Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Economics vs. ETP

Discuss research and forecasts regarding hydrocarbon depletion.

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby asg70 » Fri 15 Dec 2017, 17:32:26

pstarr wrote:I am an ecological doomer.


Who just happens to deny/downplay climate change. Forgive me if I don't pin a medal on you. You and Plant should go fly to Greece together for all your false-piety.

BOLD PREDICTIONS
-Billions are on the verge of starvation as the lockdown continues. (yoshua, 5/20/20)

HALL OF SHAME:
-Short welched on a bet and should be shunned.
-Frequent-flyers should not cry crocodile-tears over climate-change.
asg70
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 4290
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2017, 14:17:28

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby kublikhan » Fri 15 Dec 2017, 18:13:56

pstarr wrote:onlooker, that's an important link that everyone needs to read. The various papers on "Energy Payback Time" show that alternative energies are ultimately not useful because they require too much fossil fuels, more than otherwise.

The build-out and replacement of oil power with solar power is impossible. We would need to use 2x oil energy during build-out. Twice as much fossil fuels would be burned up. 1x to keep the current system running, and 1x to construct the alternative system at the same time.
And right here we see someone made a boo boo with their math. If you want to replace X amount of fossil fuel output with renewables, you do not need X amount of ffs to use as input to make the renewables. You need to invest only X/18 of the energy to get the same output:

Broadly speaking, we therefore have two options:
1) keep using all the oil (and other fossil fuels) directly as FEEDSTOCK fuel in conventional power plants. In so doing, we would get out roughly 1/3 of the INPUT energy as electricity (electricity production efficiency in conventional power plants being ~0.33). This would be the "quick and dirty" option, that maximizes the short-term (almost instantaneous, in fact) "bang for the buck".

2) Use the same amount of available oil (and other fossil fuels) as (direct and indirect) INPUT for the production of PV plants.

Building and deploying a modern crystalline silicon PV system requires approximately 3 GJ of primary energy per m2. What this means is that the c-Si PV system would provide an output of electricity roughly equal to 18/3 = 6 times its primary energy input, which corresponds about 6/0.33 = 18 times the amount of electricity that we would have obtained, had we burnt the fuel(s) as FEEDSTOCK in conventional power plants (option 1 above), instead of using them as INPUT for the PV plant.

A planned long-term investment might be advisable, for instance, aimed at bringing about a gradual transition. The latter is in fact what many have been advocating, often only to be met with rather negative ‘gloom and doom’ reactions by others on a number of prominent discussion forums. It seems as if, in the minds of the latter, the desire to show that ‘the emperor has no clothes’ (i.e. that PV and other renewables are not yet, and might never be in full, a real, completely independent and high-EROI alternative to fossil fuels) overrides all other considerations, and prevents them from realizing/admitting that, after all, it may still be reasonable and recommendable to try and push this slow transition forward.
If we have to use fossil fuels to manufacture renewable plants, doesn't it mean that renewables are useless?
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 5002
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Fri 15 Dec 2017, 22:51:45

Why not use X amount of surplus Canadian hydro power to build your panels and wind mills until you have enough of them installed in West Texas to power a production plant or plants there? Even if the math says you are just transporting Canadian energy to Texas it would save a lot of transmission lines.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 14897
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby Yoshua » Sat 16 Dec 2017, 03:03:32

Economy vs. Etp

Net profit = Net Energy Gain

The shale oil and gas companies can't make a Net Profit since there is no Net Energy Gain from their operations.

The Cash Flow is coming from the Federal Reserves printing press.
Yoshua
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1977
Joined: Sat 28 May 2016, 06:45:42

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby shortonoil » Sat 16 Dec 2017, 08:07:11

Who just happens to deny/downplay climate change. Forgive me if I don't pin a medal on you. You and Plant should go fly to Greece together for all your false-piety.


You should fly to the nearest reading room for remedial readers. We will have reached the end of the oil age, and our civilization will have collapsed as a result, That will happen before climate change destroys it. The frogs, and tent caterpillars you will eating at that point will be coming ready cooked.
User avatar
shortonoil
False ETP Prophet
False ETP Prophet
 
Posts: 7132
Joined: Thu 02 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: VA USA

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby shortonoil » Sat 16 Dec 2017, 08:39:36

A separate report from a global NGO called BankTrack finds that even though coal appears to be on its death bed, financing for coal-fired power plants is still alive and well.


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-12-1 ... l-industry

Sounds like the US Shale industry. Falling EROI meets Central Bank. Low Deliverable Energy meets bankruptcy court.
User avatar
shortonoil
False ETP Prophet
False ETP Prophet
 
Posts: 7132
Joined: Thu 02 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: VA USA

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby Subjectivist » Sat 16 Dec 2017, 08:48:54

Yoshua wrote:Economy vs. Etp

Net profit = Net Energy Gain

The shale oil and gas companies can't make a Net Profit since there is no Net Energy Gain from their operations.

