[DirtyGrapist]

Hi guys, I am wondering what your thoughts are on this statement by ExxonMobil Australia's Chairman

Link

[mekrob]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '&')quot;According to the US Geological Survey, the earth currently has more than three trillion barrels of conventional, recoverable oil resources. "So far we have produced one trillion."

[Gazzatrone]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DirtyGrapist', 'H')i guys, I am wondering what your thoughts are on the statement by ExxonMobil Australia's Chairman

Link

[venky]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')t's kind of like being trapped in the desert. You have 100 gallons of fresh water, enough for quite a while. But you can only get the water out at a very slow rate (say a mL per hour). That massive amount of water won't do you any good if you can't get it out faster, now will it?

[grabby]

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.

[rwwff]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('grabby', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'r')ecovery of kerogen at 92%, which with `hydroretorting' would produce approximately 20,000 barrels of oil a day. - matt Sexton.

[mekrob]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('venky', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')t's kind of like being trapped in the desert. You have 100 gallons of fresh water, enough for quite a while. But you can only get the water out at a very slow rate (say a mL per hour). That massive amount of water won't do you any good if you can't get it out faster, now will it?

[Ayoob]

We will burn as much oil in the next doubling time as we have in all of recorded history. At what rate is oil consumption growing, and at what date will we double oil consumption again?

If we have burned one and have three left, then we have two doubling times left until the very last drop is gone.

See the Albert Bartlett video for a more thorough explanation.

[americandream]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DirtyGrapist', 'H')i guys, I am wondering what your thoughts are on this statement by ExxonMobil Australia's Chairman

Link

[grabby]

When all our pumps are finally dry, there will still be always 2 trillion barrels left.

There was 2 trillion barrels left in 1920.
There was two trillion barrels left in 1970 and now there is still two trillion barrels left.
There will always be two trillion barrels left no matter what happens and when civilization ends, they will write on our tombstones,
"But there were two trillion barrels left."

[kjmclark]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('venky', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')t's kind of like being trapped in the desert. You have 100 gallons of fresh water, enough for quite a while. But you can only get the water out at a very slow rate (say a mL per hour). That massive amount of water won't do you any good if you can't get it out faster, now will it?

[Cynus]

Exxon is relying on the US Geological survey's 2000 results for their 2 trillion barrels remaining estimate. Those results have been roundly ridiculed as vastly optimistic, and have proved to be wildly inaccurate in the 6 years they have been released.

[DantesPeak]

I’ve reviewed a number of stories about this speech, and most seem to highlight the fact that ‘we are not running out of oil’. For the moment, that is true. POers will also agree that there are maybe 1 or so trillion barrels of oil left in the earth. So what else is new? What I gather is that executive sees that technology will be able to maintain oil production – albeit probably at higher price levels. On the other hand - I don’t specifically see it being stated that oil production will increase, although the implication is that higher oil production will come on line with the right combination of higher prices and technology.

Seems that all we have here is the same old ‘free market’ theory – unless there is something more we don’t know about. If anyone can locate an actual copy of the speech, please post. It doesn’t seem like there will be an official press release coming.

[kjmclark]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DirtyGrapist', 'H')i guys, I am wondering what your thoughts are on this statement by ExxonMobil Australia's Chairman

Link

[shortonoil]

.

Here is the problem with US Geological survey's estimate. The world’s conventional oil production presently has an ERoEI of about 17 - 18 to 1, and falling. The ERoEI on gasoline is somewhere in the neighborhood of 5-6 to 1. Meaning that the ERoEI loses 12 to 13 points in the processing and transportation of the crude. If we start pumping, squeezing and mining sources, such as the tar sands, that have ERoEI's of less than 10, we will get negative energy returns on the finished products. The question is not about how much oil is in the ground, (presently world oil reserves are about 6 trillion barrels), the question is, how much energy is available from the oil. This is simple Thermodynamics 101, First and Second law stuff. You would think that these buffoons could figure that out!

http://www.oilcrisis.com/cleveland/OilAndCulture.pdf

.

[rwwff]

Negative energy return is however, economically OK; as long as the energy inputs into the system come from fixed, non-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.

[ClubOfRomeII]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cynus', 'E')xxon is relying on the US Geological survey's 2000 results for their 2 trillion barrels remaining estimate. Those results have been roundly ridiculed as vastly optimistic, and have proved to be wildly inaccurate in the 6 years they have been released.

[ClubOfRomeII]

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

Here is the problem with US Geological survey's estimate. The world’s conventional oil production presently has an ERoEI of about 17 - 18 to 1, and falling. The ERoEI on gasoline is somewhere in the neighborhood of 5-6 to 1. Meaning that the ERoEI loses 12 to 13 points in the processing and transportation of the crude. If we start pumping, squeezing and mining sources, such as the tar sands, that have ERoEI's of less than 10, we will get negative energy returns on the finished products. The question is not about how much oil is in the ground, (presently world oil reserves are about 6 trillion barrels), the question is, how much energy is available from the oil. This is simple Thermodynamics 101, First and Second law stuff. You would think that these buffoons could figure that out!

.