REUTERS/Anatoly UstinenkoAn aerial view shows artificial islands on Kashagan offshore oil field in the Caspian sea, western Kazakhstan, April 7, 2013. Picture taken April 7, 2013.
WHEN it was discovered in 2000, the Kashagan oilfield in Kazakhstan’s waters in the northern Caspian Sea was the world’s biggest oil find in three decades. By now it was supposed to be pumping out 1.2m barrels a day (mbd), enough to meet Spain’s entire consumption.
But the project, whose name sounds unfortunately like “cash all gone”, went spectacularly awry. A year ago, when the first trickle of crude briefly flowed, it was already eight years behind schedule. Having cost $43 billion, it was $30 billion over budget. And production lasted only a few weeks before leaks of poisonous gas forced its suspension. Earlier this month a government minister admitted it would not restart until at least 2016.
Undeterred by the Kashagan fiasco, this week the government said it would approve a plan to expand the onshore Tengiz oilfield, another huge budget-buster. Tengiz was first expected to cost $23 billion but the government said this week that the bill had risen to $40 billion.
Each of the two oilfields is owned by a different consortium of foreign firms and the state oil company, KazMunaiGaz. In Kashagan’s case they include Exxon, Shell, Total and ENI. In part the project’s setbacks are due to unexpected technical problems. Corrosive and poisonous hydrogen sulphide gas, pumped up from the seabed along with the oil, has eaten through pipes bringing it onshore.
REUTERS/Leon NealA general view shows the Bolashak oil plant on the Kashagan offshore oil field near Atyrau in Kazakhstan June 30, 2013.
It may cost another $5 billion to fix the problem. But insiders say privately that with so many companies involved, the project has lacked clear leadership and suffered from government meddling.
Investors of all kinds worry about “the declining predictability of Kazakhstan’s regulatory and legal environment”, says Mariyam Zhumadil of Halyk Finance, an investment bank in the commercial capital, Almaty.
In 2010 the government filed a $1.2 billion tax claim against the consortium that operates another field, Karachaganak, while making noises about breaches of environmental rules, not long after expressing an interest in buying a stake in the field. Later the consortium gave it 10% in return for it agreeing to expand the field.
Likewise, at Kashagan, environmental officials have fined the field’s operators $737m for burning off the poisonous gas, which the consortium argues was an emergency measure. Ms Zhumadil reckons the fine is a “tool for future negotiations, perhaps to strengthen the national oil company’s presence in the project.”
This may not be the best way to encourage foreign firms to pump in the tens of billions of dollars more that are still needed to develop Kazakhstan’s oilfields.

Nony on Mon, 13th Oct 2014 8:15 am
Really tricky project. Should not have been run as a consortium with a bunch of local requirements.
shortonoil on Mon, 13th Oct 2014 8:32 am
“In part the project’s setbacks are due to unexpected technical problems.”
There is really nothing “unexpected” about the problems with this field. A reservoir with the permeability of a concrete block, and a 15% hydrogen sulfide content that has problems is not a surprise! It is merely an indication of how desperate producers are to find, and replace reserves. Anyone who argues that the end of the oil age is still far away should take a good look at this disaster!
http://www.thehillsgroup.org/
bobinget on Mon, 13th Oct 2014 8:54 am
As ‘shortonoil’ properly points out, investors have bigger problems then regulators and lawyers. It will be decades before anyone gets ten cents on the dollar return. Most early investors will be dead by then.
My question, why didn’t the first few exploratory wells
discourage the entire project from the get-go?
Obvious thievery.
ghung on Mon, 13th Oct 2014 10:10 am
Maybe we can track the progress of peak oil by simply counting the number of clusterfucks like this one. The Shell/Kulluk fiasco and Brazil’s deep-water failures, not to mention numerous political obstructions to keeping even more conventional production online,, all are a sign of something.
eugene on Mon, 13th Oct 2014 10:40 am
We are living in the age of frantic denial and wild promises. The problems were known long ago but it’s all we have left. The insanity of the wild promises, the massive devastation of the tar sands, the craziness of Bakken and I watch neighbors/family plan for futures I doubt exist. So it goes.