The Cash Flow is coming from the Federal Reserves printing press.


Supply glut = low prices
Low prices = less drilling
Less drilling = lower supply
Lower supply = higher prices
Higher prices = more drilling
More drilling = greater supply
Greater supply = supply glut

Rinse, lather, repeat
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
Subjectivist
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4701
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 07:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby onlooker » Sat 16 Dec 2017, 10:10:44

Except that this cycle is recently being broken by a shortfall of Net Energy and Shale companies are the main victims of this now. All this being masked be the magical lending/printing press.
Nominal Inflation adjusted
2015 $41.85 $43.22
2016 $36.34 $37.02
2017 (Partial) $42.74 $42.63
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10957
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 13:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby asg70 » Sat 16 Dec 2017, 10:55:17



Another day, another lame-ass appeal to Zerohedge for authority.

Image

You know, if you guys derive all of your knowledge about the world from Zerohedge I don't see the point of having a separate forum here. Just hang out over there and be done with it. I mean, they DO have comments at the bottom. But why just take every single fricken thing you read on ZH and cross-post it here?

BOLD PREDICTIONS
-Billions are on the verge of starvation as the lockdown continues. (yoshua, 5/20/20)

HALL OF SHAME:
-Short welched on a bet and should be shunned.
-Frequent-flyers should not cry crocodile-tears over climate-change.
asg70
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 4290
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2017, 14:17:28

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby onlooker » Sat 16 Dec 2017, 11:09:30

I think it is the more pessimistic posts emanating from ZH that are bothering you. That manifests a bias against them
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10957
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 13:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby Cog » Sat 16 Dec 2017, 12:22:38

Yes, its natural to be biased against a source that is constantly wrong with their doom predictions. If the ETP model would have started out as a scholarly approach to the thermodynamics of oil, it would still have been wrong but not rejected outright, because it contains such verbiage as "we are all going to die, run for your lives".
User avatar
Cog
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13416
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Northern Kekistan

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby onlooker » Sat 16 Dec 2017, 12:37:32

because it contains such verbiage as "we are all going to die, run for your _---
It contains no such verbiage. It simply concludes the Oil Industry will reach a dead state. From that people can reach their own conclusions about what happens next. But considering the importance of Oil to modern Economies, one should expect bad things to happen
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10957
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 13:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby marmico » Sat 16 Dec 2017, 13:28:51

The ETP Model entitled Depletion: A determination for the world's petroleum reserve dated March 1, 2015, clearly states in the abstract:

The ETP function generated is an accurate predictor of historic and future petroleum prices, production, and the depletion status of the world's petroleum reserve.

Now that the future petroleum price is dead could we please have the posting of the future production status so everyone can ben dover in laughter. I can wait another year for the posting of depletion status of the world's petroleum reserve.
marmico
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1112
Joined: Mon 28 Jul 2014, 14:46:35

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby AdamB » Sat 16 Dec 2017, 14:18:53

marmico wrote:The ETP Model entitled Depletion: A determination for the world's petroleum reserve dated March 1, 2015, clearly states in the abstract:

The ETP function generated is an accurate predictor of historic and future petroleum prices, production, and the depletion status of the world's petroleum reserve.

Now that the future petroleum price is dead could we please have the posting of the future production status so everyone can ben dover in laughter. I can wait another year for the posting of depletion status of the world's petroleum reserve.


Marmico, I've got a PM in with Shorty on how he would like the report you mention footnoted. Are you aware of any place it has been published? I don't mean just the one that Short has on his website, but actually been accepted somewhere and published? I would prefer to footnote an actual publication rather than something Short can change online to make errors disappear as they are found.
Plant Thu 27 Jul 2023 "Personally I think the IEA is exactly right when they predict peak oil in the 2020s, especially because it matches my own predictions."

Plant Wed 11 Apr 2007 "I think Deffeyes might have nailed it, and we are just past the overall peak in oil production. (Thanksgiving 2005)"
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 9292
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby asg70 » Sat 16 Dec 2017, 14:21:27

onlooker wrote:I think it is the more pessimistic posts emanating from ZH that are bothering you. That manifests a bias against them


According to the same logic, people who weren't moved by Harold Camping's doomsaying were just biased against him. At some point source matters. A source who is obsessed with only doom is only ever going to spin doom and that should be met with skepticism. That goes for ZH, PeakProsperity, Ugo Bardi, and the rest of the usual suspects that doomers limit themselves to in their appeals to authority.

