Moderator: Pops


venky wrote:It's kind of like being trapped in the desert. You have 100 gallons of fresh water, enough for quite a while. But you can only get the water out at a very slow rate (say a mL per hour). That massive amount of water won't do you any good if you can't get it out faster, now will it?
This the best analogy I've seen to describe the fundamental issue of Peak Oil. Not heard of it before.

Free wrote:The PO guy asks to ration the water in case they don't find new water for a long time, while the cornucopian says:"Don't worry, it will rain!"



emersonbiggins wrote:Free wrote:The PO guy asks to ration the water in case they don't find new water for a long time, while the cornucopian says:"Don't worry, it will rain!"
Worse yet, the cornucopian admits not that he is in a desert, but rather he's in a sugar cane/palm oil plantation-to-be...

Free wrote:I guess that's after the effects of dehydration already have set in...


I've never seen the USGS even mention EROEI, could you post a reference to them saying anything about it?
Unless you have different reserve numbers than those which pop up around here or at the Oildrum?
Negative energy return is however, economically OK; as long as the energy inputs into the system come from fixed, on-transportables like coal and nuclear. The point of tar sands and all the others isn't to get energy, it is to get liquid energy.
the guy is head of exxon or mobile or whatever and probably knows nothing about petroleum. He is a 'manager' a 'delegator,' someone with vision or understands the hard work of consensus-building and team leadership.
so who gives a rat's ass about URR and Proven and Probable and all that other pointy-headed snob stuff. that is for engineers and we buy and sell engineers like paper lanterns.
18 holes anyone?

grabby wrote:With the United States domestic decline in oil production, it is important to research possible tar sand production in America (Alaska). Our consumption continues to increase, as well as our dependence on oil imports. Today, about 59% of the oil consumed in the United States are imported. The deposits of oil sands (oil shale) in the United States are massive. The processing of oil shale has gone through cycles of development and commercialization, all without achieving a competitive cost of production. As well, tar sands are processed on a limited basis. An engineering study was done between the University of Alabama and the Department of Energy. This engineering study provided a preliminary design of a commercial processing facility to beneficiate 39,956 tons per day of run-of -mine eastern oil shale to produce 4.38million tons per year of concentrate. The report included a process plants design recovery of kerogen at 92%, which with `hydroretorting' would produce approximately 20,000 barrels of oil a day. - matt Sexton.
4.38 million TONS per year.
a ton is 7 barrels
that is 28 million Barrels per year.
Well, we need 23 million barrels per DAY in Amrica alone.
so the large process in Canada needs to be multiplied by a thousand times to meet our needs.

shortonoil wrote:ClubOfRomeII said:I've never seen the USGS even mention EROEI, could you post a reference to them saying anything about it?
Well gee, surpass -surpass, the USGS has never said anything about ERoEI. Why would they be concerned with a thermodynamic problem?






Richard wrote:Just to let you know that the CIA have whipped out another 300 billion barrels! That means we've discovered more in the 2002-2005 period than we've consumed!
Yeah baby!

RdSnt wrote:Measuring the cost and return on investment of oil should always be meaured in energy used rather than dollars spent. This is particularly true now that we are close or on PO.
If you use EROEI, then Alaskan oil and the Canadian tar sands should be closed down. You expend more energy retrieving the resource than you get in return.
Then stop driving to work, duh..... Learn to Work from home

RdSnt wrote:If you use EROEI, then Alaskan oil and the Canadian tar sands should be closed down. You expend more energy retrieving the resource than you get in return.


Kingcoal wrote:If we are going to include Canadian tar sands, why not shale oil also? The US has about 2 trillion barrels of shale oil! Add that to the tar sands and North America is soaking in oil! Maybe North America should be concerned about being invaded and occupied?
Oil Shale Activities


Keith_McClary wrote:Kingcoal wrote:If we are going to include Canadian tar sands, why not shale oil also? The US has about 2 trillion barrels of shale oil! Add that to the tar sands and North America is soaking in oil! Maybe North America should be concerned about being invaded and occupied?
Oil Shale Activities
And also why not include zillions of firkins of methane on Saturn's moon Titan?

Users browsing this forum: PeggyOCO and 19 guests