to retrofit vehicles/filling stations/ships)
that are declining at 8% per year.

And in the Law of Receding Horizons When gas hits the $6.50
gas price trigger you can bet that oil will be bumping $100.

But Keep Comin'! This is fun. Like refuting CNN/FOX/NYT/WaPo
at the same time. :twisted: 8O :twisted:
mcgowanjm
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2455
Joined: Fri 23 May 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Insidious Censorship In Our Oil related information streams?

Unread postby mcgowanjm » Sun 25 Oct 2009, 12:51:29

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Holditch in 2001 had it figured out, people who ignore the actual experts do so at their own risk.


Stephen Holditch!? The guy who says this!?:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A'). Alternative energy sources, such as biofuels, wind, solar, nuclear and hydroelectric energy, will become more important as the century progresses. However, hydrocarbon fuels will be the dominant fuel during the first half of the 21st century. There will eventually be a transition to other forms of energy sometime during the 21st century, although no one is sure when that will occur or what energy source will become the most prevalent. It could be a combination of nuclear fuel for electricity generation and biofuels for transportation.


LMFAO Where do we start. "Eventually", probably one of your faves as well, SoS? Or "no one is sure"-gotta love that one :twisted:

Climatologists are sure that 70% of the world's arable land will
be undergoing desertification and temps will be approaching a 2C
rise by 2025. But electricity gen is going to get us thru with
all those 100's of nuke power plants having been completed
10 years earlier at a cost of $8 billion per plant annd a total
reworking of the Power Grid. 8O 8O 8O

And U gotta love this. Texas A&M Faculty at it's finest:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he path is not clear, but the challenge is clearly understood.

Q. So in the meantime?

A. We will not run out of oil or natural gas anytime soon. We have enormous volumes of oil, natural gas and coal to supply world energy needs for many decades to come. However, better technology will be required to bring much of those hydrocarbon resources to market in an environmentally acceptable way. Sometime during the 21st century, the world will inevitably lessen its dependence on fossil fuels and move to other sources of energy for electricity and transportation. Research universities such as Texas A&M must lead the way in developing the needed technologies and training the engineers and scientists who will be the leaders in the energy industry. end of story
mcgowanjm
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2455
Joined: Fri 23 May 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Insidious Censorship In Our Oil related information streams?

Unread postby mcgowanjm » Sun 25 Oct 2009, 12:57:09

And just one more BTW on Holditch and your BAU:

The US Banking System, needed to finance your brave new
world of NatGas:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '&')quot;Mark to Myth" is not just a myth, it is a willful and intentional lie.

Again I ask:

What is the actual value of assets in our nation's banks - including the really big ones like Bank of America, Citibank, JP Morgan and Wells Fargo?

How can anyone possibly believe, given the overwhelming history of the last two years in this crisis, that the nation's banks are claiming and carrying their assets at anything close to their actual value when we continue to see, week after week, losses to the deposit insurance fund proving that close to half of the claimed "asset value" in these seized banks is a pure, unadulterated fiction?


It's INSOLVENT with zero hope for anything that doesn't include
a World Jubilee on Debt Cancellations.

To RECAP: The World Economy has contracted by 20% (RR
Loadings, BDI, Concrete Used) in the last 2 years, while the "assets" of Banks have declined by 40% on avg(FDIC on
% of loans on Failed Banks it has to eat).
mcgowanjm
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2455
Joined: Fri 23 May 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Insidious Censorship In Our Oil related information streams?

Unread postby shortonsense » Sun 25 Oct 2009, 15:20:58

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mcgowanjm', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Holditch in 2001 had it figured out, people who ignore the actual experts do so at their own risk.

http://www.spegcs.org/attachments/study ... ch2001.pdf


You're desperate for that to be the case, huh? And that's a HUGE
Double Standard you're carrying, Short. Must be heavy.


Holditch is simply an actual expert in the field, versus the kind Darley is when the topic is unconventional fossil fuel resources. And I'm not desperate for anything other than recognizing the difference between real sources of information and the stuff propagated by peaker mythology.

You are limited to using Darley as the defender of your ideas? Knock yourself out, at least until someone asks the question, "Yo, Mr Darley, how many wells have you explored for, planned, drilled, completed and operated in your lifetime from which you derive this near mythical knowledge on shale wells?" and get the same answer as if you asking pstarr.

Tell me something Mcgowanjm, when you want a doctors opinion, is the first place you check with the local checkout clerk at McDonalds?
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 » Sun 25 Oct 2009, 15:22:26

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mcgowanjm', '
')To RECAP: The World Economy has contracted by 20% (RR
Loadings, BDI, Concrete Used) in the last 2 years, while the "assets" of Banks have declined by 40% on avg(FDIC on
% of loans on Failed Banks it has to eat).


The topic is censorship of information within the peaker mythology leading to bad conclusions. What does this financial hallucination of yours have to do with that?
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 » Sun 25 Oct 2009, 15:25:06

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'a')re such a nasty little carnivore, shorty.

But you really should respond to the point: where does one get 2 - 5 million gallons per well to fract the stuff?


Apparently, the same places they have been collecting it from since hydrofracing was invented some decades ago. That ocean near your place suddenly look empty?
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 » Sun 25 Oct 2009, 18:30:00

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'B')ut you really should respond to the point: where does one get 2 - 5 million gallons per well to fract the stuff?

Umm . . hello? Earth to pstarr: The answer to your question is so obvious a blind man could have figured it out. I'll give you a hint: Where do you think they got the water to frac the following wells I posted in my Chespeake link?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he production levels came from 1,500 Chesapeake-operated Barnett wells, 125 Haynesville wells, 450 Fayetteville wells, and 60 Marcellus wells.

That's over 2,000 wells. From just one company. Where do you think they got the water to frac those wells? Mars? The moons of Saturn? No, they didn't even need to tap the oceans.

Amazing! 8O
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 » Sun 25 Oct 2009, 18:35:00

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', '$')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.

Meanwhile, my challenge to pstarr has gone unanswered, in spite of my thrice posting it. Of course we know the reason for this - he knows if he made the bet he would lose, but he also doesn't want to verbally turn down the bet because it would be a de facto public admission he knows he would lose. So he remains silent in a (futile) effort to save face. In other words, I win the bet by default!
:-D
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 » Sun 25 Oct 2009, 20:30:54

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'B')ut you really should respond to the point: where does one get 2 - 5 million gallons per well to fract the stuff?

BTW, here's a second reply to your question. Was reading Range Resources Q3 earnings transcript and encountered this description of their activities in the Marcellus shale.

>>> Seeking Alpha <<<
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')...]

I wanted to discuss one last item for the Marcellus project. We’ve made very significant progress in regards to water. We’re currently recycling 100% of all of our water in the development area in the southwest [portion of their Marcellus acreage]. When we frac the horizontal well, we only get roughly 15 to 35% of the frac water back; the rest stays in the formation. Now, that we’re pad drilling in the southwest, we have water retention facilities that service multiple wells.

We start with 100% of the required water, pump it into the well being stimulated, and then flow the water back. As mentioned previously, the well will flow back only a fraction of the water back into the water containment, and then it’s refilled back up in order to frac the next well, and so on for future wells. This is really important, because it significantly reduces the amount of water required for fracturing. It also eliminates and need to truck the flowback water away and dispose of it. This zero discharge method of doing business results in great cost reductions from not having to truck and dispose the water. From both an environmental and economic point of view, it’s clearly the way forward.

[...]

Ingenuity - what a concept! :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 shortonsense » Thu 29 Oct 2009, 23:19:38

On the topic of insidious information censorship, I have a question.

For many within the peaker movement, blasting the MSM for their inability to present issues which peakers consider dear to their hearts has often been used as a strike against them in a major way, usually accompanied by the word "sheeple" somewhere in the same sentence.

So I check the "Breaking News sections of two of the more chicken littlish sites and discover Business Week, The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Washington Post , Yahoo News, The Financial Times, and like this seeking alpha blog, 3 times.

So....now we use MSM sources because they are suddenly trustworthy? Or because Breaking News sections aren't what they used to be?

For reference, I read the articles linked to the front page of PO.com every day, in part because they cover the gamut of news, aren't all Doomer centric, some are technically intriguing, and don't appear to specialize in bloggers who wouldn't know a hole drilled in the ground from one drilled in their head. 8O
User avatar
shortonsense
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Insidious Censorship In Our Oil related information streams?

Unread postby shortonsense » Mon 16 Nov 2009, 20:58:02

More discovery graph censorship.

This week Gail at TOD did another little Peak Oil for the newbies routine.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5969#more

It contains a different discovery profile, which appears to try even harder than the last one to pretend that discoveries are the same sort of bell shaped curve as some occasional production profiles.

http://www.theoildrum.com/files/Oil%20discoveries.png

The caption for this figure is:

"Historical discoveries of liquid oil, with reserve revisions backdated to initial discovery, based on work of Colin Campbell for ASPO."

Notice the 1930's. The largest accumulation in the world, liquid oil, discovered in 1935 is completely missing. And it looks like Ghawar was the ONLY thing discovered in the 1930's, the bar being about the right size for ONLY that field.
User avatar
shortonsense
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Insidious Censorship In Our Oil related information streams?

Unread postby copious.abundance » Mon 16 Nov 2009, 22:22:14

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'B')ut you really should respond to the point: where does one get 2 - 5 million gallons per well to fract the stuff?

Umm . . hello? Earth to pstarr: The answer to your question is so obvious a blind man could have figured it out. I'll give you a hint: Where do you think they got the water to frac the following wells I posted in my Chespeake link?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he production levels came from 1,500 Chesapeake-operated Barnett wells, 125 Haynesville wells, 450 Fayetteville wells, and 60 Marcellus wells.

That's over 2,000 wells. From just one company. Where do you think they got the water to frac those wells? Mars? The moons of Saturn? No, they didn't even need to tap the oceans.

Amazing! 8O
Did you really say Chesapeake? LIke in the Bay? Ha ha ha :arrow: Let me guess? They are going to send the salt water over to the well heads by Zeppelin?

I wonder how much embodied energy lost to production that would account for? And what it does to the net-energy available for productive work?

Heck the EROEI must really blow.

More hot air. Empty content. 100% pure noise. Big mouth, small d***.

Image
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 » Mon 16 Nov 2009, 22:26:57

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'W')ho in the "peaker movement" blasted MSM? We need specific examples.


http://www.doomers.us/forum2/index.php/ ... #msg845929

"Anything you read in the MSM is twisted and turned to the point that what truth is in there is so obfuscated no one can figure out what is going on."

There are plenty other such comments, but you only asked for specificity, not quantity.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonsense', 'S')o I check the "Breaking News sections of two of the more chicken littlish sites and discover Business Week, The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Washington Post , Yahoo News, The Financial Times, and like this seeking alpha blog, 3 times.
Explain your derogatory term "chicken littlish sites." Is Peakoil.com one of them? If so, leave.


I've already mentioned the excellent news section here versus at the places which slam the MSM while utilizing them as nearly exclusive sources of information. Did you miss that in your normal rush to troll?

And when are you going to bet Oily? Are you avoiding him because Internet Editing Scientist doesn't pay well, or because you lost your cajones? :o
User avatar
shortonsense
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 03:00:00
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

cron