# Largest Oil Scale Reserves BY FAR in the world!



## GHook93

Right here in America. Actually in CO. Actually we have the 2nd, 3rd and 4th largest also.

We have the technology to tap this source, but the environazis have not allowed us to drill tea spoon from this source!

Green River Formation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Place.................Barrels in the Millions ....... Weight in Million of Tons
(1) Green River Formation USA......... 1,466,000....................213,000 
(2) Phosphoria Formation USA............250,000......................35,775 
(3) Eastern Devonian USA...................189,000......................27,000 
(4) Heath Formation USA....................180,000......................25,578 
And coming in (5) and (6)
(5) Russia..........................................167,715.....................24,000
(6) Congo...........................................100,000....................14,310

http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2005/5294/pdf/sir5294_508.pdf


Russia has less oil scales then our 4th largest and they are utilizing this source and making a killing off it. To date, the Environazis won't allow us to use any of this black gold!


----------



## GHook93

UNdata | record view | Crude Petroleum

Barrels In Millions
World: 2,826,103
US: 2,085,228

US percentage of World's Oil Reserves: 74%
Toss in Canada's tiny 15K and USA/Canada is at 75%!!!


----------



## GHook93

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/reserves.html
16 billion barrels of oil in ANWR. Check the map that tiny little red dot in the ginormous ANWR is the only place they want to drill. That is 2K out of 19 million acres, the size of LAX airport, yet the Environazis won't allow us to drill in this small area. Why because they are nutz!


----------



## GHook93

Oil Consumption in North America

We use 6.6 billion a year. ANWR could fuel the country for nearly 3 year all by itself. The Oil Scale could fuel use entirely for a century!


----------



## GHook93

Note: Brown is good! We are one of the 3. I saw the 60 mins special about the new NG findings in the America Northeast. We now compete with Russia for largest reserves in the world!


----------



## GHook93

Because liberals produce myth - We don't have oil here!
Wrong we have the largest reserves in the world. Liberals just don't allow us to drill and use it. Drill in our current spots, in ANWR, in CO (esp CO), in the Gulf, offshore in the Atlantic and Pacific and deepsea and we will have domestic oil for over a century.

I think we need to take the T Boone Pickens Plan on Natural Gas, Drill and tweek it with the electric car:
(1) Drill baby Drill: Drill on CO, offshore, deepsea and in ANWR. The speculators will drive the price down and in 5 years we can be oil independent for a century. Heck in 5 years we could export oil.

(2) Convert and Require Bigrigs (which are commerical automobiles) to run on natural gas: We have the largest reserves in the world. Making bigrigs run on it will help keep our oil flowing even longer.

(3) Promote, help produce, encourage and reward Hybrid and the All-Electric Car: I think the electric car is the future. There are road blocks. But when it takes off it will be good for all!


----------



## RGR

GHook93 said:


> Because liberals produce myth - We don't have oil here!
> Wrong we have the largest reserves in the world.



The oil shales aren't reserves. They are resources. Please learn this basic difference before opening your mouth and saying something silly.


----------



## Toro

GHook93 said:


> Right here in America. Actually in CO. Actually we have the 2nd, 3rd and 4th largest also.
> 
> We have the technology to tap this source, but the environazis have not allowed us to drill tea spoon from this source!
> 
> Green River Formation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Place.................Barrels in the Millions ....... Weight in Million of Tons
> (1) Green River Formation USA......... 1,466,000....................213,000
> (2) Phosphoria Formation USA............250,000......................35,775
> (3) Eastern Devonian USA...................189,000......................27,000
> (4) Heath Formation USA....................180,000......................25,578
> And coming in (5) and (6)
> (5) Russia..........................................167,715.....................24,000
> (6) Congo...........................................100,000....................14,310
> 
> http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2005/5294/pdf/sir5294_508.pdf
> 
> 
> Russia has less oil scales then our 4th largest and they are utilizing this source and making a killing off it. To date, the Environazis won't allow us to use any of this black gold!



We don't have the technology to pull oil shale out of the ground. We simply don't. We've known about Green River for many years. But we can't get at it. 

However that was true for nat gas trapped in shale just 7 years ago before fracking.


----------



## RGR

Toro said:


> We don't have the technology to pull oil shale out of the ground.



Sure we do. Not only have we already done it "back in the day", but some countries have been using oil shale to run power plants. 

The problem is cost. It just costs too much to mine the stuff, or even use in-situ techniques. I've reviewed various technical schemes to get the stuff out, but nothing has really panned out yet.



			
				Toro said:
			
		

> We simply don't. We've known about Green River for many years. But we can't get at it.
> 
> However that was true for nat gas trapped in shale just 7 years ago before fracking.



No it wasn't. Shale gas production started in New York back in about 1825, the Dunkirk Shale if memory serves. Shale gas fields discovered along the shores of Lake Erie between 1860 and 1880 were still in production in the mid-1990's when the Appalachian Basin gas atlas came out. In 1926 the largest known gas accumulation in the world was Devonian shale gas, on the Kentucky/West Virginia border (Ley, 1935). Hydraulic fracturing was pioneered on a commercial basis in the 1940's (Hubbert, 1956), and certainly I was doing hydraulic fracturing on shale wells back in the 80's, just not from a big horizontal lateral like the boys in Texas are doing nowadays.

Shale gas has been around forever. People only recently have noticed, is all, as the US transitions to unconventional sources of natural gas and oil.


----------



## GWV5903

Toro said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right here in America. Actually in CO. Actually we have the 2nd, 3rd and 4th largest also.
> 
> We have the technology to tap this source, but the environazis have not allowed us to drill tea spoon from this source!
> 
> Green River Formation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Place.................Barrels in the Millions ....... Weight in Million of Tons
> (1) Green River Formation USA......... 1,466,000....................213,000
> (2) Phosphoria Formation USA............250,000......................35,775
> (3) Eastern Devonian USA...................189,000......................27,000
> (4) Heath Formation USA....................180,000......................25,578
> And coming in (5) and (6)
> (5) Russia..........................................167,715.....................24,000
> (6) Congo...........................................100,000....................14,310
> 
> http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2005/5294/pdf/sir5294_508.pdf
> 
> 
> Russia has less oil scales then our 4th largest and they are utilizing this source and making a killing off it. To date, the Environazis won't allow us to use any of this black gold!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't have the technology to pull oil shale out of the ground. We simply don't. We've known about Green River for many years. But we can't get at it.
> 
> However that was true for nat gas trapped in shale just 7 years ago before fracking.
Click to expand...


I beg to differ, we are pulling oil out of the Bakken Shale, Barnett Shale, Eagle Ford Shale today.....

This is only the beginning for shale oil....

They told George Mitchell he couldn't get NG out of the Barnett Shale back in the early '80's, along came horizontal drilling and today the Barnett Shale is the largest gas play on the North American continent, thanks to perserverance....

We are the only ones limiting our own energy sources....

Bakken Shale

Barnett Shale: Barnett Shale Combo

Eagle Ford Shale


----------



## KissMy

GHook93 said:


> Note: Brown is good! We are one of the 3. I saw the 60 mins special about the new NG findings in the America Northeast. We now compete with Russia for largest reserves in the world!



Look at the land mass size of the US, Russia & Canada compared to Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Oman, & Iran. Yes I would hope we would have more in these much larger countries, but those small countries are very energy dense per acre & cheaper to get oil out of for now. We use way more oil than everyone else so we are addicted to cheap oil.

For 40 years now we have had almost every president promising us energy independence & more domestic production. The opposite has happened, with every one of them we become more energy dependent on cheap foreign oil. It is their plan to use the rest of the worlds oil first. The last country with oil in the end wins, but that does not help us here & now.

Sarah Palin is our best bet for domestic oil production yet congress will find a way to shut her down.


----------



## RGR

GWV5903 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't have the technology to pull oil shale out of the ground. We simply don't. We've known about Green River for many years. But we can't get at it.
> 
> However that was true for nat gas trapped in shale just 7 years ago before fracking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I beg to differ, we are pulling oil out of the Bakken Shale, Barnett Shale, Eagle Ford Shale today.....
> 
> This is only the beginning for shale oil....
Click to expand...



You are confused. The Bakken, Eagleford and Barnett (the liquids portion anyway) are shale oil.

Your reference to massive volumes of oil was to oil shale, a completely different animal, and not even an oil at all. There are reasons why amateurs do this very badly, no matter their advocacy position. Go google it up. Words matter.



			
				GVW said:
			
		

> They told George Mitchell he couldn't get NG out of the Barnett Shale back in the early '80's, along came horizontal drilling and today the Barnett Shale is the largest gas play on the North American continent, thanks to perserverance....



Actually, the Barnett was discovered in the early 80's, and producing as well. Horizontal drilling has been around since the late 20's, and was put into full scale operation in California by the 1940's. It isn't new either. By the 1980's guys like me were drilling horizontal wells routinely with modern MWD technology, hardly a whipstock or single shot in sight! While the Barnett gas shales constituent quite a big field, it will never be the size of...say...Hugoton. Or even the gas cap at Prudhoe.


----------



## uscitizen

GHook93 said:


> Oil Consumption in North America
> 
> We use 6.6 billion a year. ANWR could fuel the country for nearly 3 year all by itself. The Oil Scale could fuel use entirely for a century!



Perhaps, if we could get this oil to the lower 48 or even to lower Alaska.


----------



## Modbert

GHook93 said:


> Wrong we have the largest reserves in the world. *Liberals just don't allow us to drill and use it.*



How are we #3 in the world in Oil Production and not far behind the #2 spot then? You talk about Liberal myths but you are perpetuating the myth that we don't drill oil here in order to further your argument.


----------



## Modbert

Toro said:


> We don't have the technology to pull oil shale out of the ground. We simply don't. We've known about Green River for many years. But we can't get at it.
> 
> However that was true for nat gas trapped in shale just 7 years ago before fracking.



I wonder if Ghook wouldn't mind if we did some fracking near his house. Mmm, high concentration of methane in the water supply.


----------



## KissMy

Modbert said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't have the technology to pull oil shale out of the ground. We simply don't. We've known about Green River for many years. But we can't get at it.
> 
> However that was true for nat gas trapped in shale just 7 years ago before fracking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if Ghook wouldn't mind if we did some fracking near his house. Mmm, high concentration of methane in the water supply.
Click to expand...


I would love to get paid for oil fracking near my house. I can buy water from somewhere else for a while with that money.


----------



## GHook93

KissMy said:


> Sarah Palin is our best bet for domestic oil production yet congress will find a way to shut her down.



How so? By getting Obama reelected to a second term?


----------



## GHook93

Modbert said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't have the technology to pull oil shale out of the ground. We simply don't. We've known about Green River for many years. But we can't get at it.
> 
> However that was true for nat gas trapped in shale just 7 years ago before fracking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if Ghook wouldn't mind if we did some fracking near his house. Mmm, high concentration of methane in the water supply.
Click to expand...


I saw the 60 minutes thing on it. The controversy is real and should be taken seriously, but Natural Gas has made small towns diamond mines. Not just for the tax revenue coming out of it. But the hotels are always filled. The restaurants have steady streams of people. The stores are packed with people that make a lot of money. Rental property is getting snatched up. It's been great for many small towns! 

Not to mention many homeowner that are leasing their property for production are making a killing!


----------



## Modbert

GHook93 said:


> I saw the 60 minutes thing on it. The controversy is real and should be taken seriously, but Natural Gas has made small towns diamond mines. Not just for the tax revenue coming out of it. But the hotels are always filled. The restaurants have steady streams of people. The stores are packed with people that make a lot of money. Rental property is getting snatched up. It's been great for many small towns!
> 
> Not to mention many homeowner that are leasing their property for production are making a killing!



Too bad those small towns also become unlivable in the long run. It's appalling to trade the entire future away for some short-term benefits.


----------



## KissMy

GHook93 said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah Palin is our best bet for domestic oil production yet congress will find a way to shut her down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How so? By getting Obama reelected to a second term?
Click to expand...


No. They will just block drilling, production & leases. They control what bills a president Palin would get to sign into law.

Congress usually does not have enough sway to get a president elected. The media tells stupid people which presidential candidate to vote for & they do as they are told. The midterm elections elections usually attract the more educated voters.


----------



## Modbert

KissMy said:


> I would love to get paid for oil fracking near my house. I can buy water from somewhere else for a while with that money.



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNGWn-aWn5g]YouTube - Lewis Black on Broadway (on water)[/ame]


----------



## Modbert

I don't get where some people in this thread are getting off complaining as if there is a lack of drilling going on in this country.

List of countries by oil production - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The U.S is third in Oil Production in the world, almost second.

However, we also consume double of what we produce:

Oil consumption (most recent) by country

So what happens? We have to go to foreign countries and get oil from them. Including from countries that hate us.

It's no different then someone who produces heroin they make and then goes to a dealer to get some more. The drug analogy has always fit in my opinion because just like a heroin needle, we keep injecting the drill looking for that next fix. The problem being the effects it has on the user and the fact that one day we will in fact run out of veins.

If you don't think it's the least bit insane, think about it for a moment. I'm trying to point out in this thread about why it's not a good idea to have large amounts of methane in our water supply.


----------



## GHook93

Modbert said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I saw the 60 minutes thing on it. The controversy is real and should be taken seriously, but Natural Gas has made small towns diamond mines. Not just for the tax revenue coming out of it. But the hotels are always filled. The restaurants have steady streams of people. The stores are packed with people that make a lot of money. Rental property is getting snatched up. It's been great for many small towns!
> 
> Not to mention many homeowner that are leasing their property for production are making a killing!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad those small towns also become unlivable in the long run. It's appalling to trade the entire future away for some short-term benefits.
Click to expand...


A lot of small towns start out this way with a boom that attracts people, investments and other business. Some go the way of the ghost towns, but some build on it and grow.


----------



## Modbert

GHook93 said:


> A lot of small towns start out this way with a boom that attracts people, investments and other business. Some go the way of the ghost towns, but some build on it and grow.



Except those small towns have the added benefit of having an environment that's livable. Good luck trying to sell to a investment company that we should have our company in the long run in a place where we have to import water due to the local water supply being poisoned. I'm sure all the people will be itching to live there. All of this towns will go the way of ghost towns. As soon as the oil dries up, so do the dollars pouring into the town and they're on their way to the next small town to sucker.


----------



## Toro

RGR said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't have the technology to pull oil shale out of the ground.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure we do. Not only have we already done it "back in the day", but some countries have been using oil shale to run power plants.
> 
> The problem is cost. It just costs too much to mine the stuff, or even use in-situ techniques. I've reviewed various technical schemes to get the stuff out, but nothing has really panned out yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We simply don't. We've known about Green River for many years. But we can't get at it.
> 
> However that was true for nat gas trapped in shale just 7 years ago before fracking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it wasn't. Shale gas production started in New York back in about 1825, the Dunkirk Shale if memory serves. Shale gas fields discovered along the shores of Lake Erie between 1860 and 1880 were still in production in the mid-1990's when the Appalachian Basin gas atlas came out. In 1926 the largest known gas accumulation in the world was Devonian shale gas, on the Kentucky/West Virginia border (Ley, 1935). Hydraulic fracturing was pioneered on a commercial basis in the 1940's (Hubbert, 1956), and certainly I was doing hydraulic fracturing on shale wells back in the 80's, just not from a big horizontal lateral like the boys in Texas are doing nowadays.
> 
> Shale gas has been around forever. People only recently have noticed, is all, as the US transitions to unconventional sources of natural gas and oil.
Click to expand...


I'm all for pulling oil out of the shale.  I'm from Saskatchewan and have a lot of friends in Alberta.  I want them to get rich and I want to pay less at the pump.  I'm not an energy guy, but the guys in the Patch that I know tell me that it isn't feasible, at least not yet.  

Unless something has happened over the past few years I am unaware of.

From the Rand Foundation



> The largest known oil shale deposits in the world are in the Green River Formation, which covers portions of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming...For potentially recoverable oil shale resources, we roughly derive an upper bound of 1.1 trillion barrels of oil and a lower bound of about 500 billion barrels...the midpoint in our estimate range, 800 billion barrels, is more than triple the proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia. Present U.S. demand for petroleum products is about 20 million barrels per day. ...
> 
> at least 12 and possibly more years will elapse before oil shale development will reach the production growth phase. Under high growth assumptions, an oil shale production level of 1 million barrels per day is probably more than 20 years in the future, and 3 million barrels per day is probably more than 30 years into the future.



http://rand.org/pubs/monographs/2005/RAND_MG414.pdf


----------



## KissMy

The largest factor in whether oil gets extracted from shale is the Energy Returned On Energy Invested (EROEI). Some oil formations simply take a gallon of fuel to create a gallon of fuel, a 1:1 EROEI. That makes it useless until there is a major breakthrough in efficiency for oil extraction. Canada's oil sands are very low at a 3:1 EROEI. The Middle East EROEI is very high at over 40:1.


----------



## JiggsCasey

KissMy said:


> *The largest factor in whether oil gets extracted from shale is the Energy Returned On Energy Invested (EROEI)*. Some oil formations simply take a gallon of fuel to create a gallon of fuel, a 1:1 EROEI. That makes it useless until there is a major breakthrough in efficiency for oil extraction. Canada's oil sands are very low at a 3:1 EROEI. The Middle East EROEI is very high at over 40:1.



Gosh, really? 

According to self-asserted forum energy expert RGR, that EROEI stuff is a nonsensical measurement that no one uses, and is no factor in comparing different forms of energy.