Northwest Resident on Mon, 13th Oct 2014 11:15 am
We should probably be able to deduce the severity of the real problems this world and global economy are facing by the extent to which TPTB lie and propagandize to cover up that truth. In other words, the magnitude of the problem is directly equal to the magnitude of the lies and propaganda generated to deny and obscure those problems.
And in this case, the magnitude of the lies, deceit, tricks, fraud, false narratives and outright B.S. — especially related to fracking, “energy independence”, soaring stock market, economic “recovery”, etc… — constitute a very thick and foul-smelling sludge.
Plantagenet on Mon, 13th Oct 2014 11:48 am
Large oil projects like this are inherently very risky. The investments are huge, and the payout can be affected by complicated geology and political instability.
Thats one reason more and more effort is going into fracking—-the investments are much smaller and the petroleum geology is relatively straightforward.
Kenz300 on Mon, 13th Oct 2014 11:51 am
Oil is getting harder to find, more expensive to extract and costly to develop……….
Alternatives to fossil fuels get cheaper every year.
It is time for fossil fuel companies to diversify and become energy companies and embrace alternative energy sources and add them to their portfolios.
—————–
New Cost Analysis Shows Unsubsidized Renewables Increasingly Rival Fossil Fuels « Breaking Energy – Energy industry news, analysis, and commentary
http://breakingenergy.com/2014/09/25/new-cost-analysis-shows-unsubsidized-renewables-increasingly-rival-fossil-fuels/
Northwest Resident on Mon, 13th Oct 2014 12:21 pm
“Thats one reason more and more effort is going into fracking—-the investments are much smaller and the petroleum geology is relatively straightforward.”
But the net energy provided to the economy by each barrel of fracked oil is STILL ZERO, or very close to it, and very likely even negative.
Which means that fracking is doing NOTHING to provide energy, and may even result in a net negative in energy.
The ONLY reason for fracking is to reinforce the illusion of BAU, as the world economy slowly swirls down the commode. As I mentioned above, the extent of the lies and propaganda pushed on us by TPTB is a sure indicator of how bad the problem really is. And in this case, monumental lies and propaganda DO equate to an extremely dire situation that TPTB are doing as much as possible to cover up and hide.
Plantagenet on Mon, 13th Oct 2014 1:07 pm
@NWR:
Actually, the net energy from fracking is not zero or negative as you claim. The EROEI is far lower then from conventional fields, but peer-reviewed scientific studies show EROEI for fracking is still over 60 to 1. For instance:
NWR—You are welcome to your weird conspiracy theories about secret powers that control everything in the world, but please try to avoid making wildly inaccurate claims about the real world that don’t match the actual economic and scientific data.
Plantagenet on Mon, 13th Oct 2014 1:09 pm
Here’s the linkie to the peer reviewed study on EROEI for fracking
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jiec.12040/abstract;jsessionid=7F84CE61C9872C3B98277514CCF19DDE.d03t02
shortonoil on Mon, 13th Oct 2014 1:20 pm
“constitute a very thick and foul-smelling sludge.”
That’s hydrogen sulfide that you smell!
But seriously, we are bunch of engineers, social science is not in our repertoire of expertise. However, I just got back from one of my favorite hangouts; a local bookstore. There you find a rather broad expanse of well informed people, good coffee, and conversation. One thing that I have noticed is that people have lost faith in the system to solve our problems. They know it is broken, and few are willing to express an option on how to fix it. This is a rather upscale area on the Chesapeake Bay, but 20 to 30% of the homes in this area are vacant. Businesses are closing right and left, and people are wandering long things are going to hang together. But the line that hit me the hardest this morning was when the Texas Ebola situation came up. One gentleman quipped “sure, it’s contained”. A doctor friend of mine just shook his head!
