[quote]rainjack wrote:
will to power wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Our money has never pulled out of the ME. We stop bidding for your oil, and you will start squealing like a stuck pig.
And I can only hope it happens sooner than later.
Russia, China, India, Europe, their money is just as good.
But I see we all agree on the last part of your post.
You guys will naturally agree until it happens. You have never lived apart from our influence. I can only pray that you get a taste of people that are as selfish and ruthless as you accuse us of being.
At that pint, I hope our gov’t has the balls to tell all of the terrorist countries to fuck off and die.[/quote]
So, why is it the countries you aren’t in or have left aren’t calling for the US to step back on their soil?
Which means it’s not even oil, but mineral-rich rock that costs an assload of fuel and fresh water to process and creates huge waste deposits. So the actual energy return is quite small.
There are large amounts of fossil fuels all over the planet but they are either unrecoverable or not cost-effective. We have 3D seismic technology now, and horizontal drilling for many decades but no significant new discoveries have been made as far.
These ‘news’ are for us to keep buying more cars and support any crazy means to squeeze out the last bit of fossil fuels regardless of the cost.
[quote]will to power wrote:
rainjack wrote:
will to power wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Our money has never pulled out of the ME. We stop bidding for your oil, and you will start squealing like a stuck pig.
And I can only hope it happens sooner than later.
Russia, China, India, Europe, their money is just as good.
But I see we all agree on the last part of your post.
You guys will naturally agree until it happens. You have never lived apart from our influence. I can only pray that you get a taste of people that are as selfish and ruthless as you accuse us of being.
At that pint, I hope our gov’t has the balls to tell all of the terrorist countries to fuck off and die.
So, why is it the countries you aren’t in or have left aren’t calling for the US to step back on their soil?[/quote]
We are only in one country. But the ME is still under our influence. It’s called money. You are all whores to the dollar.
And like I said - I can only hope a country that is truly evil takes over when we leave your rat infested corner of the world.
[quote]Majin wrote:
It’s not liquid crude, but shale. [/quote]
No it’s crude that happens to be present sandwiched between a couple of shale layers, not all shales contain oil in significant amounts. The very low permeability of the formation is the reason it has yet to be commercially exploited.
The Green River Basin is an example of an oil shale formation where production will require cooking the crude out of the rock, the Bakken formation is quite different in that it contains massive reserves of liquid crude but recovery will be a bit dodgy because the permeability is so low the oil isn’t able to flow freely through the formation.
The untapped reserves off the coasts of California and Florida, on and offshore in Alaska, the Bakken formation and the shales of the Green River Basin together contain at least a few times the reserves once present on the Arabian Penensula. When those are gone in a few centuries we can turn to the coal deposits in the Appalachains from which oil may be produced.
The good news: my great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandchildren will be able to buy gasoline at affordable prices for the antique Triumphs I plan to leave them
[quote]rainjack wrote:
will to power wrote:
rainjack wrote:
will to power wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Our money has never pulled out of the ME. We stop bidding for your oil, and you will start squealing like a stuck pig.
And I can only hope it happens sooner than later.
Russia, China, India, Europe, their money is just as good.
But I see we all agree on the last part of your post.
You guys will naturally agree until it happens. You have never lived apart from our influence. I can only pray that you get a taste of people that are as selfish and ruthless as you accuse us of being.
At that pint, I hope our gov’t has the balls to tell all of the terrorist countries to fuck off and die.
So, why is it the countries you aren’t in or have left aren’t calling for the US to step back on their soil?
We are only in one country. But the ME is still under our influence. It’s called money. You are all whores to the dollar.
And like I said - I can only hope a country that is truly evil takes over when we leave your rat infested corner of the world.
[/quote]
How is your money helping Iran, to use the example I used earlier?
Which says a lot for the “Islamic Revolution”, now doesn’t it?
If they were true to their word, they would tell the Russians to stick their aid, in light of all the Muslims the Russians have killed over the centuries, but, like RJ says, they’re all whores for the money, I guess.
[quote]BackForMore wrote:
Majin wrote:
It’s not liquid crude, but shale.
No it’s crude that happens to be present sandwiched between a couple of shale layers, not all shales contain oil in significant amounts. The very low permeability of the formation is the reason it has yet to be commercially exploited.