It's funny watching denialists squawk until they're blue in the face, using long-debunked talking points over and over again, that there's "plenty" of energy. But, ultimately, you're all eventually forced to concede many of the main contentions brought to you. EROEI and proven reserve vs. estimated reserves being just a few key aspects.

So yes, that's right....  EROEI is THE fundamental aspect of assessing net energy. Anything less than 5:1 is NOT -- i repeat NOT -- maintaining the kind of growth the world economy requires. When people lie to themselves and insist that tar sands and shale oil formations will "save the day," they don't really have any idea what they're talking about. The technology has been around for decades, and they can not figure out a way to bring it to market efficiently. Nothing replaces sweet, delicious light crude.  And they're not finding it anymore in any significant amounts.

Resources are not reserves. Satisfyingly, it appears that is something RGR and I can come to agreement about.


----------



## KissMy

JiggsCasey said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The largest factor in whether oil gets extracted from shale is the Energy Returned On Energy Invested (EROEI)*. Some oil formations simply take a gallon of fuel to create a gallon of fuel, a 1:1 EROEI. That makes it useless until there is a major breakthrough in efficiency for oil extraction. Canada's oil sands are very low at a 3:1 EROEI. The Middle East EROEI is very high at over 40:1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gosh, really?
> 
> According to self-asserted forum energy expert RGR, that EROEI stuff is a nonsensical measurement that no one uses, and is no factor in comparing different forms of energy.
> 
> It's funny watching denialists squawk until they're blue in the face, using long-debunked talking points over and over again, that there's "plenty" of energy. But, ultimately, you're all eventually forced to concede many of the main contentions brought to you. EROEI and proven reserve vs. estimated reserves being just a few key aspects.
> 
> So yes, that's right....  EROEI is THE fundamental aspect of assessing net energy. Anything less than 5:1 is NOT -- i repeat NOT -- maintaining the kind of growth the world economy requires. When people lie to themselves and insist that tar sands and shale oil formations will "save the day," they don't really have any idea what they're talking about. The technology has been around for decades, and they can not figure out a way to bring it to market efficiently.
> 
> Resources are not reserves. Satisfyingly, it appears that is something RGR and I can come to agreement about.
Click to expand...


The only way around Crude Oils low EROEI is to take the unreliable 18:1 EROEI of wind turbines & use that energy to extract & refine low EROEI crude oil when the wind blows.


----------



## JiggsCasey

KissMy said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The largest factor in whether oil gets extracted from shale is the Energy Returned On Energy Invested (EROEI)*. Some oil formations simply take a gallon of fuel to create a gallon of fuel, a 1:1 EROEI. That makes it useless until there is a major breakthrough in efficiency for oil extraction. Canada's oil sands are very low at a 3:1 EROEI. The Middle East EROEI is very high at over 40:1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gosh, really?
> 
> According to self-asserted forum energy expert RGR, that EROEI stuff is a nonsensical measurement that no one uses, and is no factor in comparing different forms of energy.
> 
> It's funny watching denialists squawk until they're blue in the face, using long-debunked talking points over and over again, that there's "plenty" of energy. But, ultimately, you're all eventually forced to concede many of the main contentions brought to you. EROEI and proven reserve vs. estimated reserves being just a few key aspects.
> 
> So yes, that's right....  EROEI is THE fundamental aspect of assessing net energy. Anything less than 5:1 is NOT -- i repeat NOT -- maintaining the kind of growth the world economy requires. When people lie to themselves and insist that tar sands and shale oil formations will "save the day," they don't really have any idea what they're talking about. The technology has been around for decades, and they can not figure out a way to bring it to market efficiently.
> 
> Resources are not reserves. Satisfyingly, it appears that is something RGR and I can come to agreement about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only way around Crude Oils low EROEI is to take the unreliable 18:1 EROEI of wind turbines & use that energy to extract & refine low EROEI crude oil when the wind blows.
Click to expand...


LOL!!! You are so backwards, it's hysterical.

Crude oil does NOT have "low" EROEI. It's the highest, that's why it's the most coveted.

Also, who on Earth claims wind is at 18:1?


----------



## Big Fitz

Modbert said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I saw the 60 minutes thing on it. The controversy is real and should be taken seriously, but Natural Gas has made small towns diamond mines. Not just for the tax revenue coming out of it. But the hotels are always filled. The restaurants have steady streams of people. The stores are packed with people that make a lot of money. Rental property is getting snatched up. It's been great for many small towns!
> 
> Not to mention many homeowner that are leasing their property for production are making a killing!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad those small towns also become unlivable in the long run. It's appalling to trade the entire future away for some short-term benefits.
Click to expand...

So... Western Pennsylvania is a dead zone then?  I mean, we've been drilling and pumping oil from that area for over 100 years.


----------



## Big Fitz

KissMy said:


> The largest factor in whether oil gets extracted from shale is the Energy Returned On Energy Invested (EROEI). Some oil formations simply take a gallon of fuel to create a gallon of fuel, a 1:1 EROEI. That makes it useless until there is a major breakthrough in efficiency for oil extraction. Canada's oil sands are very low at a 3:1 EROEI. The Middle East EROEI is very high at over 40:1.


Still better than Ethanol which is at best 1 to 1.5 at all times.

I love how the chicken littles are stuck thinking oil technology does not advance, improve or become more cost effective let alone enable more and more oil to be accessed that was previously unaccessable due to economics or physical challenges.


----------



## KissMy

JiggsCasey said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gosh, really?
> 
> According to self-asserted forum energy expert RGR, that EROEI stuff is a nonsensical measurement that no one uses, and is no factor in comparing different forms of energy.
> 
> It's funny watching denialists squawk until they're blue in the face, using long-debunked talking points over and over again, that there's "plenty" of energy. But, ultimately, you're all eventually forced to concede many of the main contentions brought to you. EROEI and proven reserve vs. estimated reserves being just a few key aspects.
> 
> So yes, that's right....  EROEI is THE fundamental aspect of assessing net energy. Anything less than 5:1 is NOT -- i repeat NOT -- maintaining the kind of growth the world economy requires. When people lie to themselves and insist that tar sands and shale oil formations will "save the day," they don't really have any idea what they're talking about. The technology has been around for decades, and they can not figure out a way to bring it to market efficiently.
> 
> Resources are not reserves. Satisfyingly, it appears that is something RGR and I can come to agreement about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only way around Crude Oils low EROEI is to take the unreliable 18:1 EROEI of wind turbines & use that energy to extract & refine low EROEI crude oil when the wind blows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!!! You are so backwards, it's hysterical.
> 
> Crude oil does NOT have "low" EROEI. It's the highest, that's why it's the most coveted.
> 
> Also, who on Earth claims wind is at 18:1?
Click to expand...


You know the point I was making. I should have said alternative energy with higher EROEI could be used to get the hard to extract Crude Oil from Oil Shale & Tar Sands with a EROEI so low that it can't sustain it's own production.

As for the Wind EROEI of 18:1 I googled it & that is what game up. Here is a chart.


----------



## KissMy

Big Fitz said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The largest factor in whether oil gets extracted from shale is the Energy Returned On Energy Invested (EROEI). Some oil formations simply take a gallon of fuel to create a gallon of fuel, a 1:1 EROEI. That makes it useless until there is a major breakthrough in efficiency for oil extraction. Canada's oil sands are very low at a 3:1 EROEI. The Middle East EROEI is very high at over 40:1.
> 
> 
> 
> Still better than Ethanol which is at best 1 to 1.5 at all times.
> 
> I love how the chicken littles are stuck thinking oil technology does not advance, improve or become more cost effective let alone enable more and more oil to be accessed that was previously unaccessable due to economics or physical challenges.
Click to expand...


Not when you factor in the feed value of the DDGs that adds 1:1 to that 1.5:1. Also add in No-Till Farming & Poet's low energy extraction methods & it takes Corn Ethanol to over 3:1.


----------



## Big Fitz

KissMy said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The largest factor in whether oil gets extracted from shale is the Energy Returned On Energy Invested (EROEI). Some oil formations simply take a gallon of fuel to create a gallon of fuel, a 1:1 EROEI. That makes it useless until there is a major breakthrough in efficiency for oil extraction. Canada's oil sands are very low at a 3:1 EROEI. The Middle East EROEI is very high at over 40:1.
> 
> 
> 
> Still better than Ethanol which is at best 1 to 1.5 at all times.
> 
> I love how the chicken littles are stuck thinking oil technology does not advance, improve or become more cost effective let alone enable more and more oil to be accessed that was previously unaccessable due to economics or physical challenges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not when you factor in the feed value of the DDGs that adds 1:1 to that 1.5:1. Also add in No-Till Farming & Poet's low energy extraction methods & it takes Corn Ethanol to over 3:1.
Click to expand...

Huh... My irony alarm went off.  You're bitching about oil sands and at BEST Ethanol can barely... BARELY equal that only if you include all the derivatives from the process while including none of the same consideration with Tar Sands?

I'm sorry but this smacks of dis-ingenuity or Big Ag shilling on your part.


----------



## KissMy

Big Fitz said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still better than Ethanol which is at best 1 to 1.5 at all times.
> 
> I love how the chicken littles are stuck thinking oil technology does not advance, improve or become more cost effective let alone enable more and more oil to be accessed that was previously unaccessable due to economics or physical challenges.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not when you factor in the feed value of the DDGs that adds 1:1 to that 1.5:1. Also add in No-Till Farming & Poet's low energy extraction methods & it takes Corn Ethanol to over 3:1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Huh... My irony alarm went off.  You're bitching about oil sands and at BEST Ethanol can barely... BARELY equal that only if you include all the derivatives from the process while including none of the same consideration with Tar Sands?
> 
> I'm sorry but this smacks of dis-ingenuity or Big Ag shilling on your part.
Click to expand...


Did I say we should not extract Oil from Tar Sands or Oil Shale??? Hell No I did not. You are the one saying we should not make Ethanol. Liquid Fuel Rules. You can't run cars very far on batteries.


----------



## Big Fitz

KissMy said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not when you factor in the feed value of the DDGs that adds 1:1 to that 1.5:1. Also add in No-Till Farming & Poet's low energy extraction methods & it takes Corn Ethanol to over 3:1.
> 
> 
> 
> Huh... My irony alarm went off.  You're bitching about oil sands and at BEST Ethanol can barely... BARELY equal that only if you include all the derivatives from the process while including none of the same consideration with Tar Sands?
> 
> I'm sorry but this smacks of dis-ingenuity or Big Ag shilling on your part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did I say we should not extract Oil from Tar Sands or Oil Shale??? Hell No I did not. You are the one saying we should not make Ethanol. Liquid Fuel Rules. You can't run cars very far on batteries.
Click to expand...

So instead of focusing more resources and monies on finding better ways to extract and refine oil till a REAL solution comes along, you want to play with pinwheels, mirrors and moonshine still.

Gotcha.  A bad solution for a non-crisis is still the plan.


----------



## RGR

KissMy said:


> The largest factor in whether oil gets extracted from shale is the Energy Returned On Energy Invested (EROEI).



No one gives a crap or uses EROEI for anything. IRR is the consideration which determines the project validity, not EROEI.


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> According to self-asserted forum energy expert RGR, that EROEI stuff is a nonsensical measurement that no one uses, and is no factor in comparing different forms of energy.



Pretty close, but if you were even a semi-competent parrot you would have done better. No oil company in the history of the world has ever used EROEI as a determining factor to explore for, find, develop, produce or distribute oil and natural gas.

And most of the time, it isn't used to compare different forms of energy, it is used to compare energy invested in a particular process to harvest energy out the far end of said process.

Unlike the make believe land of Doomer/Peakers, when you talk about energy, it is easy to compare forms. A BTU is a BTU is a BTU. 



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> EROEI and proven reserve vs. estimated reserves being just a few key aspects.



Proven reserves are by definition estimated reserves parrot. Probabilistic estimates are now pretty much industry standard. Wipe the egg off your face and try again.



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> Nothing replaces sweet, delicious light crude.  And they're not finding it anymore in any significant amounts.



Sure they are. Finding oil all over the place. Twice as much of it as we have consumed over the past decade and a half. Thats the beauty of reserve growth, we just keep getting more of the same type of oil out of them, and there be lots of light sweet crude already found. 



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> Resources are not reserves. Satisfyingly, it appears that is something RGR and I can come to agreement about.



The difference is, I know why. So now you are parroting me.


----------



## RGR

KissMy said:


> You can't run cars very far on batteries.



Far enough to keep 75% of American commuters happy. Heck, I could use an EV for 3 or 4 days before needing to plug it in. Might not work for a visit to Grandma's house, but certainly works in suburbia.


----------



## rdean

Whatever energy that's used, whatever it is, will start with scientists.  Finding oil in discrete pools, like in Arabia, has had it's day.  Whether it's two miles under the ocean, whether it's under a mountain in California, it doesn't matter.  It starts with "scientists".
Yea, those same people Republicans insist "don't do anything worthwhile".


----------



## KissMy

rdean said:


> Whatever energy that's used, whatever it is, will start with scientists.  Finding oil in discrete pools, like in Arabia, has had it's day.  Whether it's two miles under the ocean, whether it's under a mountain in California, it doesn't matter.  It starts with "scientists".
> Yea, those same people Republicans insist "don't do anything worthwhile".



Yeah - We are lending a Trillion fucking dollars for student loans so our students can become "Scientist" & 50% of them can't earn enough to pay us back. The damn college science professors can't teach them anything near the value of the high priced tuition the students are paying them for. Currently the higher education system is another sub-prime loan scam. They are peddling over valued educations instead of overvalued homes.


----------



## RGR

KissMy said:


> The damn college science professors can't teach them anything near the value of the high priced tuition the students are paying them for. Currently the higher education system is another sub-prime loan scam. They are peddling over valued educations instead of overvalued homes.



Brutal! May we assume you might have had a bad experience with colleges in general, or a college education in general?


----------



## KissMy

RGR said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The damn college science professors can't teach them anything near the value of the high priced tuition the students are paying them for. Currently the higher education system is another sub-prime loan scam. They are peddling over valued educations instead of overvalued homes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brutal! May we assume you might have had a bad experience with colleges in general, or a college education in general?
Click to expand...


I have three nieces who graduated over 2 years ago & they all have over $70K in student loan debt & none of them make more than $8.75/hr & non of them ever get 40-hrs of work a week. Those college councilors did a number on them. I told them when they first signed up they were getting screwed, but it was just me against everyone else. Now I am helping to support one of them by letting her live in one of my rental houses for free. Then I read this:

2 out of 5 student loans are delinquent while university cost climb at 3 times the rate of inflation, faster than health-care or any other segment of the economy. *63% of student borrowers can't make their student loan payments on time.* Some university's get 87% of their revenue from Government backed student loans. This money does not all go to education, it funds student debit cards that can buy anything. Students are using the money to live the good life buying Beer, Pizza, Shoes, High Fashion Clothes, Cars, Gas, Jewelery, etc. This is a $1 Trillion subsidy to liberal professors & the unemployed.

CNBC: Price of Admission


> *College costs that are rising at twice the rate of inflation*, CNBC investigates a system that encourages widespread borrowing&#8212;often with little regard to a student's ability to pay, leaving the average college graduate with tens of thousands of dollars in student-loan debt. How long can the system be sustained? Are student loans the next subprime mortgages? And if the bubble bursts, who will pay the price?



NYT: Loan Study on Students Goes Beyond Default Rates


> For each student who defaults on a loan, at least two more fall behind in payments on their student debt, a new study has found.
> 
> The Institute for Higher Education Policy, a nonprofit organization, said in a report that two out of five student loan borrowers were delinquent at some point in the first five years after they started repaying their loans.
> 
> Almost a quarter of the borrowers used an option to postpone payments to avoid delinquency.
> 
> &#8220;We want to get beyond the dichotomy of people who default on their loans and everyone else,&#8221; Alisa Cunningham, The study, based on data from five of the nation&#8217;s largest student-loan agencies, found that only 37 percent of student borrowers who started repaying their loans in 2005 were able to fully pay them back on time.
> 
> And that percentage is probably decreasing, given the high unemployment rate of recent years, Ms. Cunningham said.
> 
> With tuition rising more rapidly than inflation or family incomes, student borrowing has been growing. College seniors who graduated in 2009 had an average of $24,000 in student loan debt, up 6 percent from 2008, according to an annual report from the Project on Student Debt.
> 
> Mark Kantrowitz, the publisher of Finaid.org and Fastweb.com, estimates total student debt at about $896 billion &#8212; more than the nation&#8217;s credit-card debt.
> 
> Meanwhile, default rates have been rising, to 7 percent, for the 2008 fiscal year, the latest period for which data is available, from 5.2 percent in the 2006 fiscal year. Students who did not graduate were more likely to become deliquent or default.
> 
> According to the new study, the majority of student borrowers at both two- and four-year for-profit schools went into deliquency or default. The majority of student borrowers at community colleges also went into delinquency or default. But because community college tuition is far lower than that of for-profit institutions, most community-college students do not take out loans.


----------



## GHook93

RGR said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The damn college science professors can't teach them anything near the value of the high priced tuition the students are paying them for. Currently the higher education system is another sub-prime loan scam. They are peddling over valued educations instead of overvalued homes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brutal! May we assume you might have had a bad experience with colleges in general, or a college education in general?
Click to expand...