BOLD PREDICTIONS
-Billions are on the verge of starvation as the lockdown continues. (yoshua, 5/20/20)

HALL OF SHAME:
-Short welched on a bet and should be shunned.
-Frequent-flyers should not cry crocodile-tears over climate-change.
asg70
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 4290
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2017, 14:17:28

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby onlooker » Sat 16 Dec 2017, 15:00:43

In related humor

https://www.canadiangeographic.ca/artic ... ustainable
Seriously?
How about asking does human stupidity know no
bounds?
Am I in Dantes Inferno in the level ring of ironic humor
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10957
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 13:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby dcoyne78 » Sat 16 Dec 2017, 17:39:56

Hi Rockdoc and Rockman,

A good site giving data on average well productivity is

https://shaleprofile.com/index.php/2017/11/27/permian-update-through-september-2017/

Mike Shellman thinks 36 month payout is needed for decent ROR, another oil guy (shallow sand) at POB thinks a 60 month payout will do.

The Rystad study left out a lot of costs in it's study. The average cumulative for a Permiam well with first flow in 2016 is about 250 kbo over 60 months and maybe 200 kbo over 36 months. Make sure you include land cost and G&A costs in your well cost estimate to reflect full cycle cost.

At $50/b, I believe Mike Shellman's case for the poor economics of the average Permian well is compelling. The EUR of the average Permian well is about 425 kb of oil, not a lot of profit from the associated natural gas at current prices.
dcoyne78
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 476
Joined: Thu 30 May 2013, 19:45:15

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby dcoyne78 » Sun 17 Dec 2017, 10:58:14

AdamB wrote:
dcoyne78 wrote:Hi Rockdoc and Rockman,

A good site giving data on average well productivity is

https://shaleprofile.com/index.php/2017/11/27/permian-update-through-september-2017/


And where might the "average" formation in the Permian be located? Its depth and porosity? Thickness? Thermal maturity? Can you map this average formation, can't say I've ever seen it listed anywhere in the BEG Report of Investigations No. 271, the folks who probably keep a decent list of such things!

An "average" American has 1 testicle and 1 breast, but are terribly difficult to find as well. :)


Hi AdamB,

This is based on output data of all the horizontal wells completed through August 2017 in the Permian Basin in Texas and New Mexico.

The data you are looking for is proprietary and I do not have access to.

The economics of the completed wells will be based on average cost and average output, this gives a picture of the average for the LTO industry in the Permian basin.
dcoyne78
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 476
Joined: Thu 30 May 2013, 19:45:15

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby AdamB » Sun 17 Dec 2017, 11:48:51

onlooker wrote:The Royal society is a compromised institution as it is an elite one. The elites would be the last ones to sound the alarm as they most benefit from BAU


So it is a conspiracy then?

How very..predictable.
Plant Thu 27 Jul 2023 "Personally I think the IEA is exactly right when they predict peak oil in the 2020s, especially because it matches my own predictions."

Plant Wed 11 Apr 2007 "I think Deffeyes might have nailed it, and we are just past the overall peak in oil production. (Thanksgiving 2005)"
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 9292
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby AdamB » Sun 17 Dec 2017, 12:06:45

dcoyne78 wrote:
AdamB wrote:
dcoyne78 wrote:Hi Rockdoc and Rockman,

A good site giving data on average well productivity is

https://shaleprofile.com/index.php/2017/11/27/permian-update-through-september-2017/


And where might the "average" formation in the Permian be located? Its depth and porosity? Thickness? Thermal maturity? Can you map this average formation, can't say I've ever seen it listed anywhere in the BEG Report of Investigations No. 271, the folks who probably keep a decent list of such things!

An "average" American has 1 testicle and 1 breast, but are terribly difficult to find as well. :)


Hi AdamB,

This is based on output data of all the horizontal wells completed through August 2017 in the Permian Basin in Texas and New Mexico.

The data you are looking for is proprietary and I do not have access to.


I do. Sorry for busting your chops about this "average" thing but I've had the same go round with just about anyone who has been forced into making a sweeping generalization without being able to nail down the independent variable. And that isn't horizontal wells in some basin or another, but a geological formation and the Darcy's Law particulars that come from it. Sometimes even down to a bench within it, the Wolfcamp in the Delaware and Midland being a perfect example.

The economics are specific to that geology.

dcoyne78 wrote:
The economics of the completed wells will be based on average cost and average output, this gives a picture of the average for the LTO industry in the Permian basin.


The economics of the completed wells will be based on the GEOLOGY underlying the production. Not even the AVERAGE of that geology, but the SPECIFICS of that geology reached by the wellbore and accompanying pressure cell. And that then leads to the next obvious observation...this is not a deterministic answer.

There are other nuances to this as well, such as the average slowly shifting upwards during sweet spot development, and shifting downwards as development outside the known sweetspots dominates. It depends on which part of the life cycle of development you are dealing with, later development as you might find in the Eagle Ford, or early cycle of development in the Wolfcamp in the Midland and Delaware.
Plant Thu 27 Jul 2023 "Personally I think the IEA is exactly right when they predict peak oil in the 2020s, especially because it matches my own predictions."

Plant Wed 11 Apr 2007 "I think Deffeyes might have nailed it, and we are just past the overall peak in oil production. (Thanksgiving 2005)"
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 9292
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

PreviousNext

Return to Peak oil studies, reports & models

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests