Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Improving Peak Oil Credibility

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby coffeeguyzz » Tue 27 Mar 2018, 15:38:35

Adam
Correct me if I am wrong ... can't do the B!ueLetter Tango ...

Source, 17 page "USGS Information Relevant ...Marcellus ..."
Open File Report. 2011-1298

3 sub units withFoldbelt Marcellus (Appendix #1) and Western Margin Marcellus (Appendix #3) being squat.

Regarding "Interior Marcellus" (Appendix #2 ... the Big Enchilada) ...
Calculated Mean area 28,900,000 acres
Calc Mean cell. 149 acres
Recovery. 1.15 Bcf
Data found on page #2 of Appendix #2 which is accessed on page #13 of report.

Re Utica ...
"FS 12 - 3116.pdf shows on my screen for source (USGS 2012 Utica Assessment) ... Info ...
Calc Mean Production Area. 31,600,000 acres
Drainage. 150 acres
Sweet Spot percentage. 27%

EUR for Sweet Spot. .619 Bcf
EUR for non sweet spot. .128 Bcf
The above data found on page #4 of the report.

No matter how it is sliced and diced, current production is blowing way, WAY past these earlier evaluations.
coffeeguyzz
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 241
Joined: Mon 27 Oct 2014, 15:09:47

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby marmico » Wed 28 Mar 2018, 09:36:11

Looks like no Alzheimers yet. You don't really think I'm as stupid as the average peak oiler that just makes this stuff up are?


There you go. Marcellus is 2x Utica, notwithstanding coffee's protestations.

Your dementia is an open bloom. Dragging up 10 year old threads to maintain an active thread count makes Tanada happy. You make (drag) stuff up ceteris paribus just like the average peak oiler.

Kindly post the number of responses to your last 50 dragged threads
marmico
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 761
Joined: Mon 28 Jul 2014, 13:46:35

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby AdamB » Thu 29 Mar 2018, 10:23:17

coffeeguyzz wrote:No matter how it is sliced and diced, current production is blowing way, WAY past these earlier evaluations.


I don't disagree. I only note that the USGS assessments give their estimate of a distribution that INCLUDES all those areas that aren't drilled because they aren't as productive as the sweet spots. By definition, the sweet spot results are contained with the higher portion of the EUR distribution, it is just that there is more area that is less productive that also is accounted with within their estimates. And those results bring down the overall average to something less.
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4304
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby AdamB » Thu 29 Mar 2018, 10:32:10

marmico wrote:
Looks like no Alzheimers yet. You don't really think I'm as stupid as the average peak oiler that just makes this stuff up are?


There you go. Marcellus is 2x Utica, notwithstanding coffee's protestations.


What do you mean, there you go? I've already provided exactly the references saying that.

And the one saying something different. And where, if you happened to be standing around during the industry presentations at the national conferences where they discuss such things, that a different perspective was being detailed.

Such perspective expressing itself in the estimates involved as demonstrated by the Doug Patchen/ State consortium / Utica study referenced by Coffee.

Understanding that there is a difference of opinion among different references isn't that difficult.

marmico wrote:Your dementia is an open bloom. Dragging up 10 year old threads to maintain an active thread count makes Tanada happy. You make (drag) stuff up ceteris paribus just like the average peak oiler.

Kindly post the number of responses to your last 50 dragged threads


Let me know when you learn to read and more important UNDERSTAND the material provided and maybe then we'll discuss it. Better yet attend a conference where they discuss these things, learn something from the folks involved, call them and ask questions, they really do interact with the public at large, they have phone numbers and emails and everything. Treating ignorance of the nuance like some state of grace just makes you come off as one dimensional, more like a peak oil-ignorant poster than someone who wants (assuming you CAN) to understand something.
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4304
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby coffeeguyzz » Thu 29 Mar 2018, 12:29:43

Regarding contacting personnel involved in the hydrocarbon industry ...

I have e-mailed and called dozens of times over the years to folks from the EIA and the North Dakota DMR.
Every single time the responses have been both exceptionally helpful, gracious, and enlightening.
My impression is that these people welcome interactions from the public as it shows a wider interest in, and recognition of the importance, of the work they do and they are most happy to share.

The FAQ section on the EIA site can provide several hours of education across a wide spectrum of global energy related issues.
coffeeguyzz
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 241
Joined: Mon 27 Oct 2014, 15:09:47

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby StarvingLion » Sat 31 Mar 2018, 15:30:29

How can there be a Shale Gas Revolution while the stock of General Electric has been going straight to 0 since Jan. 2017?

Answer: The utilities are going bankrupt. They cannot afford coal plants and they cannot afford gas turbines either. Nobody is paying the bills for the heavy lifters required to keep the lights on. Thats why GE stock is headed straight to 0

The "renewables" scam is bankrupting everything. Its worse than useless. Its a mental illness.

What are those stupid windmills except more sub-prime real estate? Its not even an energy system. Its a ruse. Cheap by decree. Revenue by legislation. Pure fraud.

The lights are going off OR the price of oil is effectively infinity.

Thats the two choices.