The Green River Basin is an example of an oil shale formation where production will require cooking the crude out of the rock, the Bakken formation is quite different in that it contains massive reserves of liquid crude but recovery will be a bit dodgy because the permeability is so low the oil isn’t able to flow freely through the formation.
The untapped reserves off the coasts of California and Florida, on and offshore in Alaska, the Bakken formation and the shales of the Green River Basin together contain at least a few times the reserves once present on the Arabian Penensula. When those are gone in a few centuries we can turn to the coal deposits in the Appalachains from which oil may be produced.
The good news: my great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandchildren will be able to buy gasoline at affordable prices for the antique Triumphs I plan to leave them [/quote]
You’re forgetting that recovery of these resources requires a ton of fuel in itself. Due to that the EROEI rating of such deposits is much much lower then Middle Eastern wells. Just when Saudis alone get tanked there’s no way we’ll be able to maintain our current consumption rates. I’m not even sure oil is ever gonna fall any lower then 100.
I don’t know how you expect your great-greats to use oil at all when there’s only a finite amount, which will probably get completely drained before this century is done.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
The Russians are helping the Iranians now.
Which says a lot for the “Islamic Revolution”, now doesn’t it?
If they were true to their word, they would tell the Russians to stick their aid, in light of all the Muslims the Russians have killed over the centuries, but, like RJ says, they’re all whores for the money, I guess.[/quote]
[quote]Majin wrote:
You’re forgetting that recovery of these resources requires a ton of fuel in itself. Due to that the EROEI rating of such deposits is much much lower then Middle Eastern wells. Just when Saudis alone get tanked there’s no way we’ll be able to maintain our current consumption rates. I’m not even sure oil is ever gonna fall any lower then 100.[/quote]
Speaking as a former engineer I am both well aware of and quite unlikely to forget about energy budgets. Commercial viability of ongoing production (viz. excluding startup costs) from a given source is a reasonably good proxy for the energy budget you seem so worried about. Where arbitrages exist the market will locate and, eventually, correct them. EROEI is a bit of a straw man where crude production is concerned since we’re typically utilizing electricity from coal, nuclear, or other sources to produce crude; the utilization of electricity generated from non-oil sources does not reduce the utility of the crude recovered. That’s less true for production from strip-mined tar sands but those aren’t the sorts of deposits we’re talking about here.
The fact is that many sorts of alternative oil production become commercially viable in the $40/bbl range (inflation adjusted current dollars). The only real problem in bringing them online has been the wildly varying price of oil in historic terms; simply put oil has rarely exceeded that price for significant lengths of time, certainly not long enough to justify the initial investments necessary to produce these alternative sources. We may, and I stress may, be in a climate where these alternatives will be viable for the forseeable future.
[quote]Majin wrote:
I don’t know how you expect your great-greats to use oil at all when there’s only a finite amount, which will probably get completely drained before this century is done.[/quote]
Ah but the supply isn’t finite because fresh new hydrocarbon fuels can, quite literally, be created out of thin air … whenever the technology is ready and economics merit (see e.g., http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/01/S2P ). The problem with Sandia’s approach is their mucking about with solar technology as the input energy source. Simply replace the bulky and costly solar apparatus with a clean efficient fission power plant and you’d have the world’s first commercial renewable hydrocarbon fuel plant. With enough fissionable material already known to power all the world’s energy needs for tens of thousands of years I see no real end to the days of hydrocarbon fuels.
If we had a sane government they’d be subsidizing this sort of thing rather than the ethanol hoax and research related to that man-made global warming myth. But I suppose sanity is too much to hope for.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
will to power wrote:
rainjack wrote:
will to power wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Our money has never pulled out of the ME. We stop bidding for your oil, and you will start squealing like a stuck pig.
And I can only hope it happens sooner than later.
Russia, China, India, Europe, their money is just as good.
But I see we all agree on the last part of your post.
You guys will naturally agree until it happens. You have never lived apart from our influence. I can only pray that you get a taste of people that are as selfish and ruthless as you accuse us of being.
At that pint, I hope our gov’t has the balls to tell all of the terrorist countries to fuck off and die.
So, why is it the countries you aren’t in or have left aren’t calling for the US to step back on their soil?
We are only in one country. But the ME is still under our influence. It’s called money. You are all whores to the dollar.
And like I said - I can only hope a country that is truly evil takes over when we leave your rat infested corner of the world.
[/quote]
Yep, they haven’t seen anything yet. Beijing will treat them just like they do the Tibetans.
If the oil shale pans out, it could change the course of world history. Without that oil noose, we just might squeek out of the hole dug by the past 60 years of lib stupidity.
[quote]will to power wrote:
rainjack wrote:
will to power wrote:
rainjack wrote:
will to power wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Our money has never pulled out of the ME. We stop bidding for your oil, and you will start squealing like a stuck pig.
And I can only hope it happens sooner than later.
Russia, China, India, Europe, their money is just as good.
But I see we all agree on the last part of your post.
You guys will naturally agree until it happens. You have never lived apart from our influence. I can only pray that you get a taste of people that are as selfish and ruthless as you accuse us of being.
At that pint, I hope our gov’t has the balls to tell all of the terrorist countries to fuck off and die.
So, why is it the countries you aren’t in or have left aren’t calling for the US to step back on their soil?
We are only in one country. But the ME is still under our influence. It’s called money. You are all whores to the dollar.
And like I said - I can only hope a country that is truly evil takes over when we leave your rat infested corner of the world.
How is your money helping Iran, to use the example I used earlier?
You’re a real class act.[/quote]
They spend it.
Don’t over think.
Class act, why? Because I view the ME with as much contempt as you view the US?
Pardon me if I don’t give a fuck what you think of my opinion.
[quote]tedro wrote:
But aren’t there deer and elk and squirrels and rabbits in those states?
We can’t drill around those poor little critters.[/quote]
No shit right? Who needs enemies when you have friends like the various environmental movements? They be happy to bring this country and all the people living in it, to their knees.
[quote]BackForMore wrote:
Speaking as a former engineer I am both well aware of and quite unlikely to forget about energy budgets. Commercial viability of ongoing production (viz. excluding startup costs) from a given source is a reasonably good proxy for the energy budget you seem so worried about. Where arbitrages exist the market will locate and, eventually, correct them. EROEI is a bit of a straw man where crude production is concerned since we’re typically utilizing electricity from coal, nuclear, or other sources to produce crude; the utilization of electricity generated from non-oil sources does not reduce the utility of the crude recovered. That’s less true for production from strip-mined tar sands but those aren’t the sorts of deposits we’re talking about here.[/quote]
It’s not a strawman if you want it to actually produce more energy then you put into it. And I was talking about actual fuel needed for the heavy machinery. The total costs make this type of recovery very inefficient.
[quote]
Ah but the supply isn’t finite because fresh new hydrocarbon fuels can, quite literally, be created out of thin air … whenever the technology is ready and economics merit (see e.g., http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/01/S2P ). The problem with Sandia’s approach is their mucking about with solar technology as the input energy source. Simply replace the bulky and costly solar apparatus with a clean efficient fission power plant and you’d have the world’s first commercial renewable hydrocarbon fuel plant. With enough fissionable material already known to power all the world’s energy needs for tens of thousands of years I see no real end to the days of hydrocarbon fuels.[/quote]
You were just talking about EROEI being a strawman and then you put together something completely questionable and included something that just came out two months ago? Come on. And I think breeder reactors aren’t exactly in working order either.
[quote]Majin wrote:
BackForMore wrote:
Speaking as a former engineer I am both well aware of and quite unlikely to forget about energy budgets. Commercial viability of ongoing production (viz. excluding startup costs) from a given source is a reasonably good proxy for the energy budget you seem so worried about. Where arbitrages exist the market will locate and, eventually, correct them. EROEI is a bit of a straw man where crude production is concerned since we’re typically utilizing electricity from coal, nuclear, or other sources to produce crude; the utilization of electricity generated from non-oil sources does not reduce the utility of the crude recovered. That’s less true for production from strip-mined tar sands but those aren’t the sorts of deposits we’re talking about here.
It’s not a strawman if you want it to actually produce more energy then you put into it. And I was talking about actual fuel needed for the heavy machinery. The total costs make this type of recovery very inefficient.
…[/quote]
It doesn’t take more energy to extract the oil than is available from the oil. That is false. It is true it is more expensive than pumping light sweet crude out of the ground but at current oil prices these fields are likely very viable.
The bad news is that these fields will not lower the price of oil no matter how huge their reserves are.