She is right! Did I have funny in college? Damn right, best four years of my life. I wish I could go back and do it again. However, did I learn anything? Not much as still pulled A's and B's!


----------



## GWV5903

RGR said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't have the technology to pull oil shale out of the ground. We simply don't. We've known about Green River for many years. But we can't get at it.
> 
> However that was true for nat gas trapped in shale just 7 years ago before fracking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I beg to differ, we are pulling oil out of the Bakken Shale, Barnett Shale, Eagle Ford Shale today.....
> 
> This is only the beginning for shale oil....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are confused. The Bakken, Eagleford and Barnett (the liquids portion anyway) are shale oil.
> 
> Your reference to massive volumes of oil was to oil shale, a completely different animal, and not even an oil at all. There are reasons why amateurs do this very badly, no matter their advocacy position. Go google it up. Words matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GVW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They told George Mitchell he couldn't get NG out of the Barnett Shale back in the early '80's, along came horizontal drilling and today the Barnett Shale is the largest gas play on the North American continent, thanks to perserverance....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, the Barnett was discovered in the early 80's, and producing as well. Horizontal drilling has been around since the late 20's, and was put into full scale operation in California by the 1940's. It isn't new either. By the 1980's guys like me were drilling horizontal wells routinely with modern MWD technology, hardly a whipstock or single shot in sight! While the Barnett gas shales constituent quite a big field, it will never be the size of...say...Hugoton. Or even the gas cap at Prudhoe.
Click to expand...



So the definition below is wrong? Care to elaborate?

_Shale Oil vs Oil Shale  What is the Difference?
December 5, 2010 | Geology.com

Two very similar terms are being used for very different substances

Oil Shale: A rock that contains significant amounts of kerogen (a solid organic compound) that can yield liquid oil if it is heated in the absence of oxygen. Significant deposits of oil shale exist in the Green River Formation of Colorado.

Shale Oil: Crude oil that is produced from tight shale formations such as the the Niobrara Shale of Colorado, the Bakken Shale of North Dakota and the Eagle Ford Shale of Texas. Hydraulic fracturing is generally used to fracture the rock unit, liberate the oil and provide the porosity needed for production._

Also, the Barnett Shale (Newark East) is considered the number one NG Field in North America per the EIA, has been for a number of years. Today the debate is has the Haynesville Shale become number one in proven reserves? You will find the complete list on page 6....

The Hugoton field was at one time the largest, but it was has been at #6 for several years now...

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/data_publications/crude_oil_natural_gas_reserves/current/pdf/top100fields.pdf

I am not certain why you said virtually the same thing I said about the Barnett Shale???? It took Mitchell over a decade to make it work. I have a close family member who has worked for Mitchell Energy, now Devon Energy for over 25 years. He will tell you there was a point in time there was a strong doubt they would make it work. Currently they have chosen to stay out of the Barnett Shale oil play for now....one of their largest competitors EOG Resources on the other hand has made it quite successful, take a look at these numbers from the Texas RRC....

Production Data Home

Production Data Home

Here is a quote from The father of Shale Gas....

Forbes.com 
Q&A
The Father Of Shale Gas
Jesse Bogan, 07.16.09, 07:34 PM EDT  

_George Mitchell and his engineers developed the techniques to exploit shale in the Barnett Shale formation in North Texas. The wildcatters started trying in 1981, finally *nailing it in the early 1990s*. "My engineers kept telling me, 'You are wasting your money, Mitchell,'" the 90-year-old billionaire told Forbes this week. "And I said, 'Well damn it, let's figure this thing out because there is no question there is a tremendous source bed that's about 250-feet thick.'  We made it to be the hottest thing going." _

I have been out of the Oil Patch for over 20 years now, but remain close through a family business on the drilling side, amateur is the wrong word for me, novice would be more accurate. Currently have a strong interest in the Barnett Shale Combo Play for financial reasons....


----------



## uscitizen

We had a shale oil scam here in kY years ago.  it came it went nothing changed except many were scammed of money.
I see no proof that the latest BIG discovery is any different.


----------



## GWV5903

uscitizen said:


> We had a shale oil scam here in kY years ago.  it came it went nothing changed except many were scammed of money.
> I see no proof that the latest BIG discovery is any different.



Take a look at the Bakken, Eagle Ford and Barnett Shale Combo Play, they are producing quite well, pun entended....


----------



## RGR

GWV5903 said:


> So the definition below is wrong? Care to elaborate?
> 
> _Shale Oil vs Oil Shale &#8211; What is the Difference?
> December 5, 2010 | Geology.com
> 
> Two very similar terms are being used for very different substances&#8230;
> 
> Oil Shale: A rock that contains significant amounts of kerogen (a solid organic compound) that can yield liquid oil if it is heated in the absence of oxygen. Significant deposits of oil shale exist in the Green River Formation of Colorado.
> 
> Shale Oil: Crude oil that is produced from tight shale formations such as the the Niobrara Shale of Colorado, the Bakken Shale of North Dakota and the Eagle Ford Shale of Texas. Hydraulic fracturing is generally used to fracture the rock unit, liberate the oil and provide the porosity needed for production._


_

These definitions are correct. The way you used the words was not.



			
				GWV said:
			
		


			The Hugoton field was at one time the largest, but it was has been at #6 for several years now...
		
Click to expand...


In terms of size (for non associated natural gas), Hugoton is unmatched in the western hemisphere of this planet. 

To determine this I did not use current production rates, I was referring to its ultimate recovery. Using USGS estimates, the Barnett is perhaps a 20+ TCF technically recoverable accumulation. The Hugoton (and its outliers such as Guymon) have probably produced...if memory serves...more than 50 TCF already? Maybe 60?



			
				GWV said:
			
		


			I am not certain why you said virtually the same thing I said about the Barnett Shale???? It took Mitchell over a decade to make it work. I have a close family member who has worked for Mitchell Energy, now Devon Energy for over 25 years. He will tell you there was a point in time there was a strong doubt they would make it work. Currently they have chosen to stay out of the Barnett Shale oil play for now....one of their largest competitors EOG Resources on the other hand has made it quite successful, take a look at these numbers from the Texas RRC....
		
Click to expand...


I am more familiar with the Barnett than you know.  And it depends on what you mean by "make it work". The Barnett shale was producing shale gas in 1982. That was a well which "worked" and didn't require any of the heavy duty stimulation and completion techniques which arrived later. Through the end of the 90's there were perhaps 500 wells in the core Newark East field area, all of them were "working" as well. The expansion of the field was made possible by using horizontal drilling and multi stage fracs in rocks of lower quality surrounding the original core area. Crappier geology, but more rock connected to the wellbore, resulting in similar size rates of production as the original vertical wells in the core area which "worked".

There was a good poster at AAPG last month on just this topic. 



			
				GWV said:
			
		


			Here is a quote from The father of Shale Gas....

Forbes.com 
Q&A
The Father Of Shale Gas
Jesse Bogan, 07.16.09, 07:34 PM EDT  

George Mitchell and his engineers developed the techniques to exploit shale in the Barnett Shale formation in North Texas.
		
Click to expand...


Mitchell is not the father of shale gas. He wasn't even born in the correct century. 

The father of shale gas was William Aaron Hart. He was born in 1797. 

You need to find better sources than newspaper articles which don't know dick about oil and gas.



			
				GVW said:
			
		


			I have been out of the Oil Patch for over 20 years now, but remain close through a family business on the drilling side, amateur is the wrong word for me, novice would be more accurate. Currently have a strong interest in the Barnett Shale Combo Play for financial reasons....
		
Click to expand...


I have been in the oil business long enough to have seen cable tool drilling in action. And I was completing shale gas and oil wells before George Mitchell drilled his first Barnett well.

Texans like to claim credit for having invented everything oil, but I think it is because they are jealous that a bunch of hillbillies beat them to it by nearly a century._


----------



## GWV5903

RGR said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the definition below is wrong? Care to elaborate?
> 
> _Shale Oil vs Oil Shale  What is the Difference?
> December 5, 2010 | Geology.com
> 
> Two very similar terms are being used for very different substances
> 
> Oil Shale: A rock that contains significant amounts of kerogen (a solid organic compound) that can yield liquid oil if it is heated in the absence of oxygen. Significant deposits of oil shale exist in the Green River Formation of Colorado.
> 
> Shale Oil: Crude oil that is produced from tight shale formations such as the the Niobrara Shale of Colorado, the Bakken Shale of North Dakota and the Eagle Ford Shale of Texas. Hydraulic fracturing is generally used to fracture the rock unit, liberate the oil and provide the porosity needed for production._
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> These definitions are correct. The way you used the words was not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Hugoton field was at one time the largest, but it was has been at #6 for several years now...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In terms of size (for non associated natural gas), Hugoton is unmatched in the western hemisphere of this planet.
> 
> To determine this I did not use current production rates, I was referring to its ultimate recovery. Using USGS estimates, the Barnett is perhaps a 20+ TCF technically recoverable accumulation. The Hugoton (and its outliers such as Guymon) have probably produced...if memory serves...more than 50 TCF already? Maybe 60?
> 
> 
> 
> I am more familiar with the Barnett than you know.  And it depends on what you mean by "make it work". The Barnett shale was producing shale gas in 1982. That was a well which "worked" and didn't require any of the heavy duty stimulation and completion techniques which arrived later. Through the end of the 90's there were perhaps 500 wells in the core Newark East field area, all of them were "working" as well. The expansion of the field was made possible by using horizontal drilling and multi stage fracs in rocks of lower quality surrounding the original core area. Crappier geology, but more rock connected to the wellbore, resulting in similar size rates of production as the original vertical wells in the core area which "worked".
> 
> There was a good poster at AAPG last month on just this topic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a quote from The father of Shale Gas....
> 
> Forbes.com
> Q&A
> The Father Of Shale Gas
> Jesse Bogan, 07.16.09, 07:34 PM EDT
> 
> George Mitchell and his engineers developed the techniques to exploit shale in the Barnett Shale formation in North Texas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mitchell is not the father of shale gas. He wasn't even born in the correct century.
> 
> The father of shale gas was William Aaron Hart. He was born in 1797.
> 
> You need to find better sources than newspaper articles which don't know dick about oil and gas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GVW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have been out of the Oil Patch for over 20 years now, but remain close through a family business on the drilling side, amateur is the wrong word for me, novice would be more accurate. Currently have a strong interest in the Barnett Shale Combo Play for financial reasons....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have been in the oil business long enough to have seen cable tool drilling in action. And I was completing shale gas and oil wells before George Mitchell drilled his first Barnett well.
> 
> Texans like to claim credit for having invented everything oil, but I think it is because they are jealous that a bunch of hillbillies beat them to it by nearly a century._
Click to expand...

_

How did I use the definition incorrectly? Trying to truly understand, not debate....

Hell I don't care about who did what, I have had a keen interest ever since a company out of your city came to my door with a O & G lease about 4 years ago....

I am interested in learning, thats my motive here....

Mitchell gets the credit in a lot of opinions for the Barnett, it's irrelevant to me, if I had listened to everything that relative described, we would have never signed the first lease, just gathering info...._


----------



## GHook93

uscitizen said:


> We had a shale oil scam here in kY years ago.  it came it went nothing changed except many were scammed of money.
> I see no proof that the latest BIG discovery is any different.



I think your so called story is a scam! 

Side note: KY has the best  whiskey (Borbon) in the world - Woodford Reserve!


----------



## JiggsCasey

KissMy said:


> You know the point I was making. I should have said alternative energy with higher EROEI could be used to get the hard to extract Crude Oil from Oil Shale & Tar Sands with a EROEI so low that it can't sustain it's own production.
> 
> As for the Wind EROEI of 18:1 I googled it & that is what game up. Here is a chart.



Standard procedure is to link where you're getting your image from. Either way, Google better. That chart is laughable.

It is funny, however, seeing two denialists (Kiss and RGR) forced to turn on each other so as to get their story straight.

But then, if the conditions of peak have not yet reached comfortable Texas, they OBVIOUSLY aren't happening at all. Nevermind a world aflame.

Wow, are the cornucopians taking a beating here the past couple of weeks.

Countdown to obligatory deflection and empty (and ironic) "parrot" mantra in 10... 9.... 8...


----------



## RGR

GWV5903 said:


> Mitchell gets the credit in a lot of opinions for the Barnett, it's irrelevant to me, if I had listened to everything that relative described, we would have never signed the first lease, just gathering info....[/SIZE][/FONT]



Mitchell certainly gets credit for the Barnett. That should not be confused with "inventing" shale, or noticing it is a productive formation, etc etc.

It was being produced before Mitchell was born, it certainly is not a "new" thing by any stretch of the imagination.


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> Wow, are the cornucopians taking a beating here the past couple of weeks.



If the parrot name fits, parrot, then why not use it. At least those of us who think about these topics use real information and aren't cutting and pasting church doctrine as some silly substitute for independent thought.


----------



## JiggsCasey

RGR said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, are the cornucopians taking a beating here the past couple of weeks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the parrot name fits, parrot, then why not use it. At least those of us who think about these topics use real information and aren't cutting and pasting church doctrine as some silly substitute for independent thought.
Click to expand...


Actually, you most certainly are cutting and pasting church doctrine, hypocrite.

I'll try this again, oh great champion of shale: Just how much has shale gas contributed to the overall production figures? Why not be honest with the forum for once?


----------



## Spoonman

Fuck oil.  Let's start using more solar.


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, are the cornucopians taking a beating here the past couple of weeks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the parrot name fits, parrot, then why not use it. At least those of us who think about these topics use real information and aren't cutting and pasting church doctrine as some silly substitute for independent thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, you most certainly are cutting and pasting church doctrine, hypocrite.
Click to expand...


Oh please. Polly want a cracker? Run off and bring back someone with neurons which actually work. 



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> I'll try this again, oh great champion of shale: Just how much has shale gas contributed to the overall production figures? Why not be honest with the forum for once?



Find a single piece of information I have provided which isn't true. Just one parrot. Your ignorance of the details (do you even HAVE a memory?) of ongoing conversations in this forum is pathetic. Go back to the church and bring back someone who knows anything about the topic.

As far as shale gas goes, a conversation with you on the topic is meaningless because of your lack of knowledge on any of the relevant topics ( how the industry works, petroleum geology in general, the geosciences in particular, and even the composition of methane, let alone the other components of a run of the mill natural gas stream).

To date all you have proven is that you don't actually read (or understand) the references you regularly cut and paste, you know nothing of the history of oil (or gas) production in general, you don't even know the history of the peak oil religion itself. 

I recommend you find your parents and slap both of them for unleashing an ignorant fool on society. After that, learn to read what has actually been written rather than imprinting your preconceived notions onto the words of others, and after that a good library for 8 hours a day for a few weeks. After you've covered the basics, I would recommend checking every reference provided in "Oil Panic and the Global Crisis" and reading them.

Do that, and at the very least you won't keep making the same stupid mistakes and claims you've been parroting. And you might learn something relevant along the way.


----------



## RGR

Spoonman said:


> Fuck oil.  Let's start using more solar.



Already working on it. I might be a lifelong oil guy, but as soon as the Leaf or Volt makes it to my state, I am seriously considering collecting one, the charging station goes in the garage (charging stations are already at work) and I plan on using their existence to torture any peak oil fools in sight.


----------



## JiggsCasey

RGR said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the parrot name fits, parrot, then why not use it. At least those of us who think about these topics use real information and aren't cutting and pasting church doctrine as some silly substitute for independent thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you most certainly are cutting and pasting church doctrine, hypocrite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh please. Polly want a cracker? Run off and bring back someone with neurons which actually work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll try this again, oh great champion of shale: Just how much has shale gas contributed to the overall production figures? Why not be honest with the forum for once?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Find a single piece of information I have provided which isn't true. Just one parrot. Your ignorance of the details (do you even HAVE a memory?) of ongoing conversations in this forum is pathetic. Go back to the church and bring back someone who knows anything about the topic.
> 
> As far as shale gas goes, a conversation with you on the topic is meaningless because of your lack of knowledge on any of the relevant topics ( how the industry works, petroleum geology in general, the geosciences in particular, and even the composition of methane, let alone the other components of a run of the mill natural gas stream).
> 
> To date all you have proven is that you don't actually read (or understand) the references you regularly cut and paste, you know nothing of the history of oil (or gas) production in general, you don't even know the history of the peak oil religion itself.
> 
> I recommend you find your parents and slap both of them for unleashing an ignorant fool on society. After that, learn to read what has actually been written rather than imprinting your preconceived notions onto the words of others, and after that a good library for 8 hours a day for a few weeks. After you've covered the basics, I would recommend checking every reference provided in "Oil Panic and the Global Crisis" and reading them.
> 
> Do that, and at the very least you won't keep making the same stupid mistakes and claims you've been parroting. And you might learn something relevant along the way.
Click to expand...


LOL. Awwww.... You're mad = I'm happy.

Yes, you've tried this ploy many times over. It's ineffectual, inaccurate, and inadequate. I understand it all quite well, and certainly have a far broader understanding of man's energy predicament than does goofy you. That was made painfully clear months ago, denialist. 

What you're attempting is an effective way of dancing around a challenge put to you. You were asked to simply admit just how much heavy oils represent in the overall energy graph. So instead of actually answering that very simple question, you PARROT over and over again how "dumb" you feel I am, act all haughty and pretentious, and avoid the question entirely. It's so bad for you at this point, you've taken to the classy tactic of assassinating the character of my family? Wow. Desperate much?.

 You've been avoiding this painful reality for months.

So I'll answer the plain fact that you don't wanna address openly to the forum: Shale gas/oil ain't much! And it certainly is no game-changer.

Here we are, pumpkin, barely 5%:





http://watd.wuthering-heights.co.uk/subpages/uncoils.html

Oops, never gonna offset existing decline. Neither is your magical "reservoir self-replenishing" theory. 

Now that we've covered that reality, I'll let you get back to your repetitive savant-addled blather.


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> Oops, never gonna offset existing decline. Neither is your magical "reservoir self-replenishing" theory.



Look at that graph. Not only is it annotated poorly, but its a forecast.

Here is another...Jimmy Carter said we would be running out of crude globally by the end of the 80's.

Does Polly the Parrot understand now why using future forecasts doesn't mean bubbcuss, or would you like an example from the 19th century to demonstrate the same thing?

I got it! Peakers are all reincarnated "runner outters" from the 19th century, THAT is why nothing which comes out of your religion is any different from way back then! Just the same old scare mongering, dressed up in a peaker suit instead of a runner outter suit and dished out on the internet to see who is dumb enough for fall for it!


----------



## Trajan

sounds like it has extraordinary potential. lets get'er done. 

Hoss....



CATARINA, Tex.  Until last year, the 17-mile stretch of road between this forsaken South Texas village and the county seat of Carrizo Springs was a patchwork of derelict gasoline stations and rusting warehouses.


Now the region is in the hottest new oil play in the country, with giant oil terminals and sprawling RV parks replacing fields of mesquite. More than a dozen companies plan to drill up to 3,000 wells around here in the next 12 months. 

snip-

There is only one catch: the oil from the Eagle Ford and similar fields of tightly packed rock can be extracted only by using hydraulic fracturing, a method that uses a high-pressure mix of water, sand and hazardous chemicals to blast through the rocks to release the oil inside. 

snip-

Based on the industrys plans, shale and other tight rock fields that now produce about half a million barrels of oil a day will produce up to three million barrels daily by 2020, according to IHS CERA, an energy research firm. Oil companies are investing an estimated $25 billion this year to drill 5,000 new oil wells in tight rock fields, according to Raoul LeBlanc, a senior director at PFC Energy, a consulting firm.

This is very big and its coming on very fast, said Daniel Yergin, the chairman of IHS CERA. This is like adding another Venezuela or Kuwait by 2020, except these tight oil fields are in the United States. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/28/business/energy-environment/28shale.html?_r=1


----------



## boedicca

Watch out for the Obama EPA to find some lizard to use an excuse to shut this down.


----------



## Trajan

boedicca said:


> Watch out for the Obama EPA to find some lizard to use an excuse to shut this down.



between this,  Brakken and getting the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada online we can take a huge bite of out the present ME Venezuelan imports..... 

so yea, its time for a Wesley Mouch to put the kabash on it....


----------



## LordBrownTrout

I hope they don't put the kabosh on it.  I'm down here working in the Eagle Ford formation, oil and natural gas, petrophysics/hydrology.  We're drilling for natural gas.


----------



## Polk

Awesome if it pans out, but potential of shale has been oversold before.


----------



## Mr. H.

American jobs, American energy. What's not to like. 


(wait for it....)


----------



## freedombecki

LordBrownTrout said:


> I hope they don't put the kabosh on it.  I'm down here working in the Eagle Ford formation, oil and natural gas, petrophysics/hydrology.  We're drilling for natural gas.



The best of good luck and job security at Eagle Ford, LordBrownTrout. 

Technologies have a way of breaking through with good things yesterday's world didn't have.


----------



## RGR

Polk said:


> Awesome if it pans out, but potential of shale has been oversold before.



and delivered before......


----------



## Toro

Trajan said:


> sounds like it has extraordinary potential. lets get'er done.
> 
> Hoss....
> 
> 
> 
> CATARINA, Tex.  Until last year, the 17-mile stretch of road between this forsaken South Texas village and the county seat of Carrizo Springs was a patchwork of derelict gasoline stations and rusting warehouses.
> 
> 
> Now the region is in the hottest new oil play in the country, with giant oil terminals and sprawling RV parks replacing fields of mesquite. More than a dozen companies plan to drill up to 3,000 wells around here in the next 12 months.
> 
> snip-
> 
> There is only one catch: the oil from the Eagle Ford and similar fields of tightly packed rock can be extracted only by using hydraulic fracturing, a method that uses a high-pressure mix of water, sand and hazardous chemicals to blast through the rocks to release the oil inside.
> 
> snip-
> 
> Based on the industrys plans, shale and other tight rock fields that now produce about half a million barrels of oil a day will produce up to three million barrels daily by 2020, according to IHS CERA, an energy research firm. Oil companies are investing an estimated $25 billion this year to drill 5,000 new oil wells in tight rock fields, according to Raoul LeBlanc, a senior director at PFC Energy, a consulting firm.
> 
> This is very big and its coming on very fast, said Daniel Yergin, the chairman of IHS CERA. This is like adding another Venezuela or Kuwait by 2020, except these tight oil fields are in the United States.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/28/business/energy-environment/28shale.html?_r=1



Awesome.

Git 'er done!


----------



## Polk

RGR said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Awesome if it pans out, but potential of shale has been oversold before.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and delivered before......
Click to expand...


Everything I've even seen was along the lines of "shale will be commercial viable once oil hits x", oil hits x, and then turns out shale isn't commercial viable at that point. Shale production is definitely increasing, but it's often failed to increase at the rate advocates projected.


----------



## Baruch Menachem

I am all for any method that prevents money from going to the insane states of the world.   The more we produce ourselves, the more secure we are.


----------



## Trajan

Polk said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Awesome if it pans out, but potential of shale has been oversold before.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and delivered before......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everything I've even seen was along the lines of "shale will be commercial viable once oil hits x", oil hits x, and then turns out shale isn't commercial viable at that point. Shale production is definitely increasing, but it's often failed to increase at the rate advocates projected.
Click to expand...


Everything I've even seen was along the lines of "elect. cars will be viable now matter what X Oil hits, but oil drops x, and then it turns out electrical cars aren't commercially viable at that point. Elec. car battery capacity is increasing, but it's often failed to increase at the rate advocates projected.


----------



## Polk

Trajan said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> and delivered before......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything I've even seen was along the lines of "shale will be commercial viable once oil hits x", oil hits x, and then turns out shale isn't commercial viable at that point. Shale production is definitely increasing, but it's often failed to increase at the rate advocates projected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everything I've even seen was along the lines of "elect. cars will be viable now matter what X Oil hits, but oil drops x, and then it turns out electrical cars aren't commercially viable at that point. Elec. car battery capacity is increasing, but it's often failed to increase at the rate advocates projected.
Click to expand...


Actually, that's true as well...


----------



## Big Fitz

Trajan said:


> sounds like it has extraordinary potential. lets get'er done.
> 
> Hoss....
> 
> 
> 
> CATARINA, Tex.  Until last year, the 17-mile stretch of road between this forsaken South Texas village and the county seat of Carrizo Springs was a patchwork of derelict gasoline stations and rusting warehouses.
> 
> 
> Now the region is in the hottest new oil play in the country, with giant oil terminals and sprawling RV parks replacing fields of mesquite. More than a dozen companies plan to drill up to 3,000 wells around here in the next 12 months.
> 
> snip-
> 
> There is only one catch: the oil from the Eagle Ford and similar fields of tightly packed rock can be extracted only by using hydraulic fracturing, a method that uses a high-pressure mix of water, sand and hazardous chemicals to blast through the rocks to release the oil inside.
> 
> snip-
> 
> Based on the industrys plans, shale and other tight rock fields that now produce about half a million barrels of oil a day will produce up to three million barrels daily by 2020, according to IHS CERA, an energy research firm. Oil companies are investing an estimated $25 billion this year to drill 5,000 new oil wells in tight rock fields, according to Raoul LeBlanc, a senior director at PFC Energy, a consulting firm.
> 
> This is very big and its coming on very fast, said Daniel Yergin, the chairman of IHS CERA. This is like adding another Venezuela or Kuwait by 2020, except these tight oil fields are in the United States.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/28/business/energy-environment/28shale.html?_r=1


I already started this thread 2 days ago. 

But maybe now that Jersey Shore is over, some of the Peakers will comment on how this isn't oil or a boom, or a significant find.


----------



## Big Fitz

Trajan said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> Watch out for the Obama EPA to find some lizard to use an excuse to shut this down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> between this,  Brakken and getting the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada online we can take a huge bite of out the present ME Venezuelan imports.....
> 
> so yea, its time for a Wesley Mouch to put the kabash on it....
Click to expand...

Beware, if this pipeline is the one going through MN, they ecofascists are already fighting to stop it and fighting hard while forcing counties to put 500 foot tall windmills up right next to farms and small communities.

watch the rate of epilepsy in those areas skyrocket.


----------



## Big Fitz

Baruch Menachem said:


> I am all for any method that prevents money from going to the insane states of the world.   The more we produce ourselves, the more secure we are.


The more secure Israel gets to be too.    A nice bonus.


----------



## RGR

Polk said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Awesome if it pans out, but potential of shale has been oversold before.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and delivered before......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everything I've even seen was along the lines of "shale will be commercial viable once oil hits x", oil hits x, and then turns out shale isn't commercial viable at that point. Shale production is definitely increasing, but it's often failed to increase at the rate advocates projected.
Click to expand...


The Bakken shale oil play has managed to offset US production decline (and then some) over the past few years. While I am not convinced that the Eagleford has that kind of potential, it is certainly yet another step in the path of development of unconventional resources.

Shale gas has already demonstrated that it has the power to completely reverse the picture of natural gas supplies over no more than a few years on the scale of the largest consumer of natural gas in the world.


----------



## RGR

Big Fitz said:


> But maybe now that Jersey Shore is over, some of the Peakers will comment on how this isn't oil or a boom, or a significant find.



Are you really just trolling the peaker fools?


----------



## Big Fitz

RGR said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> But maybe now that Jersey Shore is over, some of the Peakers will comment on how this isn't oil or a boom, or a significant find.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really just trolling the peaker fools?
Click to expand...

usually I don't have to bump a thread for them to show up and tell us it's not oil, or it's not profitable enough to do anything.  Or it'll destroy all life on the planet for a thousand miles around one fracking site.  So this is odd to me.


----------



## JiggsCasey

Big Fitz said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> But maybe now that Jersey Shore is over, some of the Peakers will comment on how this isn't oil or a boom, or a significant find.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really just trolling the peaker fools?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> usually I don't have to bump a thread for them to show up and tell us it's not oil, *((and it's not))* or it's not profitable enough to do anything *((and it's not))*.  Or it'll destroy all life on the planet for a thousand miles around one fracking site. *((which is it, 1000 miles, or the entire planet?))* So this is odd to me. *((a lot of things on this forum are "odd" to you))*
Click to expand...


When you're done awarding yourself a trophy, the simple explanation is just that some of us don't spend every waking hour on this goofy website like you do. We get to it when we are actually done with our holiday weekend, work, family, duties, etc., and there's STILL nothing better than internet pontification. ...  Rest assured, if some of us saw your latest round of self-congratulatory, feel-good bloviation, we'd have responded sooner.

But, don't let that get in the way of projecting and attributing your favorite TV show onto us in order to rationalize to yourself why we aren't around. LOL

It's interesting that the resident shale oil salesman, RGR, offers only tepid support for this latest "silver bullet." But then, he's probably not a Chesapeake share holder, so where's the incentive?

RGR is right that unconventionals HAVE (to this point) helped offset existing conventional decline.  And done so at enormous cost. He's not fooling anyone when he pretends $5+ gas is no big deal. That ploy doesn't carry water. He rationalizes that we'll "just use less" of it, forgetting of course, that this empire is BUILT on the requirement of perpetual gluttony and consumption. Unfettered capitalism can not survive on "conservation."

Nothing will support the edifice built upon cheap crude oil. There are no silver bullets in this race to the bottom.

So, yes, we will all "use less," there is no doubt about that, whether we like it or not. But to pretend life as we know it will continue on seamlessly as this age of growth slows to a crawl? You're just lying to yourself. You cons are finally gonna get your wish about "smaller government." And it's not gonna be pretty.

So good luck to all the shale oil/gas zealots, and we all hope the government pours subsidies into your pet of choice. But every model out there, from the EIA to the Joint Chiefs to the IEA, insists that unconventionals will only make up a tiny fraction of global energy consumption going forward.

Of course, if you wanna give what's left of the cheap and easy stuff to Chindia so you can pretend you've "weened us" off foreign oil,  and instead pretend we can "frack" our way to utopia, more power to you. 

But our desperate military expenditures abroad tell a different story as to where the petro-dollar priorities lay. Imagine if we cut that defense budget in half and poured the extra capital into "drill baby drill?"... Imagine. 

But, oops. We don't. ....   Ever wonder why? ((and please don't say, 'to stop the spread of radical Islam!!' ... LOL))


----------



## JiggsCasey

RGR said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oops, never gonna offset existing decline. Neither is your magical "reservoir self-replenishing" theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at that graph. Not only is it annotated poorly, but its a forecast.
> 
> Here is another...Jimmy Carter said we would be running out of crude globally by the end of the 80's.
> 
> Does Polly the Parrot understand now why using future forecasts doesn't mean bubbcuss, or would you like an example from the 19th century to demonstrate the same thing?
> 
> I got it! Peakers are all reincarnated "runner outters" from the 19th century, THAT is why nothing which comes out of your religion is any different from way back then! Just the same old scare mongering, dressed up in a peaker suit instead of a runner outter suit and dished out on the internet to see who is dumb enough for fall for it!
Click to expand...


This may be the record for the most straw manning and false dichotomoy in one sorry-ass post.

Please link to where Carter said we'd be "running out of crude globally by the end of the 80s." I'm sure there's quite a bit of context you're leaving out. It's what you do.

It's so bad for you at this point, shale oil salesman, that you've resorted to poo-pooing forecasts now, regardless of whether they come from ASPO, the IEA or the Pentagon, and who cares if they all forecast the same results. 

I guess if 7 TV networks tell you a hurricane is coming, by your retarded logic, you'd be dumb to prepare... Because everyone knows weather forecasts are a soft science. LOL


----------



## Trajan

Big Fitz said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> sounds like it has extraordinary potential. lets get'er done.
> 
> Hoss....
> 
> 
> 
> CATARINA, Tex.  Until last year, the 17-mile stretch of road between this forsaken South Texas village and the county seat of Carrizo Springs was a patchwork of derelict gasoline stations and rusting warehouses.
> 
> 
> Now the region is in the hottest new oil play in the country, with giant oil terminals and sprawling RV parks replacing fields of mesquite. More than a dozen companies plan to drill up to 3,000 wells around here in the next 12 months.
> 
> snip-
> 
> There is only one catch: the oil from the Eagle Ford and similar fields of tightly packed rock can be extracted only by using hydraulic fracturing, a method that uses a high-pressure mix of water, sand and hazardous chemicals to blast through the rocks to release the oil inside.
> 
> snip-
> 
> Based on the industrys plans, shale and other tight rock fields that now produce about half a million barrels of oil a day will produce up to three million barrels daily by 2020, according to IHS CERA, an energy research firm. Oil companies are investing an estimated $25 billion this year to drill 5,000 new oil wells in tight rock fields, according to Raoul LeBlanc, a senior director at PFC Energy, a consulting firm.
> 
> This is very big and its coming on very fast, said Daniel Yergin, the chairman of IHS CERA. This is like adding another Venezuela or Kuwait by 2020, except these tight oil fields are in the United States.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/28/business/energy-environment/28shale.html?_r=1
> 
> 
> 
> I already started this thread 2 days ago.
> 
> But maybe now that Jersey Shore is over, some of the Peakers will comment on how this isn't oil or a boom, or a significant find.
Click to expand...


sorry Fitz...I know how it is, sorry I didn't check....

yea the 'situation' got situated,  so here we are


----------



## RGR

Big Fitz said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> But maybe now that Jersey Shore is over, some of the Peakers will comment on how this isn't oil or a boom, or a significant find.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really just trolling the peaker fools?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> usually I don't have to bump a thread for them to show up and tell us it's not oil, or it's not profitable enough to do anything.  Or it'll destroy all life on the planet for a thousand miles around one fracking site.  So this is odd to me.
Click to expand...


I've been a bit hard on them as of late, and until they roll out someone with more parrot power than Jiggsy, maybe they have just chosen to run and hide? Certainly their ideas cannot withstand the light of day very well.


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> RGR is right that unconventionals HAVE (to this point) helped offset existing conventional decline.  And done so at enormous cost. He's not fooling anyone when he pretends $5+ gas is no big deal. That ploy doesn't carry water. He rationalizes that we'll "just use less" of it, forgetting of course, that this empire is BUILT on the requirement of perpetual gluttony and consumption. Unfettered capitalism can not survive on "conservation."



What empire do you live in parrot? Certainly there aren't many empires around any more, are you having flashbacks to a reincarnation?


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> Please link to where Carter said we'd be "running out of crude globally by the end of the 80s." I'm sure there's quite a bit of context you're leaving out.



Jesus Jiggsy are you KIDDING? You haven't even researched peak oil well enough to be familiar with President speeches on the topic? This is more ignorant than you not knowing how to google up EIA data, I mean seriously, do you have no damn fingers with which to type, or are you really just as ignorant as this statement implies?



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> I guess if 7 TV networks tell you a hurricane is coming, by your retarded logic, you'd be dumb to prepare... Because everyone knows weather forecasts are a soft science. LOL



We aren't talking about weather forecasting polly, but about the primary reason why mankind isn't a group of smarter than average chimps hanging from trees in a forest somewhere.

Energy. I realize that you don't know much about this topic, but it is important.


----------



## Big Fitz

RGR said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please link to where Carter said we'd be "running out of crude globally by the end of the 80s." I'm sure there's quite a bit of context you're leaving out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus Jiggsy are you KIDDING? You haven't even researched peak oil well enough to be familiar with President speeches on the topic? This is more ignorant than you not knowing how to google up EIA data, I mean seriously, do you have no damn fingers with which to type, or are you really just as ignorant as this statement implies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess if 7 TV networks tell you a hurricane is coming, by your retarded logic, you'd be dumb to prepare... Because everyone knows weather forecasts are a soft science. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We aren't talking about weather forecasting polly, but about the primary reason why mankind isn't a group of smarter than average chimps hanging from trees in a forest somewhere.
> 
> Energy. I realize that you don't know much about this topic, but it is important.
Click to expand...

And he doesn't remember that climatology is different than meteorology.

Probably thinks insurance actuarial tables are a scam too.


----------



## JiggsCasey

RGR said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please link to where Carter said we'd be "running out of crude globally by the end of the 80s." I'm sure there's quite a bit of context you're leaving out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus Jiggsy are you KIDDING? You haven't even researched peak oil well enough to be familiar with President speeches on the topic? This is more ignorant than you not knowing how to google up EIA data, I mean seriously, do you have no damn fingers with which to type, or are you really just as ignorant as this statement implies?
Click to expand...


We've covered this before, you frothy build-up of santorum. This isn't about me, it's about your asshat claim as it's worded. Back up your work, so we all can see how accurate you aren't.

I know what Carter claimed back then. And he never said we'd "run out of oil by the 80s." He said demand would begin to outstrip supply. While wrong on that notion, he certainly didn't say what YOU claim.

Stop being such a pussy, and for once, answer a direct challenge. If not, write more careful so as to not re-enforce your forum reputation as a complete fraud.



RGR said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess if 7 TV networks tell you a hurricane is coming, by your retarded logic, you'd be dumb to prepare... Because everyone knows weather forecasts are a soft science. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't talking about weather forecasting polly, but about the primary reason why mankind isn't a group of smarter than average chimps hanging from trees in a forest somewhere.
> 
> Energy. I realize that you don't know much about this topic, but it is important.
Click to expand...


If nothing else, you self-described "arrogant prick," what's been made clear here is that I know far more than you do about energy and the energy-economy symbiosis. All you've displayed is a bit of technical drilling knowledge and a never-ending capacity for pettiness and historical, apples-to-oranges irrelevancy.

After all, I'm dealing with a poster who insists $5+ gas isn't a big deal, and we'll all just "use less of it" willfully. That's how clueless you truly are regarding this overall topic.

STFU and GTFO


----------



## JiggsCasey

RGR said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> RGR is right that unconventionals HAVE (to this point) helped offset existing conventional decline.  And done so at enormous cost. He's not fooling anyone when he pretends $5+ gas is no big deal. That ploy doesn't carry water. He rationalizes that we'll "just use less" of it, forgetting of course, that this empire is BUILT on the requirement of perpetual gluttony and consumption. Unfettered capitalism can not survive on "conservation."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What enpire do you live in parrot? Certainly there aren't many empires around any more, are you having flashbacks to a reincarnation?
Click to expand...


For all intents and purposes, we most certainly are an empire. Not that your latest attempt at semantics and deflection isn't again transparent.

We show all the characteristics that, together, define empire: hegemony, jingoism, aggressive "defense," annexation, social class division, graft, fraud, waste, gluttony, inefficiency, unending corruption, political blackmail abroad, over-taxation, privatized military combatants, corporate malfeasance, inflated prison and police system, and on and on and on.

It is interesting though, dick, that I returned to contribute in four threads.... And those are the only threads you scurried to respond to, and I'm the only poster you can ever focus on. Wow, am I ever in your block head. At this point, it's clear that I'm the sole reason you exist here. Just keep calling me the parrot, while avoiding the data, the quotes and the state of the world. The irony is priceless. Parrot.

Good little industry shill you are.


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What enpire do you live in parrot? Certainly there aren't many empires around any more, are you having flashbacks to a reincarnation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For all intents and purposes, we most certainly are an empire.
Click to expand...


What a jackass, now you don't know how to use a dictionary? How about Wiki, it certainly doesn't know any more about peak oil than you do, but its definition for Empire seems reasonable.

"Politically, an empire is a geographically extensive group of states and peoples (ethnic groups) united and ruled either by a monarch (emperor, empress) or an oligarchy."

So...you see an Emperor in America someplace? Is he/she hiding in the woods? Under your bed? Or perhaps you confused oligarchy with a representative form of democracy?  Or maybe nobody ever taught you that you are allowed to go to a polling place on election day and vote...undoubtedly for everyone at once, if your intellectual capability's are as limited as your peak oil understanding.



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> It is interesting though, dick, that I returned to contribute in four threads.... And those are the only threads you scurried to respond to, and I'm the only poster you can ever focus on.



You are the only church member around. I don't have to explain the obvious to people who can actually fire their own neurons.


----------



## RGR

Big Fitz said:


> Probably thinks insurance actuarial tables are a scam too.



Are we dealing with a real person here, or a bot? I am familiar with peakers, and while many of them certainly qualify as ignorant or stupid (sometimes both), I'm not sure I've ever run into one this disjointed before, with nearly zero ability to argue anything. He can't even make up his own insults, instead parroting MY insults of him!

The cutting and pasting of current news, zero knowledge of history, zero ability to talk about anyone else's information, pushing traffic to a blog, parroting even the insults used against him, it points to a mediocre bot of some sort?


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please link to where Carter said we'd be "running out of crude globally by the end of the 80s."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus Jiggsy are you KIDDING? You haven't even researched peak oil well enough to be familiar with President speeches on the topic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know what Carter claimed back then.
Click to expand...


Apparently not. Otherwise you would know exactly the context he used when he made that statement and wouldn't need me to look it up for you. You've already demonstrated you don't read your own sources, do your own legwork polly, or find a second grader to teach you how to google it up.


----------



## konradv

Can't get excited about this anymore than I would on hearing that cheaper and more available heroin could solve the junkie problem!!!  The only real longterm solution is fusion power.  It's where we should be directing our efferts, not 19th(oil) or 20th(nuclear) century technologies.  Contact your representives and tell them we need to invest more to shorten the estimated 40-50 year timeline to implementation.  For more info go to:

ITER - the way to new energy    OR

Department of Energy - Fusion


----------



## Big Fitz

RGR said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Probably thinks insurance actuarial tables are a scam too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are we dealing with a real person here, or a bot? I am familiar with peakers, and while many of them certainly qualify as ignorant or stupid (sometimes both), I'm not sure I've ever run into one this disjointed before, with nearly zero ability to argue anything. He can't even make up his own insults, instead parroting MY insults of him!
> 
> The cutting and pasting of current news, zero knowledge of history, zero ability to talk about anyone else's information, pushing traffic to a blog, parroting even the insults used against him, it points to a mediocre bot of some sort?
Click to expand...

Possibly a seminar poster.  More likely a not very useful blithering idiot.
I often wondered if he gets paid by the post or lie.

I've had him on ignore for about 7 months or so now because he DOESN'T say anything new, and seeing his quoted posts in other people's stuff shows me nothing has changed.


----------



## Big Fitz

konradv said:


> Can't get excited about this anymore than I would on hearing that cheaper and more available heroin could solve the junkie problem!!!  The only real longterm solution is fusion power.  It's where we should be directing our efferts, not 19th(oil) or 20th(nuclear) century technologies.  Contact your representives and tell them we need to invest more to shorten the estimated 40-50 year timeline to implementation.  For more info go to:
> 
> ITER - the way to new energy    OR
> 
> Department of Energy - Fusion


One again, why you have no credibility.

Oil = a deadly debilitating drug.

I'd ask if you were brain damaged, but the evidence is plain to see.

Hey RGR, I was wrong about the arguments they'd use.  Now they're using the Oil is evil/dangerous and should be banned argument... and replaced by a fictional energy source no one's been able to get working.


----------



## konradv

Big Fitz said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can't get excited about this anymore than I would on hearing that cheaper and more available heroin could solve the junkie problem!!!  The only real longterm solution is fusion power.  It's where we should be directing our efferts, not 19th(oil) or 20th(nuclear) century technologies.  Contact your representives and tell them we need to invest more to shorten the estimated 40-50 year timeline to implementation.  For more info go to:
> 
> ITER - the way to new energy    OR
> 
> Department of Energy - Fusion
> 
> 
> 
> One again, why you have no credibility.
> 
> Oil = a deadly debilitating drug.
> 
> I'd ask if you were brain damaged, but the evidence is plain to see.
> 
> Hey RGR, I was wrong about the arguments they'd use.  Now they're using the Oil is evil/dangerous and should be banned argument... and replaced by a fictional energy source no one's been able to get working.
Click to expand...


You're not really that quick on the uptake, are you?  Where's the "oil should be banned' argument?  I take back the the "not quick on the uptake" comment, because it appears you're really just purposely deceitful.  You know quite well the analogy was simply meant to compare one "gotta have" with another and how you'll never wean yourself off, if it gets cheaper.  The answer isn't banning, but trying to find alternatives.


----------



## Big Fitz

konradv said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can't get excited about this anymore than I would on hearing that cheaper and more available heroin could solve the junkie problem!!!  The only real longterm solution is fusion power.  It's where we should be directing our efferts, not 19th(oil) or 20th(nuclear) century technologies.  Contact your representives and tell them we need to invest more to shorten the estimated 40-50 year timeline to implementation.  For more info go to:
> 
> ITER - the way to new energy    OR
> 
> Department of Energy - Fusion
> 
> 
> 
> One again, why you have no credibility.
> 
> Oil = a deadly debilitating drug.
> 
> I'd ask if you were brain damaged, but the evidence is plain to see.
> 
> Hey RGR, I was wrong about the arguments they'd use.  Now they're using the Oil is evil/dangerous and should be banned argument... and replaced by a fictional energy source no one's been able to get working.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not really that quick on the uptake, are you?  Where's the "oil should be banned' argument?  I take back the the "not quick on the uptake" comment, because it appears you're really just purposely deceitful.  You know quite well the analogy was simply meant to compare one "gotta have" with another and how you'll never wean yourself off, if it gets cheaper.  The answer isn't banning, but trying to find alternatives.
Click to expand...

About as deceitful as equating deadly, illegal drug use to using oil?

Are you really thinking you can get away with that and not get called on it?  The very comparison implies that in its saying!

And, let's turn up the volume for the cheapseat nosebleeds you're obviously sitting in:

_*THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR PETROLEUM AT THIS TIME!!!! ONLY FAILED PRETENDERS!!!!!!*_

Comprende offende?


----------



## JiggsCasey

RGR said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What enpire do you live in parrot? Certainly there aren't many empires around any more, are you having flashbacks to a reincarnation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For all intents and purposes, we most certainly are an empire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a jackass, now you don't know how to use a dictionary? How about Wiki, it certainly doesn't know any more about peak oil than you do, but its definition for Empire seems reasonable.
> 
> "Politically, an empire is a geographically extensive group of states and peoples (ethnic groups) united and ruled either by a monarch (emperor, empress) or an oligarchy."
> 
> So...you see an Emperor in America someplace? Is he/she hiding in the woods? Under your bed? Or perhaps you confused oligarchy with a representative form of democracy?  Or maybe nobody ever taught you that you are allowed to go to a polling place on election day and vote...undoubtedly for everyone at once, if your intellectual capability's are as limited as your peak oil understanding.
Click to expand...


I love when cons play the literal definition game for some words when it suits them, and then shift to "nuance" and connotation for other words when they have to shift gears. It's the same for them when the word "fascism" or "communism" is brought to the fore. It means one thing, then another when they need it to.

You know the definition of the word empire goes far beyond your convenient 'google-tard' maneuver.

Oh, and for the record, tool shed, I know far more about peak oil than you do. That was made clear months ago. I mean, seriously, you're a poster who insists high fuel prices means "easy game" and we'll just "use less." LOL...   What a moron. But worse, you're arrogant about championing ignorance. You relish in it.



RGR said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is interesting though, dick, that I returned to contribute in four threads.... And those are the only threads you scurried to respond to, and I'm the only poster you can ever focus on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the only church member around. I don't have to explain the obvious to people who can actually fire their own neurons.
Click to expand...


LOL... yeah, you keep telling yourself that, desperate industry shill.  For all your self-congratulatory pap, you haven't made a shred of headway in this argument. What's worse, your position has become untenable, and that's why your responses keep getting shorter and less relevant and more personal and petty. You're not fooling anyone, wildcatter.

You have everything working against you and your "nothing to see here" platform: The data, the word of international agencies, the word of academia, the international headlines, the macro-economics, the state of the world, the Great Recession, and on and on and on. And still you're at it, belligerent to the end, refusing to budge an inch on the reality that demand has finally begun to outstrip supply.

But you'll be fine behind your gated community, huh Texas?

When dealing with denialists, it's a constant dark comedy.


----------



## JiggsCasey

Big Fitz said:


> I've had him on ignore for about 7 months or so now because he DOESN'T say anything new, and seeing his quoted posts in other people's stuff shows me nothing has changed.



LOL. You had to put me on ignore because you backed yourself into a corner every time you engaged me, and got so tilty, you had to do something about it before you broke your poor dog's ribs. A good decision.

As for your friend, I've used his lame-ass material ONLY when it conveys how painfully ironic he shows himself to be. The best example being when he actually calls ME the "parrot." That's truly rich.


----------



## signelect

Here is the liberal thinking.  When you go to McDonalds, you can order anything you want on the menu and the person behind you has to pay for it.  They love to talk but haven't a clue on how to act with the resources at hand.  We need working people in congress, not rich no nothing do nothing leaches.


----------



## JiggsCasey

RGR said:


> Are we dealing with a real person here, or a bot? I am familiar with peakers, and while many of them certainly qualify as ignorant or stupid (sometimes both), I'm not sure I've ever run into one this disjointed before, with nearly zero ability to argue anything. He can't even make up his own insults, instead parroting MY insults of him!



LOL... Project much? 



RGR said:


> The cutting and pasting of current news,



LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ... That's how an argument is supported and sourced you peerless asshat. You should try it some time. Maybe you wouldn't seem like such an empty rant-tard all the time.



RGR said:


> zero knowledge of history,



More like an unwillingness to follow you down some irrelevant rabbit hole to Civil War era price point comparisons for your desperate attempt to spin the realities of today.



RGR said:


> zero ability to talk about anyone else's information,



No greater irony in the history of blogging forums everywhere.

Me: here's statement X from agency Y?
You: what about it? here's technology predictions from blog Z.

lawlstfu



RGR said:


> pushing traffic to a blog,



I consider the author, regardless of whether he has it hosted at TheOilDrum.com, energybulletin.net or any other site you can't get your fat head around.



RGR said:


> parroting even the insults used against him,



Dude, in the original material game, you're even FURTHER behind than the central topic of global energy depletion. Lie to yourself all you like, but the forum isn't fooled.



RGR said:


> it points to a mediocre bot of some sort?



And there it is.  When all else fails, pretend the human being kicking your ass all over the forum is a bot.

Nope, Texas. I'm no bot. I'm not even paid by a sustainability group of any kind. ... Just an American who monitors the world news for a living. One who doesn't lie to himself or his readership at every turn in order to support a global mechanism that makes liars like you very wealthy.


----------



## Meister

*Merged*


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> You know the definition of the word empire goes far beyond your convenient 'google-tard' maneuver.



When dealing with a 'tard, it is best to not assume they understand much of anything. You demonstrate why nearly every time you post.

Don't take it personally, you needing to be reminded of the definitions of words, not everyone can have passed the 3rd grade.



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> Oh, and for the record, tool shed, I know far more about peak oil than you do.



Obviously not. Not a page ago you couldn't even figure out in which speech Jimmy predicted we would be running out of oil by the end of the 80's. And certainly you lack any knowledge of past peaks or predictions of peak. You can't calculate an EROEI in any way except one which would make me rich, and you thought that Faith had retired from the IEA except...he hadn't.

Anything else you have displayed ignorance of I can remind you of? Oh yeah, and you never read Hirsch 2005 DOE report, and didn't even know his 1987 report even existed. Yeah...you've been trained really good in the ignorance of the peak oil church.



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> But you'll be fine behind your gated community, huh Texas?



I don't live in Texas. Polly wanna cracker?


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> The best example being when he actually calls ME the "parrot." That's truly rich.



Come up with a single idea of your own and I'll stop calling you what you are. Apply a single microsecond of critical thought to ANYTHING and I'll stop assuming you might be a bot. A mediocre one at that.


----------



## KissMy

In 2007 the Peak Oilers predicted Russia would now be in steep decline. Yet now in 2011 Russia is still increasing & now is the worlds #1 Oil Producer pumping 10.51 mb/d.


----------



## RGR

KissMy said:


> In 2007 the Peak Oilers predicted Russia would now be in steep decline. Yet now in 2011 Russia is still the worlds #1 Oil Producer pumping 10.51 mb/d.



What a surprise...peak oilers continuously predicting peak oil and getting it wrong. Attention span of a goldfish.

In 1989 or so the High Priest of Peak himself (Colin Campbell) predicted peak oil in 1990. Oops. After a decade of bad calls, he started ASPO so that someone else could get the pie in the face prize on every new missed call.


----------



## konradv

Big Fitz said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> One again, why you have no credibility.
> 
> Oil = a deadly debilitating drug.
> 
> I'd ask if you were brain damaged, but the evidence is plain to see.
> 
> Hey RGR, I was wrong about the arguments they'd use.  Now they're using the Oil is evil/dangerous and should be banned argument... and replaced by a fictional energy source no one's been able to get working.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're not really that quick on the uptake, are you?  Where's the "oil should be banned' argument?  I take back the the "not quick on the uptake" comment, because it appears you're really just purposely deceitful.  You know quite well the analogy was simply meant to compare one "gotta have" with another and how you'll never wean yourself off, if it gets cheaper.  The answer isn't banning, but trying to find alternatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> About as deceitful as equating deadly, illegal drug use to using oil?
> 
> Are you really thinking you can get away with that and not get called on it?  The very comparison implies that in its saying!
> 
> And, let's turn up the volume for the cheapseat nosebleeds you're obviously sitting in:
> 
> _*THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR PETROLEUM AT THIS TIME!!!! ONLY FAILED PRETENDERS!!!!!!*_
> 
> Comprende offende?
Click to expand...


Just like a junkie, you're saying that we have no choice but to continue down the same path.  You want to focus on the "deadly drug" part of the analogy, but that's where your deceit comes in, since that's not my point.  Rather, it's the notion that we can keep doing the same thing, looking for new supplies of our "drug" and think we won't be at the same point a few years down the road.  Of course we can't stop using oil, we just can't behave as if this can go on forever.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

Toro said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right here in America. Actually in CO. Actually we have the 2nd, 3rd and 4th largest also.
> 
> We have the technology to tap this source, but the environazis have not allowed us to drill tea spoon from this source!
> 
> Green River Formation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Place.................Barrels in the Millions ....... Weight in Million of Tons
> (1) Green River Formation USA......... 1,466,000....................213,000
> (2) Phosphoria Formation USA............250,000......................35,775
> (3) Eastern Devonian USA...................189,000......................27,000
> (4) Heath Formation USA....................180,000......................25,578
> And coming in (5) and (6)
> (5) Russia..........................................167,715.....................24,000
> (6) Congo...........................................100,000....................14,310
> 
> http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2005/5294/pdf/sir5294_508.pdf
> 
> 
> Russia has less oil scales then our 4th largest and they are utilizing this source and making a killing off it. To date, the Environazis won't allow us to use any of this black gold!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't have the technology to pull oil shale out of the ground. We simply don't. We've known about Green River for many years. But we can't get at it.
> 
> However that was true for nat gas trapped in shale just 7 years ago before fracking.
Click to expand...


We're pulling out crude, 9 percent porosities, right now.  Unheard of a few years ago.


----------



## manifold

I think it makes good strategic and tactical sense to use up the rest of the world's oil and natural gas before we set about depleting our own.

I'd be interested to hear solid reasoning to the contrary.


----------



## Old Rocks

GHook93 said:


> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I saw the 60 minutes thing on it. The controversy is real and should be taken seriously, but Natural Gas has made small towns diamond mines. Not just for the tax revenue coming out of it. But the hotels are always filled. The restaurants have steady streams of people. The stores are packed with people that make a lot of money. Rental property is getting snatched up. It's been great for many small towns!
> 
> Not to mention many homeowner that are leasing their property for production are making a killing!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad those small towns also become unlivable in the long run. It's appalling to trade the entire future away for some short-term benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A lot of small towns start out this way with a boom that attracts people, investments and other business. Some go the way of the ghost towns, but some build on it and grow.
Click to expand...


If that small town was an agriculteral community, chances are it will be a ghost town when the gas runs out. Aquifers are important to agriculture, in case you haven't noticed.


----------



## Old Rocks

KissMy said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only way around Crude Oils low EROEI is to take the unreliable 18:1 EROEI of wind turbines & use that energy to extract & refine low EROEI crude oil when the wind blows.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!!! You are so backwards, it's hysterical.
> 
> Crude oil does NOT have "low" EROEI. It's the highest, that's why it's the most coveted.
> 
> Also, who on Earth claims wind is at 18:1?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know the point I was making. I should have said alternative energy with higher EROEI could be used to get the hard to extract Crude Oil from Oil Shale & Tar Sands with a EROEI so low that it can't sustain it's own production.
> 
> As for the Wind EROEI of 18:1 I googled it & that is what game up. Here is a chart.
Click to expand...


Interesting chart. Don't know how accurate it is, but it has PV at present, with the low efficieancies of the present panels, as equal to coal. Perhaps that is why China has First Solar under contract to install a 2 gw plant right now. 

Why use the energy from alternatives to get uneconomical 'oil' from tar sands and shale? Why not use it directly? In fact, why not start some major R and D to convert our grid to a distributed grid, and up the efficiency of the solar panels? At the same time, doing the same for electrical storage systems.

Time for a paradigm shift in our use and generation of energy.


----------



## Big Fitz

RGR said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 2007 the Peak Oilers predicted Russia would now be in steep decline. Yet now in 2011 Russia is still the worlds #1 Oil Producer pumping 10.51 mb/d.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a surprise...peak oilers continuously predicting peak oil and getting it wrong. Attention span of a goldfish.
> 
> In 1989 or so the High Priest of Peak himself (Colin Campbell) predicted peak oil in 1990. Oops. After a decade of bad calls, he started ASPO so that someone else could get the pie in the face prize on every new missed call.
Click to expand...

Hey!  Goldfish deserve more respect than that!  Why they should be... ummm... should be.... 

....  what were we talking about again?


----------



## Old Rocks

manifold said:


> I think it makes good strategic and tactical sense to use up the rest of the world's oil and natural gas before we set about depleting our own.
> 
> I'd be interested to hear solid reasoning to the contrary.



File:Mauna Loa Carbon Dioxide-en.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## manifold

Old Rocks said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it makes good strategic and tactical sense to use up the rest of the world's oil and natural gas before we set about depleting our own.
> 
> I'd be interested to hear solid reasoning to the contrary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> File:Mauna Loa Carbon Dioxide-en.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


----------



## Big Fitz

konradv said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not really that quick on the uptake, are you?  Where's the "oil should be banned' argument?  I take back the the "not quick on the uptake" comment, because it appears you're really just purposely deceitful.  You know quite well the analogy was simply meant to compare one "gotta have" with another and how you'll never wean yourself off, if it gets cheaper.  The answer isn't banning, but trying to find alternatives.
> 
> 
> 
> About as deceitful as equating deadly, illegal drug use to using oil?
> 
> Are you really thinking you can get away with that and not get called on it?  The very comparison implies that in its saying!
> 
> And, let's turn up the volume for the cheapseat nosebleeds you're obviously sitting in:
> 
> _*THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR PETROLEUM AT THIS TIME!!!! ONLY FAILED PRETENDERS!!!!!!*_
> 
> Comprende offende?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just like a junkie, you're saying that we have no choice but to continue down the same path.  You want to focus on the "deadly drug" part of the analogy, but that's where your deceit comes in, since that's not my point.  Rather, it's the notion that we can keep doing the same thing, looking for new supplies of our "drug" and think we won't be at the same point a few years down the road.  Of course we can't stop using oil, we just can't behave as if this can go on forever.
Click to expand...

Well, it's been 40 years since the first predictions of peak oil, and still more and more oil deposits are being found.

So where is the accuracy in your analogy?  Oil use = Heroin Addiction.


----------



## Old Rocks

Big Fitz said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 2007 the Peak Oilers predicted Russia would now be in steep decline. Yet now in 2011 Russia is still the worlds #1 Oil Producer pumping 10.51 mb/d.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a surprise...peak oilers continuously predicting peak oil and getting it wrong. Attention span of a goldfish.
> 
> In 1989 or so the High Priest of Peak himself (Colin Campbell) predicted peak oil in 1990. Oops. After a decade of bad calls, he started ASPO so that someone else could get the pie in the face prize on every new missed call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey!  Goldfish deserve more respect than that!  Why they should be... ummm... should be....
> 
> ....  what were we talking about again?
Click to expand...


Fritz yapping out of his nether end again.

Current World Oil Situation


----------



## Old Rocks

Big Fitz said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> About as deceitful as equating deadly, illegal drug use to using oil?
> 
> Are you really thinking you can get away with that and not get called on it?  The very comparison implies that in its saying!
> 
> And, let's turn up the volume for the cheapseat nosebleeds you're obviously sitting in:
> 
> _*THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR PETROLEUM AT THIS TIME!!!! ONLY FAILED PRETENDERS!!!!!!*_
> 
> Comprende offende?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just like a junkie, you're saying that we have no choice but to continue down the same path.  You want to focus on the "deadly drug" part of the analogy, but that's where your deceit comes in, since that's not my point.  Rather, it's the notion that we can keep doing the same thing, looking for new supplies of our "drug" and think we won't be at the same point a few years down the road.  Of course we can't stop using oil, we just can't behave as if this can go on forever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, it's been 40 years since the first predictions of peak oil, and still more and more oil deposits are being found.
> 
> So where is the accuracy in your analogy?  Oil use = Heroin Addiction.
Click to expand...


So, where is the next Gwarar? There isn't one.

Current World Oil Situation


----------



## KissMy

Big Fitz said:


> Well, it's been 40 years since the first predictions of peak oil, and still more and more oil deposits are being found.
> 
> So where is the accuracy in your analogy?  Oil use = Heroin Addiction.



*It has been way over 100 years since the Government Scientist predicted we peaked in oil production in the 1800's.*

&#8220;I take this opportunity to express my opinion in the strongest terms, that the amazing exhibition of oil which has characterized the last twenty, and will probably characterize the next ten or twenty years, is nevertheless, not only geologically but historically, a temporary and vanishing phenomenon &#8211; one which young men will live to see come to its natural end&#8221; (1886, J.P. Lesley, state geologist of Pennsylvania).

- &#8220;There is little or no chance for more oil in California&#8221; (1886, U.S. Geological Survey).

- &#8220;There is little or no chance for more oil in Kansas and Texas&#8221; (1891, U.S. Geological Survey).

- &#8220;Total future production limit of 5.7 billion barrels of oil, perhaps a ten-year supply&#8221; (1914, U.S. Bureau of Mines).

- "Within the next two to five years the oil fields of this country will reach their maximum production, and from that time on we will face an ever-increasing decline." (1919 director of the U.S. Bureau of Mines)

- "Oil shales in Colorado and Utah would be exploited to produce oil, because the demand for oil could not be met by existing production." (1919 National Geographic magazine)

- "The time is, indeed, well in sight, when the United States will be nearing the end of some of its available stocks of raw materials on which her industrial supremacy has been largely built. America is running through her stores of domestic oil and is obliged to look abroad for future reserves. (September 1919, E. Mackay Edgar, in Sperling's Journal)

- "The position of the United States in regard to oil can best be characterized as precarious." (January 1920 Dr. George Otis Smith, Director of the United States Geological Survey)

- "Americans will have to depend on foreign sources or use less oil, or perhaps both." (May 1920 Dr. George Otis Smith, Director of the United States Geological Survey)

- "On the whole, therefore, we must expect that, unless our consumption is checked, we shall by 1925 be dependent on foreign oil fields to the extent of 150,000,000 barrels and possibly as much as 200,000,000 of crude each year, except insofar as the situation may at that time, perhaps, be helped to a slight extent by shale oil. Add to this probability that within 5 years--perhaps 3 years only--our domestic production will begin to fall off with increasing rapidity, due to the exhaustion of our reserves" (1920 David White, United States Geological Survey)

- During the period 1919-22, imports of crude oil from Mexico had been large--equal to 22 percent of total United States consumption in 1921. But salt water began to appear in some Mexican wells, and by 1921 geologists were debating whether Mexican production was not "through." in commenting upon the Mexican situation. "A great slump in Mexican production seems sooner or later inevitable. Thus there was not only alarm about the United States oil potential but also about our primary foreign source of supply. Lendling encouragement to these doubts were statements appearing in foreign publications describing the United States oil position." (1921, David White of the United States Geological Survey)

- "Given a resumption of trade and the consequent demand for oil products in, at the most, a year or two, the world will be confronted with an oil shortage such as has never been experienced before. (1921, E. Mackay Edgar)

- &#8220;Reserves to last only thirteen years&#8221; (1939, Department of the Interior).

- &#8220;Reserves to last thirteen years&#8221; (1951, Department of the Interior, Oil and Gas Division).

- &#8220;We could use up all of the proven reserves of oil in the entire world by the end of the next decade&#8221; (President Jimmy Carter speaking in 1978 to the entire world).

- &#8220;At the present rate of use, it is estimated that coal reserves will last 200 more years. Petroleum may run out in 20 to 30 years, and natural gas may last only another 70 years&#8221; (Ralph M. Feather, Merrill textbook Science Connections Annotated Teacher&#8217;s Version, 1990, p. 493).

- &#8220;At the current rate of consumption, some scientists estimate that the world&#8217;s known supplies of oil &#8230; will be used up within your lifetime&#8221; (1993, The United States and its People).

- &#8220;The supply of fossil fuels is being used up at an alarming rate. Governments must help save our fossil fuel supply by passing laws limiting their use&#8221; (Merrill/Glenco textbook, Biology, An Everyday Experience, 1992).

Quotes like these could fill a thousand pages easily. _PeakOil?

One interesting example of a big oil find in the midst of "an exhausted field" occurred in Kern County, California. Kern River Oil Field was discovered in 1899, and initially it was thought that only 10 percent of its heavy, viscous crude could be recovered. In 1942, after more than four decades of modest production, the field was estimated to still hold 54 million barrels of recoverable oil. As pointed out in 1995 by Morris Adelman, professor emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and one of the few remaining energy gurus, &#8220;in the next forty-four years, it produced not 54 million barrels but 736 million barrels, and it had another 970 million barrels remaining.&#8221; But even this estimate was wrong. In November 2007 U.S. oil giant Chevron announced that cumulative production had reached two billion barrels. Today, Kern River still puts out more than 80,000 barrels per day, and Chevron reckons that the remaining reserves are about 480 million barrels.



> "Proven Reserves" are those that can be produced "economically." But the definitions of economical production are constantly changing, as the technology (and the politics eg, Iraq) changes.
> 
> And then there are the "unconventionals," such as heavy oils, oil sands, oil shales, coal to liquids, gas to liquids, and biomass to liquids. A doomer will not even stoop to discuss this 50 ton gorilla in the room, but any good economist would be forced to consider them.
> The cost of oil comes down to the cost of finding, and then lifting or extracting. First, you have to decide where to dig. Exploration costs currently run under $3 per barrel in much of the Mideast, and below $7 for oil hidden deep under the ocean. But these costs have been falling, not rising, because imaging technology that lets geologists peer through miles of water and rock improves faster than supplies recede. Many lower-grade deposits require no new looking at all.
> 
> To pick just one example among many, finding costs are essentially zero for the 3.5 trillion barrels of oil that soak the clay in the Orinoco basin in Venezuela, and the Athabasca tar sands in Alberta, Canada. Yes, that&#8217;s trillion &#8211; over a century&#8217;s worth of global supply, at the current 30-billion-barrel-a-year rate of consumption. _WallStreetJournal Jan 2005_quoted by_PeakOil?


----------



## Old Rocks

KissMy said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it's been 40 years since the first predictions of peak oil, and still more and more oil deposits are being found.
> 
> So where is the accuracy in your analogy?  Oil use = Heroin Addiction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It has been way over 100 years since the Government Scientist predicted we peaked in oil production in the 1800's.*
> 
> I take this opportunity to express my opinion in the strongest terms, that the amazing exhibition of oil which has characterized the last twenty, and will probably characterize the next ten or twenty years, is nevertheless, not only geologically but historically, a temporary and vanishing phenomenon  one which young men will live to see come to its natural end (1886, J.P. Lesley, state geologist of Pennsylvania).
> 
> - There is little or no chance for more oil in California (1886, U.S. Geological Survey).
> 
> - There is little or no chance for more oil in Kansas and Texas (1891, U.S. Geological Survey).
> 
> - Total future production limit of 5.7 billion barrels of oil, perhaps a ten-year supply (1914, U.S. Bureau of Mines).
> 
> - "Within the next two to five years the oil fields of this country will reach their maximum production, and from that time on we will face an ever-increasing decline." (1919 director of the U.S. Bureau of Mines)
> 
> - "Oil shales in Colorado and Utah would be exploited to produce oil, because the demand for oil could not be met by existing production." (1919 National Geographic magazine)
> 
> - "The time is, indeed, well in sight, when the United States will be nearing the end of some of its available stocks of raw materials on which her industrial supremacy has been largely built. America is running through her stores of domestic oil and is obliged to look abroad for future reserves. (September 1919, E. Mackay Edgar, in Sperling's Journal)
> 
> - "The position of the United States in regard to oil can best be characterized as precarious." (January 1920 Dr. George Otis Smith, Director of the United States Geological Survey)
> 
> - "Americans will have to depend on foreign sources or use less oil, or perhaps both." (May 1920 Dr. George Otis Smith, Director of the United States Geological Survey)
> 
> - "On the whole, therefore, we must expect that, unless our consumption is checked, we shall by 1925 be dependent on foreign oil fields to the extent of 150,000,000 barrels and possibly as much as 200,000,000 of crude each year, except insofar as the situation may at that time, perhaps, be helped to a slight extent by shale oil. Add to this probability that within 5 years--perhaps 3 years only--our domestic production will begin to fall off with increasing rapidity, due to the exhaustion of our reserves" (1920 David White, United States Geological Survey)
> 
> - During the period 1919-22, imports of crude oil from Mexico had been large--equal to 22 percent of total United States consumption in 1921. But salt water began to appear in some Mexican wells, and by 1921 geologists were debating whether Mexican production was not "through." in commenting upon the Mexican situation. "A great slump in Mexican production seems sooner or later inevitable. Thus there was not only alarm about the United States oil potential but also about our primary foreign source of supply. Lendling encouragement to these doubts were statements appearing in foreign publications describing the United States oil position." (1921, David White of the United States Geological Survey)
> 
> - "Given a resumption of trade and the consequent demand for oil products in, at the most, a year or two, the world will be confronted with an oil shortage such as has never been experienced before. (1921, E. Mackay Edgar)
> 
> - Reserves to last only thirteen years (1939, Department of the Interior).
> 
> - Reserves to last thirteen years (1951, Department of the Interior, Oil and Gas Division).
> 
> - We could use up all of the proven reserves of oil in the entire world by the end of the next decade (President Jimmy Carter speaking in 1978 to the entire world).
> 
> - At the present rate of use, it is estimated that coal reserves will last 200 more years. Petroleum may run out in 20 to 30 years, and natural gas may last only another 70 years (Ralph M. Feather, Merrill textbook Science Connections Annotated Teachers Version, 1990, p. 493).
> 
> - At the current rate of consumption, some scientists estimate that the worlds known supplies of oil  will be used up within your lifetime (1993, The United States and its People).
> 
> - The supply of fossil fuels is being used up at an alarming rate. Governments must help save our fossil fuel supply by passing laws limiting their use (Merrill/Glenco textbook, Biology, An Everyday Experience, 1992).
> 
> Quotes like these could fill a thousand pages easily. _PeakOil?
> 
> One interesting example of a big oil find in the midst of "an exhausted field" occurred in Kern County, California. Kern River Oil Field was discovered in 1899, and initially it was thought that only 10 percent of its heavy, viscous crude could be recovered. In 1942, after more than four decades of modest production, the field was estimated to still hold 54 million barrels of recoverable oil. As pointed out in 1995 by Morris Adelman, professor emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and one of the few remaining energy gurus, in the next forty-four years, it produced not 54 million barrels but 736 million barrels, and it had another 970 million barrels remaining. But even this estimate was wrong. In November 2007 U.S. oil giant Chevron announced that cumulative production had reached two billion barrels. Today, Kern River still puts out more than 80,000 barrels per day, and Chevron reckons that the remaining reserves are about 480 million barrels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Proven Reserves" are those that can be produced "economically." But the definitions of economical production are constantly changing, as the technology (and the politics eg, Iraq) changes.
> 
> And then there are the "unconventionals," such as heavy oils, oil sands, oil shales, coal to liquids, gas to liquids, and biomass to liquids. A doomer will not even stoop to discuss this 50 ton gorilla in the room, but any good economist would be forced to consider them.
> The cost of oil comes down to the cost of finding, and then lifting or extracting. First, you have to decide where to dig. Exploration costs currently run under $3 per barrel in much of the Mideast, and below $7 for oil hidden deep under the ocean. But these costs have been falling, not rising, because imaging technology that lets geologists peer through miles of water and rock improves faster than supplies recede. Many lower-grade deposits require no new looking at all.
> 
> To pick just one example among many, finding costs are essentially zero for the 3.5 trillion barrels of oil that soak the clay in the Orinoco basin in Venezuela, and the Athabasca tar sands in Alberta, Canada. Yes, thats trillion  over a centurys worth of global supply, at the current 30-billion-barrel-a-year rate of consumption. _WallStreetJournal Jan 2005_quoted by_PeakOil?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


*Hubbert's prediction was dead on for the US. It is accurate for the rest of the world, also. However, even bringing in the very expensive forms of oil resources does not change the curve, for at some point, it simply becomes too expensive to use as fuel.*

Peak oil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

M. King Hubbert created and first used the models behind peak oil in 1956 to accurately predict that United States oil production would peak between 1965 and 1970.[1] His logistic model, now called Hubbert peak theory, and its variants have described with reasonable accuracy the peak and decline of production from oil wells, fields, regions, and countries,[2] and has also proved useful in other limited-resource production-domains. According to the Hubbert model, the production rate of a limited resource will follow a roughly symmetrical logistic distribution curve (sometimes incorrectly compared to a bell-shaped curve) based on the limits of exploitability and market pressures.


----------



## Big Fitz

KissMy said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it's been 40 years since the first predictions of peak oil, and still more and more oil deposits are being found.
> 
> So where is the accuracy in your analogy?  Oil use = Heroin Addiction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It has been way over 100 years since the Government Scientist predicted we peaked in oil production in the 1800's.*
> 
> &#8220;I take this opportunity to express my opinion in the strongest terms, that the amazing exhibition of oil which has characterized the last twenty, and will probably characterize the next ten or twenty years, is nevertheless, not only geologically but historically, a temporary and vanishing phenomenon &#8211; one which young men will live to see come to its natural end&#8221; (1886, J.P. Lesley, state geologist of Pennsylvania).
> 
> - &#8220;There is little or no chance for more oil in California&#8221; (1886, U.S. Geological Survey).
> 
> - &#8220;There is little or no chance for more oil in Kansas and Texas&#8221; (1891, U.S. Geological Survey).
> 
> - &#8220;Total future production limit of 5.7 billion barrels of oil, perhaps a ten-year supply&#8221; (1914, U.S. Bureau of Mines).
> 
> - "Within the next two to five years the oil fields of this country will reach their maximum production, and from that time on we will face an ever-increasing decline." (1919 director of the U.S. Bureau of Mines)
> 
> - "Oil shales in Colorado and Utah would be exploited to produce oil, because the demand for oil could not be met by existing production." (1919 National Geographic magazine)
> 
> - "The time is, indeed, well in sight, when the United States will be nearing the end of some of its available stocks of raw materials on which her industrial supremacy has been largely built. America is running through her stores of domestic oil and is obliged to look abroad for future reserves. (September 1919, E. Mackay Edgar, in Sperling's Journal)
> 
> - "The position of the United States in regard to oil can best be characterized as precarious." (January 1920 Dr. George Otis Smith, Director of the United States Geological Survey)
> 
> - "Americans will have to depend on foreign sources or use less oil, or perhaps both." (May 1920 Dr. George Otis Smith, Director of the United States Geological Survey)
> 
> - "On the whole, therefore, we must expect that, unless our consumption is checked, we shall by 1925 be dependent on foreign oil fields to the extent of 150,000,000 barrels and possibly as much as 200,000,000 of crude each year, except insofar as the situation may at that time, perhaps, be helped to a slight extent by shale oil. Add to this probability that within 5 years--perhaps 3 years only--our domestic production will begin to fall off with increasing rapidity, due to the exhaustion of our reserves" (1920 David White, United States Geological Survey)
> 
> - During the period 1919-22, imports of crude oil from Mexico had been large--equal to 22 percent of total United States consumption in 1921. But salt water began to appear in some Mexican wells, and by 1921 geologists were debating whether Mexican production was not "through." in commenting upon the Mexican situation. "A great slump in Mexican production seems sooner or later inevitable. Thus there was not only alarm about the United States oil potential but also about our primary foreign source of supply. Lendling encouragement to these doubts were statements appearing in foreign publications describing the United States oil position." (1921, David White of the United States Geological Survey)
> 
> - "Given a resumption of trade and the consequent demand for oil products in, at the most, a year or two, the world will be confronted with an oil shortage such as has never been experienced before. (1921, E. Mackay Edgar)
> 
> - &#8220;Reserves to last only thirteen years&#8221; (1939, Department of the Interior).
> 
> - &#8220;Reserves to last thirteen years&#8221; (1951, Department of the Interior, Oil and Gas Division).
> 
> - &#8220;We could use up all of the proven reserves of oil in the entire world by the end of the next decade&#8221; (President Jimmy Carter speaking in 1978 to the entire world).
> 
> - &#8220;At the present rate of use, it is estimated that coal reserves will last 200 more years. Petroleum may run out in 20 to 30 years, and natural gas may last only another 70 years&#8221; (Ralph M. Feather, Merrill textbook Science Connections Annotated Teacher&#8217;s Version, 1990, p. 493).
> 
> - &#8220;At the current rate of consumption, some scientists estimate that the world&#8217;s known supplies of oil &#8230; will be used up within your lifetime&#8221; (1993, The United States and its People).
> 
> - &#8220;The supply of fossil fuels is being used up at an alarming rate. Governments must help save our fossil fuel supply by passing laws limiting their use&#8221; (Merrill/Glenco textbook, Biology, An Everyday Experience, 1992).
> 
> Quotes like these could fill a thousand pages easily. _PeakOil?
> 
> One interesting example of a big oil find in the midst of "an exhausted field" occurred in Kern County, California. Kern River Oil Field was discovered in 1899, and initially it was thought that only 10 percent of its heavy, viscous crude could be recovered. In 1942, after more than four decades of modest production, the field was estimated to still hold 54 million barrels of recoverable oil. As pointed out in 1995 by Morris Adelman, professor emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and one of the few remaining energy gurus, &#8220;in the next forty-four years, it produced not 54 million barrels but 736 million barrels, and it had another 970 million barrels remaining.&#8221; But even this estimate was wrong. In November 2007 U.S. oil giant Chevron announced that cumulative production had reached two billion barrels. Today, Kern River still puts out more than 80,000 barrels per day, and Chevron reckons that the remaining reserves are about 480 million barrels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Proven Reserves" are those that can be produced "economically." But the definitions of economical production are constantly changing, as the technology (and the politics eg, Iraq) changes.
> 
> And then there are the "unconventionals," such as heavy oils, oil sands, oil shales, coal to liquids, gas to liquids, and biomass to liquids. A doomer will not even stoop to discuss this 50 ton gorilla in the room, but any good economist would be forced to consider them.
> The cost of oil comes down to the cost of finding, and then lifting or extracting. First, you have to decide where to dig. Exploration costs currently run under $3 per barrel in much of the Mideast, and below $7 for oil hidden deep under the ocean. But these costs have been falling, not rising, because imaging technology that lets geologists peer through miles of water and rock improves faster than supplies recede. Many lower-grade deposits require no new looking at all.
> 
> To pick just one example among many, finding costs are essentially zero for the 3.5 trillion barrels of oil that soak the clay in the Orinoco basin in Venezuela, and the Athabasca tar sands in Alberta, Canada. Yes, that&#8217;s trillion &#8211; over a century&#8217;s worth of global supply, at the current 30-billion-barrel-a-year rate of consumption. _WallStreetJournal Jan 2005_quoted by_PeakOil?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Nice!  reminds me of a british politician who thought that in the late 1880's they should close down the patent office because everything that could be invented had been.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

Old Rocks said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it's been 40 years since the first predictions of peak oil, and still more and more oil deposits are being found.
> 
> So where is the accuracy in your analogy?  Oil use = Heroin Addiction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It has been way over 100 years since the Government Scientist predicted we peaked in oil production in the 1800's.*
> 
> I take this opportunity to express my opinion in the strongest terms, that the amazing exhibition of oil which has characterized the last twenty, and will probably characterize the next ten or twenty years, is nevertheless, not only geologically but historically, a temporary and vanishing phenomenon  one which young men will live to see come to its natural end (1886, J.P. Lesley, state geologist of Pennsylvania).
> 
> - There is little or no chance for more oil in California (1886, U.S. Geological Survey).
> 
> - There is little or no chance for more oil in Kansas and Texas (1891, U.S. Geological Survey).
> 
> - Total future production limit of 5.7 billion barrels of oil, perhaps a ten-year supply (1914, U.S. Bureau of Mines).
> 
> - "Within the next two to five years the oil fields of this country will reach their maximum production, and from that time on we will face an ever-increasing decline." (1919 director of the U.S. Bureau of Mines)
> 
> - "Oil shales in Colorado and Utah would be exploited to produce oil, because the demand for oil could not be met by existing production." (1919 National Geographic magazine)
> 
> - "The time is, indeed, well in sight, when the United States will be nearing the end of some of its available stocks of raw materials on which her industrial supremacy has been largely built. America is running through her stores of domestic oil and is obliged to look abroad for future reserves. (September 1919, E. Mackay Edgar, in Sperling's Journal)
> 
> - "The position of the United States in regard to oil can best be characterized as precarious." (January 1920 Dr. George Otis Smith, Director of the United States Geological Survey)
> 
> - "Americans will have to depend on foreign sources or use less oil, or perhaps both." (May 1920 Dr. George Otis Smith, Director of the United States Geological Survey)
> 
> - "On the whole, therefore, we must expect that, unless our consumption is checked, we shall by 1925 be dependent on foreign oil fields to the extent of 150,000,000 barrels and possibly as much as 200,000,000 of crude each year, except insofar as the situation may at that time, perhaps, be helped to a slight extent by shale oil. Add to this probability that within 5 years--perhaps 3 years only--our domestic production will begin to fall off with increasing rapidity, due to the exhaustion of our reserves" (1920 David White, United States Geological Survey)
> 
> - During the period 1919-22, imports of crude oil from Mexico had been large--equal to 22 percent of total United States consumption in 1921. But salt water began to appear in some Mexican wells, and by 1921 geologists were debating whether Mexican production was not "through." in commenting upon the Mexican situation. "A great slump in Mexican production seems sooner or later inevitable. Thus there was not only alarm about the United States oil potential but also about our primary foreign source of supply. Lendling encouragement to these doubts were statements appearing in foreign publications describing the United States oil position." (1921, David White of the United States Geological Survey)
> 
> - "Given a resumption of trade and the consequent demand for oil products in, at the most, a year or two, the world will be confronted with an oil shortage such as has never been experienced before. (1921, E. Mackay Edgar)
> 
> - Reserves to last only thirteen years (1939, Department of the Interior).
> 
> - Reserves to last thirteen years (1951, Department of the Interior, Oil and Gas Division).
> 
> - We could use up all of the proven reserves of oil in the entire world by the end of the next decade (President Jimmy Carter speaking in 1978 to the entire world).
> 
> - At the present rate of use, it is estimated that coal reserves will last 200 more years. Petroleum may run out in 20 to 30 years, and natural gas may last only another 70 years (Ralph M. Feather, Merrill textbook Science Connections Annotated Teachers Version, 1990, p. 493).
> 
> - At the current rate of consumption, some scientists estimate that the worlds known supplies of oil  will be used up within your lifetime (1993, The United States and its People).
> 
> - The supply of fossil fuels is being used up at an alarming rate. Governments must help save our fossil fuel supply by passing laws limiting their use (Merrill/Glenco textbook, Biology, An Everyday Experience, 1992).
> 
> Quotes like these could fill a thousand pages easily. _PeakOil?
> 
> One interesting example of a big oil find in the midst of "an exhausted field" occurred in Kern County, California. Kern River Oil Field was discovered in 1899, and initially it was thought that only 10 percent of its heavy, viscous crude could be recovered. In 1942, after more than four decades of modest production, the field was estimated to still hold 54 million barrels of recoverable oil. As pointed out in 1995 by Morris Adelman, professor emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and one of the few remaining energy gurus, in the next forty-four years, it produced not 54 million barrels but 736 million barrels, and it had another 970 million barrels remaining. But even this estimate was wrong. In November 2007 U.S. oil giant Chevron announced that cumulative production had reached two billion barrels. Today, Kern River still puts out more than 80,000 barrels per day, and Chevron reckons that the remaining reserves are about 480 million barrels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Proven Reserves" are those that can be produced "economically." But the definitions of economical production are constantly changing, as the technology (and the politics eg, Iraq) changes.
> 
> And then there are the "unconventionals," such as heavy oils, oil sands, oil shales, coal to liquids, gas to liquids, and biomass to liquids. A doomer will not even stoop to discuss this 50 ton gorilla in the room, but any good economist would be forced to consider them.
> The cost of oil comes down to the cost of finding, and then lifting or extracting. First, you have to decide where to dig. Exploration costs currently run under $3 per barrel in much of the Mideast, and below $7 for oil hidden deep under the ocean. But these costs have been falling, not rising, because imaging technology that lets geologists peer through miles of water and rock improves faster than supplies recede. Many lower-grade deposits require no new looking at all.
> 
> To pick just one example among many, finding costs are essentially zero for the 3.5 trillion barrels of oil that soak the clay in the Orinoco basin in Venezuela, and the Athabasca tar sands in Alberta, Canada. Yes, thats trillion  over a centurys worth of global supply, at the current 30-billion-barrel-a-year rate of consumption. _WallStreetJournal Jan 2005_quoted by_PeakOil?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Hubbert's prediction was dead on for the US. It is accurate for the rest of the world, also. However, even bringing in the very expensive forms of oil resources does not change the curve, for at some point, it simply becomes too expensive to use as fuel.*
> 
> Peak oil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> M. King Hubbert created and first used the models behind peak oil in 1956 to accurately predict that United States oil production would peak between 1965 and 1970.[1] His logistic model, now called Hubbert peak theory, and its variants have described with reasonable accuracy the peak and decline of production from oil wells, fields, regions, and countries,[2] and has also proved useful in other limited-resource production-domains. According to the Hubbert model, the production rate of a limited resource will follow a roughly symmetrical logistic distribution curve (sometimes incorrectly compared to a bell-shaped curve) based on the limits of exploitability and market pressures.
Click to expand...


As a scientist, geologist, I'd never make such predictions, especially with technology moving at high speeds.


----------



## KissMy

Old Rocks said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it's been 40 years since the first predictions of peak oil, and still more and more oil deposits are being found.
> 
> So where is the accuracy in your analogy?  Oil use = Heroin Addiction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It has been way over 100 years since the Government Scientist predicted we peaked in oil production in the 1800's.*
> 
> &#8220;I take this opportunity to express my opinion in the strongest terms, that the amazing exhibition of oil which has characterized the last twenty, and will probably characterize the next ten or twenty years, is nevertheless, not only geologically but historically, a temporary and vanishing phenomenon &#8211; one which young men will live to see come to its natural end&#8221; (1886, J.P. Lesley, state geologist of Pennsylvania).
> 
> - &#8220;There is little or no chance for more oil in California&#8221; (1886, U.S. Geological Survey).
> 
> - &#8220;There is little or no chance for more oil in Kansas and Texas&#8221; (1891, U.S. Geological Survey).
> 
> - &#8220;Total future production limit of 5.7 billion barrels of oil, perhaps a ten-year supply&#8221; (1914, U.S. Bureau of Mines).
> 
> - "Within the next two to five years the oil fields of this country will reach their maximum production, and from that time on we will face an ever-increasing decline." (1919 director of the U.S. Bureau of Mines)
> 
> - "Oil shales in Colorado and Utah would be exploited to produce oil, because the demand for oil could not be met by existing production." (1919 National Geographic magazine)
> 
> - "The time is, indeed, well in sight, when the United States will be nearing the end of some of its available stocks of raw materials on which her industrial supremacy has been largely built. America is running through her stores of domestic oil and is obliged to look abroad for future reserves. (September 1919, E. Mackay Edgar, in Sperling's Journal)
> 
> - "The position of the United States in regard to oil can best be characterized as precarious." (January 1920 Dr. George Otis Smith, Director of the United States Geological Survey)
> 
> - "Americans will have to depend on foreign sources or use less oil, or perhaps both." (May 1920 Dr. George Otis Smith, Director of the United States Geological Survey)
> 
> - "On the whole, therefore, we must expect that, unless our consumption is checked, we shall by 1925 be dependent on foreign oil fields to the extent of 150,000,000 barrels and possibly as much as 200,000,000 of crude each year, except insofar as the situation may at that time, perhaps, be helped to a slight extent by shale oil. Add to this probability that within 5 years--perhaps 3 years only--our domestic production will begin to fall off with increasing rapidity, due to the exhaustion of our reserves" (1920 David White, United States Geological Survey)
> 
> - During the period 1919-22, imports of crude oil from Mexico had been large--equal to 22 percent of total United States consumption in 1921. But salt water began to appear in some Mexican wells, and by 1921 geologists were debating whether Mexican production was not "through." in commenting upon the Mexican situation. "A great slump in Mexican production seems sooner or later inevitable. Thus there was not only alarm about the United States oil potential but also about our primary foreign source of supply. Lendling encouragement to these doubts were statements appearing in foreign publications describing the United States oil position." (1921, David White of the United States Geological Survey)
> 
> - "Given a resumption of trade and the consequent demand for oil products in, at the most, a year or two, the world will be confronted with an oil shortage such as has never been experienced before. (1921, E. Mackay Edgar)
> 
> - &#8220;Reserves to last only thirteen years&#8221; (1939, Department of the Interior).
> 
> - &#8220;Reserves to last thirteen years&#8221; (1951, Department of the Interior, Oil and Gas Division).
> 
> - &#8220;We could use up all of the proven reserves of oil in the entire world by the end of the next decade&#8221; (President Jimmy Carter speaking in 1978 to the entire world).
> 
> - &#8220;At the present rate of use, it is estimated that coal reserves will last 200 more years. Petroleum may run out in 20 to 30 years, and natural gas may last only another 70 years&#8221; (Ralph M. Feather, Merrill textbook Science Connections Annotated Teacher&#8217;s Version, 1990, p. 493).
> 
> - &#8220;At the current rate of consumption, some scientists estimate that the world&#8217;s known supplies of oil &#8230; will be used up within your lifetime&#8221; (1993, The United States and its People).
> 
> - &#8220;The supply of fossil fuels is being used up at an alarming rate. Governments must help save our fossil fuel supply by passing laws limiting their use&#8221; (Merrill/Glenco textbook, Biology, An Everyday Experience, 1992).
> 
> Quotes like these could fill a thousand pages easily. _PeakOil?
> 
> One interesting example of a big oil find in the midst of "an exhausted field" occurred in Kern County, California. Kern River Oil Field was discovered in 1899, and initially it was thought that only 10 percent of its heavy, viscous crude could be recovered. In 1942, after more than four decades of modest production, the field was estimated to still hold 54 million barrels of recoverable oil. As pointed out in 1995 by Morris Adelman, professor emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and one of the few remaining energy gurus, &#8220;in the next forty-four years, it produced not 54 million barrels but 736 million barrels, and it had another 970 million barrels remaining.&#8221; But even this estimate was wrong. In November 2007 U.S. oil giant Chevron announced that cumulative production had reached two billion barrels. Today, Kern River still puts out more than 80,000 barrels per day, and Chevron reckons that the remaining reserves are about 480 million barrels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Proven Reserves" are those that can be produced "economically." But the definitions of economical production are constantly changing, as the technology (and the politics eg, Iraq) changes.
> 
> And then there are the "unconventionals," such as heavy oils, oil sands, oil shales, coal to liquids, gas to liquids, and biomass to liquids. A doomer will not even stoop to discuss this 50 ton gorilla in the room, but any good economist would be forced to consider them.
> The cost of oil comes down to the cost of finding, and then lifting or extracting. First, you have to decide where to dig. Exploration costs currently run under $3 per barrel in much of the Mideast, and below $7 for oil hidden deep under the ocean. But these costs have been falling, not rising, because imaging technology that lets geologists peer through miles of water and rock improves faster than supplies recede. Many lower-grade deposits require no new looking at all.
> 
> To pick just one example among many, finding costs are essentially zero for the 3.5 trillion barrels of oil that soak the clay in the Orinoco basin in Venezuela, and the Athabasca tar sands in Alberta, Canada. Yes, that&#8217;s trillion &#8211; over a century&#8217;s worth of global supply, at the current 30-billion-barrel-a-year rate of consumption. _WallStreetJournal Jan 2005_quoted by_PeakOil?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Hubbert's prediction was dead on for the US. It is accurate for the rest of the world, also. However, even bringing in the very expensive forms of oil resources does not change the curve, for at some point, it simply becomes too expensive to use as fuel.*
> 
> Peak oil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> M. King Hubbert created and first used the models behind peak oil in 1956 to accurately predict that United States oil production would peak between 1965 and 1970.[1] His logistic model, now called Hubbert peak theory, and its variants have described with reasonable accuracy the peak and decline of production from oil wells, fields, regions, and countries,[2] and has also proved useful in other limited-resource production-domains. According to the Hubbert model, the production rate of a limited resource will follow a roughly symmetrical logistic distribution curve (sometimes incorrectly compared to a bell-shaped curve) based on the limits of exploitability and market pressures.
Click to expand...


Oil production in the USA did not decline in 1970 due to geology as M. King Hubbert suggest, it was due to the government.

Since 2004 under George W. Bush we were able to increase our USA oil production & reduce our dependence on foreign oil by over 10%. That would have been impossible if geology were limiting production instead of government. See Chart Below. Now that Obama has imposed drilling bans again the chart is flattening & will soon turn upwards increasing our dependence on foreign oil once again.


----------



## GHook93

...my liberal science professor claimed peak oil would happen in 1999 and the world would be out of oil by 2010! He made us read this short story following a worker in a Carless, oilless New York City. Basically every went by bike or the extremely over-crowded subway and there were regular blackouts. The only mention of oil left was what they military had left in order to fuel their vehicles, which they never used! The only way to get overseas was by ship, but they did toss in the little nugget that shipping costs were so expense that most things were manufactured stateside like it used to be. It was doom and gloom and the story ended with, if my parents, grandparents and great grandparents, knew this was going to happen why didn't they seek out alternatives?

This was the liberal professors intro to the wonders of solar, wind and other renewables sources. Remember this was right before IL did the grand wind turbines and farms. What was going on at the time was the passing of the wind turbine and farm projects. They wanted wind and solar to provide 25% of our IL energy by 2010 (currently its 1-2%). In 2007 IL General Assembly mandated that wind MUST produce 25% of our energy. Fat chance of that.

I remember my professor's prediction, since I was scared as hell at the time thinking oil was a thing of the past. Our cars would be fully electric 2005 and wind and solar would make up 50% of the NATION'S energy supply by 2010. Illinois is extremely ambigious with wind and they make up 1-2%! Libs!



KissMy said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it's been 40 years since the first predictions of peak oil, and still more and more oil deposits are being found.
> 
> So where is the accuracy in your analogy?  Oil use = Heroin Addiction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It has been way over 100 years since the Government Scientist predicted we peaked in oil production in the 1800's.*
> 
> I take this opportunity to express my opinion in the strongest terms, that the amazing exhibition of oil which has characterized the last twenty, and will probably characterize the next ten or twenty years, is nevertheless, not only geologically but historically, a temporary and vanishing phenomenon  one which young men will live to see come to its natural end (1886, J.P. Lesley, state geologist of Pennsylvania).
> 
> - There is little or no chance for more oil in California (1886, U.S. Geological Survey).
> 
> - There is little or no chance for more oil in Kansas and Texas (1891, U.S. Geological Survey).
> 
> - Total future production limit of 5.7 billion barrels of oil, perhaps a ten-year supply (1914, U.S. Bureau of Mines).
> 
> - "Within the next two to five years the oil fields of this country will reach their maximum production, and from that time on we will face an ever-increasing decline." (1919 director of the U.S. Bureau of Mines)
> 
> - "Oil shales in Colorado and Utah would be exploited to produce oil, because the demand for oil could not be met by existing production." (1919 National Geographic magazine)
> 
> - "The time is, indeed, well in sight, when the United States will be nearing the end of some of its available stocks of raw materials on which her industrial supremacy has been largely built. America is running through her stores of domestic oil and is obliged to look abroad for future reserves. (September 1919, E. Mackay Edgar, in Sperling's Journal)
> 
> - "The position of the United States in regard to oil can best be characterized as precarious." (January 1920 Dr. George Otis Smith, Director of the United States Geological Survey)
> 
> - "Americans will have to depend on foreign sources or use less oil, or perhaps both." (May 1920 Dr. George Otis Smith, Director of the United States Geological Survey)
> 
> - "On the whole, therefore, we must expect that, unless our consumption is checked, we shall by 1925 be dependent on foreign oil fields to the extent of 150,000,000 barrels and possibly as much as 200,000,000 of crude each year, except insofar as the situation may at that time, perhaps, be helped to a slight extent by shale oil. Add to this probability that within 5 years--perhaps 3 years only--our domestic production will begin to fall off with increasing rapidity, due to the exhaustion of our reserves" (1920 David White, United States Geological Survey)
> 
> - During the period 1919-22, imports of crude oil from Mexico had been large--equal to 22 percent of total United States consumption in 1921. But salt water began to appear in some Mexican wells, and by 1921 geologists were debating whether Mexican production was not "through." in commenting upon the Mexican situation. "A great slump in Mexican production seems sooner or later inevitable. Thus there was not only alarm about the United States oil potential but also about our primary foreign source of supply. Lendling encouragement to these doubts were statements appearing in foreign publications describing the United States oil position." (1921, David White of the United States Geological Survey)
> 
> - "Given a resumption of trade and the consequent demand for oil products in, at the most, a year or two, the world will be confronted with an oil shortage such as has never been experienced before. (1921, E. Mackay Edgar)
> 
> - Reserves to last only thirteen years (1939, Department of the Interior).
> 
> - Reserves to last thirteen years (1951, Department of the Interior, Oil and Gas Division).
> 
> - We could use up all of the proven reserves of oil in the entire world by the end of the next decade (President Jimmy Carter speaking in 1978 to the entire world).
> 
> - At the present rate of use, it is estimated that coal reserves will last 200 more years. Petroleum may run out in 20 to 30 years, and natural gas may last only another 70 years (Ralph M. Feather, Merrill textbook Science Connections Annotated Teachers Version, 1990, p. 493).
> 
> - At the current rate of consumption, some scientists estimate that the worlds known supplies of oil  will be used up within your lifetime (1993, The United States and its People).
> 
> - The supply of fossil fuels is being used up at an alarming rate. Governments must help save our fossil fuel supply by passing laws limiting their use (Merrill/Glenco textbook, Biology, An Everyday Experience, 1992).
> 
> Quotes like these could fill a thousand pages easily. _PeakOil?
> 
> One interesting example of a big oil find in the midst of "an exhausted field" occurred in Kern County, California. Kern River Oil Field was discovered in 1899, and initially it was thought that only 10 percent of its heavy, viscous crude could be recovered. In 1942, after more than four decades of modest production, the field was estimated to still hold 54 million barrels of recoverable oil. As pointed out in 1995 by Morris Adelman, professor emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and one of the few remaining energy gurus, in the next forty-four years, it produced not 54 million barrels but 736 million barrels, and it had another 970 million barrels remaining. But even this estimate was wrong. In November 2007 U.S. oil giant Chevron announced that cumulative production had reached two billion barrels. Today, Kern River still puts out more than 80,000 barrels per day, and Chevron reckons that the remaining reserves are about 480 million barrels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Proven Reserves" are those that can be produced "economically." But the definitions of economical production are constantly changing, as the technology (and the politics eg, Iraq) changes.
> 
> And then there are the "unconventionals," such as heavy oils, oil sands, oil shales, coal to liquids, gas to liquids, and biomass to liquids. A doomer will not even stoop to discuss this 50 ton gorilla in the room, but any good economist would be forced to consider them.
> The cost of oil comes down to the cost of finding, and then lifting or extracting. First, you have to decide where to dig. Exploration costs currently run under $3 per barrel in much of the Mideast, and below $7 for oil hidden deep under the ocean. But these costs have been falling, not rising, because imaging technology that lets geologists peer through miles of water and rock improves faster than supplies recede. Many lower-grade deposits require no new looking at all.
> 
> To pick just one example among many, finding costs are essentially zero for the 3.5 trillion barrels of oil that soak the clay in the Orinoco basin in Venezuela, and the Athabasca tar sands in Alberta, Canada. Yes, thats trillion  over a centurys worth of global supply, at the current 30-billion-barrel-a-year rate of consumption. _WallStreetJournal Jan 2005_quoted by_PeakOil?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## RGR

Big Fitz said:


> Well, it's been 40 years since the first predictions of peak oil, and still more and more oil deposits are being found.



As someone else has already pointed out, peak oil/running outters have been around for quite a bit longer than that.


----------



## manifold

manifold said:


> I think it makes good strategic and tactical sense to use up the rest of the world's oil and natural gas before we set about depleting our own.
> 
> I'd be interested to hear solid reasoning to the contrary.


----------



## RGR

Old Rocks said:


> So, where is the next Gwarar? There isn't one.



Screw Ghawar (depending on one's definition of oil, perhaps only  the 3rd or 4th largest oil accumulation in the world), I think they should go find another Orinoco!


----------



## RGR

Old Rocks said:


> *Hubbert's prediction was dead on for the US. It is accurate for the rest of the world, also.
> *


*

Now Rocksy, that's bullshit and you know it. Hubbert (1956) ONLY hit the US oil production mark (in only 1 of his 2 scenarios I might add), his US natural gas projections AND his world oil projections missed by HUNDREDS OF PERCENT.

While peakers are stupid enough to confuse a MULTI HUNDRED PERCENT MISS as "accurate", I expect better from people with actual brain pans.



			
				Old Rocks said:
			
		


Peak oil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

M. King Hubbert created and first used the models behind peak oil in 1956 to accurately predict that United States oil production would peak between 1965 and 1970.[1] His logistic model, now called Hubbert peak theory, and its variants have described with reasonable accuracy the peak and decline of production from oil wells, fields, regions, and countries,[2] and has also proved useful in other limited-resource production-domains.
		
Click to expand...


Bad quote Rocks. Hubbert did not base ANY of his work on the production profiles of wells or fields, NONE. And his method DOESN'T work for nearly 3/4's of the worlds production (by volume)...in other words...it works okay maybe 25% of the time (and I am being reasonable with "works okay" rather than strict) and that is under limited circumstances.

Wiki was written mostly by peaker fools as represented by our own local peaker parrot. Only an idiot would think that oil wells produce like bell shaped curves and assign such nonsense to Hubbert who never even used them as examples of anything. Nor fields. Another peaker invention, that field production profiles are bell shaped curves.*


----------



## Trajan

technology will march on, I posted the ny times blurb on the fantastic potential of the Texas eagle ford find....



remember- 20 years ago, russia was a net oil importer.....times change. and this does not include anwar, off shore east west coast etc  etc etc etc ...


----------