Pick your poison.
Last edited by StarvingLion on Sat 31 Mar 2018, 16:53:03, edited 1 time in total.
There is no escaping The Oil Apocalypse and there will be no survivors.
StarvingLion
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1180
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Sat 31 Mar 2018, 16:42:21

I cannot fathom anything about your motives, SL. Your "reasoning" is unclear as well. But you are definately euphoric, so please tell us what mind-altering substance you are consuming.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5089
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: California's Silly Valley

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby StarvingLion » Sat 31 Mar 2018, 16:47:35

KaiserJeep wrote:I cannot fathom anything about your motives, SL. Your "reasoning" is unclear as well. But you are definately euphoric, so please tell us what mind-altering substance you are consuming.


California is BANKRUPT. The Lights are going OFF to stop Peak Oil and then The Oil Apocalypse. Thats what the Climate Change Hoax is about. We have to shut down because "we are wrecking the planet". Can't have that Peak Oil theme invading The Sheeples Pathetic Little Mind. Otherwise they go Mad Max 2.

http://euanmearns.com/energy-externalit ... /#comments

David B. Benson says:
March 30, 2018 at 6:30 am

Left Coast, i.e., West Coast of the contiguous USA, power news: A power producing company is shutting down 3 gas turbines, I assume CCGTs. That makes 5 turned off, or turning off, recently in California. Another power company is ending the planning for yet another gas turbine in California. All this is attributed to the increase in solar panels in the state.

But more. Portland General Electric, the major utility for northern Oregon, is stopping the planning to replace the Boardman coal fired generator by one or two large CCGTs. It so happens that BPA, the Bonneville Power Administration, has excess power which it can now sell to Portland General Electric; this because BPA is wheeling substantially less power to California, presumably for the same reason. Also, the Washington state utilities are buying slightly less power from BPA because the demand for power from utilities has slightly declined; I attribute this to LED lighting more than solar panels; no new wind farms are under construction or recently built in Washington state.

And yes, the GE large turbine division is certainly noticing the lack of recent orders.
There is no escaping The Oil Apocalypse and there will be no survivors.
StarvingLion
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1180
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby AdamB » Sat 31 Mar 2018, 16:59:16

coffeeguyzz wrote:Regarding contacting personnel involved in the hydrocarbon industry ...

I have e-mailed and called dozens of times over the years to folks from the EIA and the North Dakota DMR.
Every single time the responses have been both exceptionally helpful, gracious, and enlightening.


Same here. One of the way you know folks like shorty are just intellectual frauds is that calling some of these folks and asking questions is something they will never do. If they did, they would know why their ideas look puerile compared to how well the pros have thought these issues through.

coffeeguyzz wrote:My impression is that these people welcome interactions from the public as it shows a wider interest in, and recognition of the importance, of the work they do and they are most happy to share.

The FAQ section on the EIA site can provide several hours of education across a wide spectrum of global energy related issues.


And a single call to the author of the white paper I referenced for shorty's benefit would have allowed him to refine his idea into something other than an internet joke.
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4304
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby AdamB » Sat 31 Mar 2018, 17:05:34

StarvingLion wrote:How can there be a Shale Gas Revolution while the stock of General Electric has been going straight to 0 since Jan. 2017?


Because you are assuming a dependency that is non-existent. You should stop because such obvious nonsense discredits every other word you type. This isn't the good ol' days of peak oil SL, where any half baked claim would generate rousing rejoinders of encouragement from the acolytes filling the church pews. Views have changed, turns out the cornies were more right than the malthusians and luddites, your religion of decay and decline was rubbed out by reality. Does this mean everything is peachy? Of course not, but at least happy McPeaksters have learned to stop using geology and petroleum engineering and resource economics as their rapture trigger, and stick to recycled ol' reliables like wars and free markets and the BDI and such.
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4304
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby AdamB » Sat 31 Mar 2018, 17:08:48

StarvingLion wrote:California is BANKRUPT. The Lights are going OFF to stop Peak Oil and then The Oil Apocalypse. Thats what the Climate Change Hoax is about. We have to shut down because "we are wrecking the planet". Can't have that Peak Oil theme invading The Sheeples Pathetic Little Mind.


Except...turns out peak oilers WERE the sheeple SL. You understand that the herd you mention went for it, hook line and sinker, right? :)
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4304
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby asg70 » Sun 01 Apr 2018, 12:11:35

Keyword: WERE. They wised up and left the community, which is more that can be said of SL.
[space to store bad short-term prediction currently vacant]
asg70
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1813
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2017, 13:17:28

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby coffeeguyzz » Sun 01 Apr 2018, 13:33:44

I just skimmed through several pages of recent postings on this thread and found it pretty enlightening.

The overlap of ideology, politics, personal world view, economic interpretation seems to all have found a common nexus in the perception of looming, immanent hydrocarbon scarcity.

Anyone living through the 2 oil shortages in the US - as I have ('73 and '79) - recognizes full well the impacts of having to do without ... or far less, at least, than customary.