Plantagenet on Mon, 13th Oct 2014 1:29 pm
Don’t be so pessimistic shortonoil. The CDC and the Obama administration are both confident that everything is under control — And on the very day that the first EBOLA transmission in the US was announced, President Obama took the day off to play his 200th round of golf as president! This is the exact same thing Obama day did the day that ISIS beheaded their US hostage. Ask yourself—would Obama be taking day after day off to be out there on the golf course yukking it up with his buddies if Ebola, ISIS, or anything else was actually a serious problem?
ghung on Mon, 13th Oct 2014 1:48 pm
C’mon Plant. Some of the biggest deals in history were made on golf courses, and it may be the only place Obama can discuss our total fuckedupedness without being monitored taped or bugged. Nixon should have been golfing more instead of making tapes.
rockman on Mon, 13th Oct 2014 1:56 pm
Eugene – “We are living in the age of frantic denial and wild promises.” I’ve been working in the oil patch for a very long time and that’s the only world I’ve witnessed for 40 years. Sometimes more hyped and sometimes less. But as I’ve pointed out numerous times my first mentor at Mobil Oil explained the PO dynamic in detail to me in 1975. And I clearly recall the pressure management was under at that time to deal with the situation.
Plantagenet on Mon, 13th Oct 2014 2:03 pm
Its a nice fantasy, ghu, but it doesn’t match reality.
1. Obama doesn’t do deals on golf courses—Can you name one deal that has come from the 200 days of golfing? Nope, Obama golfs with the same small group of sycophants every time.
2. Obama is the one doing the bugging and tapping and monitoring, as Eric Snowden has made clear. Obama is the one who pushed through a new “Patriot Act” even more outrageous than the first, and obama is the one signing the secret memorandums that have authorized the worst of the NSA programs. AND, as Obama himself explained it when the Snowden revelations came out, his spying is perfectly transparent because a secret court made a secret ruling that said its all OK.
HARM on Mon, 13th Oct 2014 2:04 pm
Plantagenet: if you are interested in facts, Bush II took FAR more vacation days during his Presidency than Obama has by this stage in his second term.
407 to 125, Bush “wins” hands-down. It’s not even close.
http://www.factcheck.org/2014/08/presidential-vacations/
“If readers want to make an apples-to-apples comparison, the best solution is to use Knoller’s figures as of August 8, cited above: Bush, 407; Obama, 125. But the numbers say more about how many days the presidents spent away from the White House than they do about how much time the presidents spent not working.”
Northwest Resident on Mon, 13th Oct 2014 2:04 pm
Plant — You’re distorting reality, making false accusations and being the total moron that enjoy being on this board.
“Weird conspiracy theories”. We’ve been over this several times, Plant. My theory is that big money buys the influence that enable the really wealthy individuals and groups to control political decisions. That’s not weird or conspiratorial, just fact. Deny it if you want, just like you do everything else that doesn’t fit into your warped fantasy world.
Regarding EROEI for fracked oil, the article is only looking at Marcellus, not all shale oil — so from the very beginning your link fails to account for all the other fracking sites. And who are these no-name writers that are making that claim on EROEI from Marcellus shale play???
Compare that short, unsubstantiated little blurb of Hopium for all true shale believers (such as you and your very very close friend Nony) with this highly respected and well-documented STUDY that shows shale oil EROEI is more like 1:1 — not the absurd 1:60 or whatever the writers of your article CLAIM, but make no attempt to prove or demonstrate:
ht tp://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/oilshale-assessment-2010-for-water.pdf
And shortonoil’s assessment:
NR asked:
Question: How does your estimate differ from the one in the PDF (done by a couple of guys at the Department of Geography and Environment, Boston University)?
“The most reliable studies suggest that the EROI for oil shale falls between 1:1 and 2:1 when self-energy is counted as a cost.”
The reason for the difference is that we are calculating ERoEI, not EROI. EROI refers to energy returned on energy invested to the end user. ERoEI refers to energy returned on energy invested at the “well head”.
Clevand says:
“One technique for evaluating energy systems is net energy analysis, which seeks to compare the
amount of energy delivered to society by a technology to the total energy required to find,
extract, process, deliver, and otherwise upgrade that energy to a socially useful form.”
The energy returned ratio varies according to where it is calculated, it is different at the well head, than at the refinery door, at the refinery gate, and etc. To avoid such confusion (the subject already has plenty of that) we define ERoEI at the well head, specifically. ERoEI is the only metric we use throughout the entire report to maintain consistency, and clarity.
When estimating the EROI to the end consumer from shale 1:1 is probably an optimistic estimate. That would mean that it is a break even. It is probably not an energy source at all but an energy sink! 0.7:1 would be a better estimate. That is, its takes energy from other sources to produce a finished fuel from shale production. Since we are talking about liquid hydrocarbons we deduct that from the amount of energy delivered by conventional.
http://www.thehillsgroup.org/
And Plant — one more point. IF the energy content in shale oil is so high, why can’t shale oil companies make a profit? Why are they all so deeply in debt, and so dependent on acquiring even more debt to continue their futile efforts?
You’re very good at denying reality and filtering information to suit your preconceived notions, Plant, and you manage to come off as quite an A-hole in the process.
HARM on Mon, 13th Oct 2014 2:07 pm
Regardless, both parties work for the same group of financial oligarchs and mostly pursue the same policies –aside from a few culture war hot-button issues. Pointless “Team Red” vs. “Team Blue sparring does not do anything to solve real world problems or enlighten anyone.
HARM on Mon, 13th Oct 2014 2:15 pm
“Obama is the one doing the bugging and tapping and monitoring, as Eric Snowden has made clear. Obama is the one who pushed through a new “Patriot Act” even more outrageous than the first, and obama is the one signing the secret memorandums that have authorized the worst of the NSA programs. AND, as Obama himself explained it when the Snowden revelations came out, his spying is perfectly transparent because a secret court made a secret ruling that said its all OK.”
Questions for Plantagenet:
1. Which President enthusiastically called for and signed the first Patriot Act?
2. Under which Administration did the NSA vastly expand its spying operations to include ordinary Americans and our allies?
3. Which Administration first championed the use of secret military tribunals, rendition and torture, and even opened a prison all but outside the reach of U.S. civil law?
Yes, Obama is continuing the work of his predecessor and not giving us the “change” many (foolishly) expected. Which corrupt party is in currently in office does not matter. The real power behind the throne always stays the same.
HARM on Mon, 13th Oct 2014 2:20 pm
And for the record, what exactly is the President (any President) supposed to “do” about ISIS? We already sent over 5,000 Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to their death and spent $3 Trillion in a failed effort to nation build over there. Does anyone really want to double-down on “Mission Accomplished: Part 2”?
The best thing we can do is stay out of Sunni-Shia religious conflicts specifically, and Middle East wars in general.
Plantagenet on Mon, 13th Oct 2014 2:24 pm
HARM:
Your count of Obama’s “vacation days” is inaccurate, unless you are counting obama’s golf days as work days. The man has golfed 200 days already—and when Obama goes golfing it takes all day. He is notorious for taking 8 hours to finish every single round—and that doesn’t include travel time to and from the course, and drinks and dinner with his sycophants after the day’s fun so they can tell him how great his putting was.
If thats a work day, then sign me up for double-time!
Northwest Resident on Mon, 13th Oct 2014 2:25 pm
shortonoil said: “One thing that I have noticed is that people have lost faith in the system to solve our problems.”
I have noticed the same thing. Recent comments (last few months or so) from a real estate agent, a couple of doctors I know, a top-notch project manager who has done projects for fortune 500 companies and others have all indicated their awareness of the fact that this version of BAU is not going to last. Comments from others on message boards who claim to know CEOs of major corporations or who have connections in the defense department and other high-up places are echoing the same thing. Preparations and stated plans by the military and homeland security and police forces indicate they are preparing for mass civil disorder. It isn’t a time to give up hope for a future, but it is time to give up hope for continuing this version of BAU and it is time to make personal preparations to deal with the coming storm. Until then, we all pretend everything is going Just Fine — like one CEO said, you gotta dance while the music is still playing. It’s like the whole world is doing the “Thriller” dance right now in unison, just waiting for Eddie Van Halen to crank out that killer riff that brings the house down. Till then, we keep on dancing…
shortonoil on Mon, 13th Oct 2014 2:27 pm
@Plant
The study you quoted is for NG, it has nothing to do with tight oil.
“A Preliminary Energy Return on Investment Analysis of Natural Gas from the Marcellus Shale”
The authors go on to say:
“The analysis indicates that the EROI of a typical well is likely between 64:1 and 112:1, with a mean of approximately 85:1. This range assumes an estimated ultimate recovery (EUR) of 3.0 billion cubic feet (Bcf) per well. EROI values are directly proportionate to EUR values. If the EUR is greater or lesser than 3 Bcf, the EROI would be proportionately higher or lower. EROI is also sensitive to the energy used or embedded in gathering and transmission pipelines and associated infrastructure and energy used for their construction, energy consumed in well drilling and well completion, and energy used for wastewater treatment.”
At $3.5 million per 3 Bcf well, these guys are claiming that production costs are $0.12 per Mcf. NG is now selling wholesale for $3.91 per Mcf. If anyone believes this go find yourself a nice freshly painted bridge. Maybe you can talk the owner, the nice guy who is living under it, to sell it to you.
Plantagenet on Mon, 13th Oct 2014 2:27 pm
HARM#2
I quite agree with you that the US can’t do a darn thing about Sunni-Shia conflicts in the ME. Unfortunately, Obama thinks we are the Shia air force and has gone to war in the ME again. We’ve spent over a billion dollars so far on Obama’s new air war against the Caliphate—-and the current estimate is that this new war will last another 30 years!
Northwest Resident on Mon, 13th Oct 2014 2:35 pm
Plant — Go take your meds. Chill out. You’re making a complete ass out of yourself today.
HARM on Mon, 13th Oct 2014 2:36 pm
@Plantagenet
Those figures came from FactCheck.org. You can also find very similar estimates from Politifact.com, CNN, Washington Post, etc.
The count on vacation days most definitely *did* count days Obama (and Bush) spent golfing and other leisure activities outside of the White House, Air Force One and other venues working on “business of state”.
It’s good to get out of the partisan bubble once in a while.
Plantagenet on Mon, 13th Oct 2014 2:45 pm
@HARM
How can the count of vacation days for Obama total 125 if he has actually golfed 200 days?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2790237/war-rages-middle-east-dallas-confirms-second-ebola-victim-s-obama-hitting-links-200th-golf-game-president.html
I know many Americans are math-challenged, but surely you don’t have that problem? Surely you can see there is a difference between the 125 you are claiming and Obama’s actual count of 200 days spent golfing?
HARM on Mon, 13th Oct 2014 2:59 pm
@Plant,
It’s quite simple really. Obama –like many ordinary golfers– frequently plays on a work day either during a mid-day break or after hours. Of course being President is a lot different than a typical 9-to-5 day job, but the idea’s the same. You put in your usual day of work, then knock off and play a round of golf.
Honestly, I don’t get the Republican obsession over Obama’s golf games, other than it’s a way to score some cheap propaganda points with the base.
Interesting tidbit from Yahoo News:
“Bush played 24 rounds of golf as president. He later explained his decision to stop in the fall of 2003 by saying he felt it was not appropriate to be seen golfing while American troops fought in Afghanistan and Iraq.”
Perhaps Obama should take up fishing at Kennebunkport instead.
HARM on Mon, 13th Oct 2014 3:03 pm
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/aug/23/who-took-more-vacation-george-w-bush-or-barack-oba/
“As for which president has played the most rounds of golf, it’s definitely not Obama. For instance, Dwight Eisenhower played almost 800 rounds during his eight-year presidency, according to a study of his daily itinerary cited in Golf Digest — many times what Obama has played.
And Eisenhower is not even the No. 1 golf-playing president. Woodrow Wilson played nearly 1,200 rounds during his two terms. Wilson “played more rounds of golf than any president in history,” said Wilson’s biographer, A. Scott Berg.”
Gosh, how could President Wilson have spent so many days golfing during a WORLD WAR no less! And Eisenhower’s 800 rounds during the the height of the COLD WAR when the entire world was a hair trigger away from being destroyed by nuclear Armageddon! What horrible, irresponsible men…
Is that enough on the golf topic already?
jjhman on Mon, 13th Oct 2014 4:18 pm
NWR:
Do you have any data to support the assertion that there is no net energy from fracking?
I don’t have any knowledge of the technology but it seems that if you are getting even several hundred bbls/day from a fracked well for many months, even considering the high decline rate, that the net energy should be easily positive. There’s a lot of energy in oil.
Northwest Resident on Mon, 13th Oct 2014 4:59 pm
jjhman — Here’s the link:
ht tp://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/oilshale-assessment-2010-for-water.pdf
Also, see my comment above with shortonoil’s additional comments.
True, a fracked barrel of oil (actually, various liquids some of which is oil) contains a lot of energy. But the issue is that it takes so much energy to get the average fracked barrel of oil out of the ground that you end up with a tiny net energy gain, if any.
Plantagenet on Mon, 13th Oct 2014 5:10 pm
JJhman:
You are quite right to question NWR’s claim that there is a net energy loss on cracked wells. It doesn’t seem possible because it isn’t possible. For more info on this look above— I posted a link to a scientific paper in a peer-reviewed journal that showed an EROEI of 60-110 for typical NG cracked wells in the marcellus shale. AND the energy density of oil is much greater then NG.
Plantagenet on Mon, 13th Oct 2014 5:15 pm
@HARM
I grant you that Eisenhower played more golf than Obama. However, even Eisenhower wasn’t golf-mad enough to go play golf right in the middle of crises—he stayed in the office and he did his job rather well. If you insist on comparing Eisenhower and Obama then note that the wages and wealth of Americans boomed when Eisenhower was in office, whereas under Obama millions of people have left the workforce, the typical family has seen their jobs cut to part-time, their wages go down, and a significant portion of their net assets disappear.
Northwest Resident on Mon, 13th Oct 2014 5:16 pm
And Plant the wise one with links to “scientific” articles that are complete horse manure still hasn’t answered the main question, which is:
IF fracked oil/liquid is such a great source of net energy, then WHY is the entire fracking industry mired in excessive debt, and in desperate need of constantly accumulating MORE debt just to keep operations going?
Could it be that in fact by the time they frack that barrel of oil out of the ground and pay all expenses, there just isn’t any energy left to sell? Sure sounds like it. I mean, if that have all that “excess net energy” to sell after all expenses and energy input required, then why can’t they turn a profit and get out from under all the unsustainable debt. The answer is obvious.
BTW Plant — it isn’t my “claim” — once again you mischaracterize and falsely accuse, your specialty. That is the fundamental truth exposed by the article I linked to. It’s called real science, Plant, not hocus pocus propaganda which is what you tend to believe.
Plantagenet on Mon, 13th Oct 2014 5:24 pm
@NWR
I looked at the pdf of the report you are citing as proof that fracking doesn’t have an EROEI above 1.
You are such a dope. That report isn’t even about fracking tight shales. Its about the refining of KEROGEN. Its an entirely different topic you ninny.
You’ve proven over and over that you are a scientific illiterate. Now you are doing it again. SHEEEESH!
HARM on Mon, 13th Oct 2014 5:39 pm
@Plant,
Re: Eisenhower vs. Obama.
Neither President can take sole credit or blame for the successes and failure of the economies of their day.
Eisenhower served as President at a time when the U.S. was literally the last industrial nation left standing following WWII. The U.S. at that time was literally the world’s factory and the only economic superpower (the Soviet Union turned out to be far weaker than was believed at the time). Also, unions were at their zenith, housing and education were dirt cheap, and the financial sector was a quarter of the size it is today. Basically, anyone could have been president and claimed to have ushered in an economic “miracle”.
Obama, by contrast, inherited an economy shredded by decades of deregulation, outsourcing, deindustrialization, widening wealth inequality, union-bashing, growing corruption (“captured” regulatory agencies), neoliberal economic policies, two wars, a housing and Wall Street crash, and a financial sector that had been allowed to metastasize into ~40% of the U.S. economy.
I still fault Obama for failing to do a lot more in fighting corruption, restoring civil liberties and reigning in the banksters, but… given the hand he was dealt, he could have done a whole lot worse.
Plantagenet on Mon, 13th Oct 2014 7:00 pm
@HARM
You seem terribly concerned with making excuses for Obama’s various failings. First you tried to say obama was so much better then Eisenhower, and then when I pointed out the economy was actually much better under Eisenhower you reply with excuses. And your excuses are lame.
It turns out that every president has to deal with messes inherited from their predecessor. Eisenhower inherited a much messier war in Korea then Obama did in Iraq. Fixing the world economy was not a simple problem either, not to mention dealing with Stalin. Nonetheless, Eisenhower never whined and complained about what he had inherited—he just knuckled down got the job done. The problem with Obama (and his supporters) is all the whining and special pleading and excuse making. For heavens sakes—just get the job done and stop whining all the time. SHEEESH!
shortonoil on Mon, 13th Oct 2014 7:34 pm
Except for a fuel cell, the only way to get energy out of a liquid hydrocarbon is from a combustion process. It must be turned into a fuel which can be burned. The Bakken is at least 30%, and according to EOG (the people who produce it) up to 70% of the Eagle Ford is condensate. Condensate is primarily pentane (C5H12) and a few other hydrocarbons included.
Condensate is used primarily as a feedstock, little of it is used for the production of fuels. It is used for plastic manufacturing, and additives for other fuels. Since about half of the shale oil produced is condensate, it takes no part in the energy production process. The other half of LTO is also limited in its ability to produce fuels. LTO’s have an API that is greater than 40. The graph below shows how lighter oils lose their ability to produce fuels.
http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/www.nrcan.gc.ca/files/energy/images/eneene/sources/petpet/images/refraf1-lrgr-eng.png
Shale is not an net energy provider simply because the majority of it is not used to produce energy. Its very high energy production cost would preclude it even if it could be used to produce fuels, which it can not. Most of it lacks the necessary molecular structure to do so.
http://www.thehillsgroup.org/
Plantagenet on Mon, 13th Oct 2014 7:40 pm
Actually, thats true now, but it won’t be in the long run. Consider natural gas (NG). It is so light that it doesn’t even naturally form condensate. And yet NG is quite suitable for use in transportation. The reason we don’t use condensates is that we still have abundant petroleum. But as oil production peaks and then declines, we are eventually going to be very happy we’ve got some condensate to burn.
Nony on Mon, 13th Oct 2014 7:57 pm
Condensate is just light oil. It makes similar products (no heating oil, but plenty of gasoline which is the most valuable product for oil). It trades for 10-20 bucks less than optimal API oil. Heavy sour has a similar discount.
Northwest Resident on Mon, 13th Oct 2014 8:28 pm
Plant — The article is about “oil shale” — with kerogen mentioned. You consistently fail at reading comprehension. Being an idiot is something you might be forgiven for, but you are a bombastic, insulting, know-it-all idiot — the worst kind, a fact that you prove repeatedly on this forum.
Notice how in the intro quoted below, the discussion is on “vast oil shale resources” — not kerogen specific.
BTW Plant, it takes a very sick mind to obsess on how many days Obama has gone golfing or taken vacation, and an even sicker mind to try to “prove” that Obama is somehow a worse president than other simply based on how many days he has gone golfing or “on vacation”. Every aspect of yourself that you display on this board points to a very troubled, sick and low-intelligence individual.
“Concern over limited oil resources and record energy prices has rekindled interest in the development of the vast oil shale resources of the Western United States. We reviewed the
existing literature on the energy return on investment (EROI) for oil shale. EROI is the ratio of
energy delivered to energy costs. The most reliable studies suggest that the EROI for oil shale
falls between 1:1 and 2:1 when self-energy is counted as a cost. Self-energy is energy released
by the oil shale conversion process that is used to power that operation.”
Plantagenet on Mon, 13th Oct 2014 8:40 pm
@NWR
Oil Shales are special variety of shales that contain oil trapped in kerogen. They have absolutely nothing to do with frakking. Check out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale
(and note that the article beings with the caution NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH SHALE OIL—-well, thats your problem right there you dummy you—you are confusing OIL SHALE with SHALE OIL—and they are very different things).
Once again you’ve demonstrated that you don’t understand what you read. And sadly, since you don’t understand what you read, much of what you post is nonsense and misinformation, just as your claims here have turned out to be—I hate to have to break it to you, dude, but when it comes to science you are a dunce.
Northwest Resident on Mon, 13th Oct 2014 9:36 pm
Plant says: “They (oil shales) have absolutely nothing to do with frakking.”
But the article states:
“For every barrel of oil produced in an oil shale operation, between 1 and 3 barrels of water are required.”
What’s the water for, if not for fracking?
and
“…in situ extraction, where energy is used to heat the shale while it is still underground.”
and
“World production of oil from shale…”
and from another article:
“Exxon Mobil has developed a process for creating underground fractures in oil shale.”
But neither my linked article or oil shale have anything to do with fracking? So confidently and bombastically states Plant. Right.
Try again, Plant. Next, accuse me of what you yourself are entirely guilty of. Call me what you are, project your idiocies onto me — it’s what all jokers like you do. When idiots are clearly wrong, they make idiotic accusations and kick up a cloud of dust to obscure their own stupidity. That’s what you are doing.
Shale oil and oil shale are both LOSERS. The amount of net energy from EITHER is negligible, paltry and in no way will either ever contribute to solving the world’s energy needs.
The entire oil shale/shale oil industry is going to collapse and disappear in the near future. Both are dependent on massive accumulations of debt. Both absolutely require artificially low interest rates to continue. NEITHER pay their own way.
synapsid on Mon, 13th Oct 2014 9:37 pm
Plantagenet,
Oil shales are not “shales that contain oil trapped in kerogen.”
They contain kerogen.
HARM on Mon, 13th Oct 2014 9:39 pm
@Plant,
I give up. Obama is the devil incarnate. He is all powerful and 100% responsible for all problems in the nation today. Congress does not exist. State governments do not exist. Any rumors re: alleged predecessors or inherited problems are just that –scurrilous rumors dreamed up by liberal Commie apologists. If we all vote Team Red all will be well in the world.
Nony on Mon, 13th Oct 2014 9:44 pm
How quick will rig count drop in response to a price signal? Bakken rigs have stayed at ~190 through the recent price drop. But I wonder if they have leases or contracts to use up. IOW is the rig count staying stable a sign that they’re not bothered by the price drop? Or just that it takes a few months to use up the contracts?
Plantagenet on Mon, 13th Oct 2014 9:55 pm
Hi Synaspid:
1. Do you understand that oil shale and shale oil are two separate things? IF you do, then please help explain it to NWR.
2. Yes, the oil is trapped in the kerogen. As wikipedia puts it: ” When heated to the right temperatures in the Earth’s crust, (oil window ca. 50–150 °C, gas window ca. 150–200 °C, both depending on how quickly the source rock is heated) some types of kerogen release crude oil”
Nony on Mon, 13th Oct 2014 9:59 pm
http://www.coga.org/pdf_Basics/Basics_OilShale.pdf
basic explanation
Plantagenet on Mon, 13th Oct 2014 10:00 pm
@NWR:
Oil shales (also known as kerogen shales) contain oil trapped in waxy kerogen. The classic US example is a rock known as the Green River Shale. There are hundreds of billions of oil in the Green River Shale, but its trapped in Kerogen. It is possible to refine the kerogen shale to release oil, but it takes a lot of energy and water to do the refining. Thats why the EROEI for an oil shale is less than one. In contrast, shale oil can be released just by fracking, and so has a healthy, positive EROEI.
Get it now?
Sheeesh! Fracking isn’t the only industrial process that uses water, you dummy.