by shortonoil » Wed 13 Sep 2006, 10:44:42
ClubOfRomeII said:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')'ve never seen the USGS even mention EROEI, could you post a reference to them saying anything about it?
Well gee, surpass -surpass, the USGS has never said anything about ERoEI. Why would they be concerned with a thermodynamic problem? The market will solve all problems. When the free market equates to God, you have no problem. When it takes more energy to get the oil out of the ground than you get out of the oil, no problem, the market will solve it????
ClubOfRomeII said:$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'U')nless you have different reserve numbers than those which pop up around here or at the Oildrum?
The estimate of 2 trillion barrels is for extractable oil. Total oil on the planet, which is mostly not extractable due to ERoEI considerations, is somewhere around 6 trillion.
rwwff said:$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')egative energy return is however, economically OK; as long as the energy inputs into the system come from fixed, on-transportables like coal and nuclear. The point of tar sands and all the others isn't to get energy, it is to get liquid energy.
Now where in hell are we going to get enough coal and uranium each year to replace the 4.7 X 10^16 BTUs that is provided to us gratis, oil? Ask CERA, no problem, all we would need is 1.5 X 10^9 shovels!
pstarr said:$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 't')he guy is head of exxon or mobile or whatever and probably knows nothing about petroleum. He is a 'manager' a 'delegator,' someone with vision or understands the hard work of consensus-building and team leadership.
so who gives a rat's ass about URR and Proven and Probable and all that other pointy-headed snob stuff. that is for engineers and we buy and sell engineers like paper lanterns.
18 holes anyone?
by erb » Wed 13 Sep 2006, 12:22:44
Let get this underway then
I cant wait to drink oil because all the water was used up to extract the oil from tar sands
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('grabby', '[')b]With the United States domestic decline in oil production, it is important to research possible tar sand production in America (Alaska). Our consumption continues to increase, as well as our dependence on oil imports. Today, about 59% of the oil consumed in the United States are imported. The deposits of oil sands (oil shale) in the United States are massive. The processing of oil shale has gone through cycles of development and commercialization, all without achieving a competitive cost of production. As well, tar sands are processed on a limited basis. An engineering study was done between the University of Alabama and the Department of Energy. This engineering study provided a preliminary design of a commercial processing facility to beneficiate 39,956 tons per day of run-of -mine eastern oil shale to produce 4.38million tons per year of concentrate. The report included a process plants design recovery of kerogen at 92%, which with `hydroretorting' would produce approximately 20,000 barrels of oil a day. - matt Sexton.
4.38 million TONS per year.
a ton is 7 barrels
that is 28 million Barrels per year.
Well, we need 23 million barrels per DAY in Amrica alone.
so the large process in Canada needs to be multiplied by a thousand times to meet our needs.
LOOKING FOR -a view of the enditems-
-

erb
- Peat

-
- Posts: 143
- Joined: Fri 13 Jan 2006, 04:00:00
- Location: toronto, not anymore
-
by ClubOfRomeII » Wed 13 Sep 2006, 13:13:09
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonoil', '[')b]ClubOfRomeII said:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')'ve never seen the USGS even mention EROEI, could you post a reference to them saying anything about it?
Well gee, surpass -surpass, the USGS has never said anything about ERoEI. Why would they be concerned with a thermodynamic problem?
Perhaps because its a geological organization and doesn't worry about EROEI?
by Niagara » Wed 22 Aug 2007, 12:25:32
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('RdSnt', '
')If you use EROEI, then Alaskan oil and the Canadian tar sands should be closed down. You expend more energy retrieving the resource than you get in return.
Alaskan oil? Are you saying the EROEI for Alaska is fractional (<1)? Wow, that would be surprising.
Any links to back this up?
Remember: 73.3% of statistics are made up
and the other 23.6% are wrong
-

Niagara
- Tar Sands

-
- Posts: 612
- Joined: Thu 17 Aug 2006, 03:00:00
- Location: Mt. Hubbert Scenic Lookout
-
by NEOPO » Sun 26 Aug 2007, 10:22:26
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Keith_McClary', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Kingcoal', 'I')f we are going to include Canadian tar sands, why not shale oil also? The US has about 2 trillion barrels of shale oil! Add that to the tar sands and North America is soaking in oil! Maybe North America should be concerned about being invaded and occupied?
Oil Shale ActivitiesAnd also why not include zillions of firkins of methane on Saturn's moon Titan?
For the uninformed
Firkin
It is easier to enslave a people that wish to remain free then it is to free a people who wish to remain enslaved.
by smallpoxgirl » Sun 26 Aug 2007, 12:13:49
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('NEOPO', 'F')or the uninformed
Firkin
Thanks. That one went right by me. It appears that the size of a firkin depends on the substance being measured: 9 gallons of beer, 318 liters of wine, 56 lbs of butter, 64 lbs of soap, etc. Anybody know how much is in a firkin of natural gas?
"We were standing on the edges
Of a thousand burning bridges
Sifting through the ashes every day
What we thought would never end
Now is nothing more than a memory
The way things were before
I lost my way" - OCMS
-

smallpoxgirl
- Expert

-
- Posts: 7258
- Joined: Mon 08 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
-