I started following a few peak oil blogs awhile back in order to learn why others still felt scarcity was not far off when everything I was seeing regarding the 'shale revolution' indicated years/decades of abundance.

It was immediately clear that most posters were very unfamiliar with the entire hydrocarbon exploration and production industry and relied upon others - mainly academics - to provide perceived substance with which to validate their views.

Close to 100% - say again, nearly ALL - the voluminous reports that I have gone over from 'peak' or anti fossil fuel sources, have had severe errors of either data or the interpretation of same.
Easy peasy to point this stuff out, particularly in David Hughes' works, but doing so to an audience not willing to be open minded of views challenging core beliefs is a waste of time.

In essence, folks, the successful implementation of drilling vertically 5 to 15 thousand feet down, then going 'sideways' 1 to 4 miles, fracturing the formation to unleash a million barrels of oil, TENS of BILLIONS of cubic feet of nat gas is being done in the US - today - dozens and dozens of times ... every day.

Newer techniques are starting to recover more of the 95%/92% of the oil regularly left behind and the 80% + of the nat gas.

The speed and precision of these efforts are expanding heretofore uneconomic zones in producing areas as well as opening up others to future development.
Argentina and China are only the first to follow Canada and the US down this path.
The UK, Australia, Columbia, Russia, Mexico are only a few lining up to move forward into unconventional development.

Final observation ... you folks may well be missing a Bigger Picture by looking at oil.

Regarding unconventionals, natgas is WAY too big a resource, WAY too cheap to produce compared to oil to expect the current 400% price premium of oil-sourced energy versus gas-sourced to long remain in its present relationship.
With $16 worth of Nat gas providing the same heat energy contained in $65 worth of oil, the innovators will come up with a way (nat gas fueled transportation, especially) to capture this enormous spread.

No peak gas in North America for 100 years.
coffeeguyzz
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 241
Joined: Mon 27 Oct 2014, 15:09:47

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Sun 01 Apr 2018, 14:27:18

Not that it has anything to do with PO but the increase in oil prices has Wall Street hopped up again. Working with a small pubco now (with nothing behind them) that’s trying to do a deal with a fund that will provide 100% financing for a production acquisition deal. Has to be all (or mostly) oil reserves and “proved” producing. My pubco doesn’t care much about the due diligence since they won’t anything invested and thus make some money even if the deal is crap.

And will be interesting to see how much due diligence the fund throws at it. For folks unfamiliar with how these funds work: investors pledge $X million to the fund. The fund has a fixed period of time to bring in appropriate projects if they do the investors write the checks. But if the fund expires then those pledges cancel. Which means the fund managers don’t make sh*t: they get a % commission but only f they find the right projects to cause those checks to be written. IOW some funds won’t loo too closely at the value of a deal in order to close the fund and get their commission. The word I got was that these fund managers are “desperate” for a deal…any deal. Which probably means those pledges are about to expire. Fortunately for them I have a good project to pitch. But someone might sell them a crappy deal first.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11031
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby coffeeguyzz » Sun 01 Apr 2018, 16:16:08

Thanks for the info and good luck with the potential project, RM.

Most US pensions are still operating under premise of 7 to 8 1/2% annual return.
Preposterous as well as dangerous.
Makes decision makers a little more ... receptive ... to long shot efforts.
coffeeguyzz
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 241
Joined: Mon 27 Oct 2014, 15:09:47

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Sun 01 Apr 2018, 18:22:44

coffeeguyzz wrote:Thanks for the info and good luck with the potential project, RM.

Most US pensions are still operating under premise of 7 to 8 1/2% annual return.
Preposterous as well as dangerous.
Makes decision makers a little more ... receptive ... to long shot efforts.

Preposterous?? NO The fund that is paying me made 13.5% last year.
https://www.nhrs.org/about-nhrs/news/ar ... -year-2017
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 8873
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby marmico » Tue 03 Apr 2018, 06:04:24

Preposterous?? NO The fund that is paying me made 13.5% last year.


Too funny. Take a 42% haircut on your monthly benefit as the plan is 58% actuarially funded.

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017 ... ng-ratios/
marmico
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 761
Joined: Mon 28 Jul 2014, 13:46:35

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Tue 03 Apr 2018, 08:46:50

marmico wrote:
Preposterous?? NO The fund that is paying me made 13.5% last year.


Too funny. Take a 42% haircut on your monthly benefit as the plan is 58% actuarially funded.

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017 ... ng-ratios/

No haircut needed and I already have drawn on it for twelve years.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 8873
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby marmico » Tue 03 Apr 2018, 09:19:09

No haircut needed and I already have drawn on it for twelve years.


Idiot. Get a side gig logging your inherited acreage or running a sugar shack, bozo. You have been f**king the then 23 year old and now 35 year old millennial contributor to the plan for the last 12 years, moron.
marmico
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 761
Joined: Mon 28 Jul 2014, 13:46:35

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Tue 03 Apr 2018, 09:48:00

vt - Of course. Despite the recent decline look at the market increase the first year of our new POTUS. Every well balanced fund should have had similar gains. But the gain during 2018 might prove different. Time will tell.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11031
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests