Exploring Hydrocarbon Depletion
NEW! Members Only Forums!
Access more articles, news & discussion by becoming a PeakOil.com Member.
Cynus wrote:Exxon is relying on the US Geological survey's 2000 results for their 2 trillion barrels remaining estimate. Those results have been roundly ridiculed as vastly optimistic, and have proved to be wildly inaccurate in the 6 years they have been released.
Here is the problem with US Geological survey's estimate. The world’s conventional oil production presently has an ERoEI of about 17 - 18 to 1, and falling. The ERoEI on gasoline is somewhere in the neighborhood of 5-6 to 1. Meaning that the ERoEI loses 12 to 13 points in the processing and transportation of the crude. If we start pumping, squeezing and mining sources, such as the tar sands, that have ERoEI's of less than 10, we will get negative energy returns on the finished products. The question is not about how much oil is in the ground, (presently world oil reserves are about 6 trillion barrels), the question is, how much energy is available from the oil. This is simple Thermodynamics 101, First and Second law stuff. You would think that these buffoons could figure that out!
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!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests