Peak Oil News and Message Boards

pstarr wrote:You trolls are pikers, don't even know what a model is lol

Whether the troll community realizes it or not . . . oil is a substance in the ground. It obeys laws of chemistry, physics, gravity, entropy . . . and common sense. All there in proper proportion . . . like a recipe. For brownies lol

And these laws trump economics because as all of you naysayers say it is about supply/demand. And supply is determined by said laws. All the demand cannot make more supply magically appear

Midnight Oil wrote:Marmico are you one of those....please don't point out the obvious!
Go, name call some place else or Kubbie will post you on the Rogue Gallery of his, he is so proud of...you couldn't make this stuff up...really.

You shouldn't even be here Futilitist/Whatever/SumYunGai/Midnight Oil. You got banned for life...twice. Now you are back evading your moderator ban in clear violation of the COC.

70 - A valid point but a little quibble: entropy is not physical law as the others you mention. It is a thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system.

The entropy of our oil consumption dynamic is a function of the efficiency of that system. But that also leads to the question of defining that "efficiency". Based on what: Btu's in vs Btu's out or $'s in vs $'s out? Similar to how EROEI has no direct control over the development decisions dealing with petroleum projects.

IOW how fast oil flows out of the pores in a rock is a function of those physical laws. Whether someone spends capex to get that oil flowing has less to do with entropy and more controlled by the rate of return for that investment. IOW I can burn 100 Btu's to produce 80 Btu's if I can sell those 80 for 20% more then the 100 cost me. OTOH I won't produce 100 Btu's even if it only takes 80 Btu's to do so if I lose money doing so.

So I don't care what the entropy or EROEI might be: it's my f*cking money and I'll decide how I will or won't invest it. LOL.

"You shouldn't even be here Futilitist/Whatever/SumYunGai/Midnight Oil. You got banned for life...twice."

The person with zero connections knows all; how ironic. There is not much chance that this is Loren. How come they don't ban paid pimps? Tell us about your contacts: the Domino Pizza delivery kid that brings pizza to your mothers basement.

We are getting a number of reports via phone calls, and emails from people working in the refinery industry that high material costs, from low yields, is seriously hurting even the big refineries. We just had a request from Steve St. Angelo of the SRS Rocco report to prepare an article on the subject, https://srsroccoreport.com/. Keep an eye out for it in the next week or two. We will leave out all the stupid pictures of brownie makers contacting the spirits.

onlooker wrote: Short is saying that we passed the point when the energy derived in total from oil is less then the energy needed to access and deliver that oil.

He keeps saying that but that don't make it so.
We will someday pass that point but current real numbers say we are not there yet and it will take the watering out of several mid east and Russian fields before we actually get there. That Shorties math and results are that far off shows his model is seriously flawed and hence worthless.

ROCKMAN wrote:vt - "His failure to do that correctly is undoubtedly why his conclusions are false and absurd on their face." Again, that's rather harsh, buddy.

LOL.

Yes I've been mean to those less fortunate.
I'll try to do better.
I can change.
..............
If I have to!

but current real numbers say we are not there yet --And how do you know that? You have your own model meticulously analyzing the energetic/thermodynamic status of Oil? If so I pray you show us. Hills group is using EIA data but then rigorously subjecting it to their analysis. Otherwise, your barrel counting is a moot point

pstarr wrote:

onlooker wrote:but current real numbers say we are not there yet --And how do you know that? You have your own model meticulously analyzing the energetic/thermodynamic status of Oil? If so I pray you show us. Hills group is using EIA data but then rigorously subjecting it to their analysis. Otherwise, your barrel counting is a moot point

Well said, mon frère

onlooker wrote:but current real numbers say we are not there yet --And how do you know that? You have your own model meticulously analyzing the energetic/thermodynamic status of Oil? If so I pray you show us. Hills group is using EIA data but then rigorously subjecting it to their analysis. Otherwise, your barrel counting is a moot point

LOL
Their "Rigorous analysis" Has (what is it exactly?) 40 odd percent of crude oil entering a refinery being consumed inside the refinery to refine the other 60 percent. That is totally at odds with reality where the only crude consumed inside refineries is still gas and petroleum coke used for catalyst and the volumes of those are almost perfectly balanced by refinery gains.
So Shorties numbers are off by a factor of 40 percent. That's really rigorous .LOL
For my "model" Let us consider light tight oil fracked in the US. At $70/bl and up things were perking along nicely and drillers were making profits. Then the Saudi's opened up the taps (stupidly) and dropped the price below $40, companies that were nothing but fracking LTO started to lose money and go bankrupt , drilling activity nose dived and production began to decline. Now the price has risen to more then $45 and today passed $50. Drilling activity has increased and LTO production is increasing.
My very sophisticated model now predicts that the break even point for light tight fracked oil lies somewhere between $45 and $50 today and prices will average between $45 and $60 as long as LTO can fill the gap between conventional oil production ,+ the heavy oils ,+ dilbit and demand.

vt - Once more the Rockman must apologize for letting group down by making bad assumptions. Such as thinking everyone here understood how a refinery works. But you got me thinking many may not; that they don't understand that the last time crude oil was used to run the US refining process was 1999 and then only used 10,000 bbls FOR THE ENTIRE YEAR.

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/PET_PNP_CA ... _NUS_A.htm

For 2015:

By far the largest energy source used to refine crude oil is NG: 850,000 million cuft. Still gas is a distant second 230,000 million cuft. And for those who don't know what "still gas" is: "Any form or mixture of gases produced in refineries by distillation, cracking, reforming, and other processes. The principal constituents of still gas are methane and ethane. Still gas is typically consumed as refinery fuel or used as petrochemical feedstock." Most important: still gas does not contain the longer hydrocarbon chains that make up motor fuels and most of the other products.

The only other significant fossil fuel used in the process is "Catalyst Petroleum Coke": " In petroleum coker units, residual oils from other distillation processes used in petroleum refining are treated catalytically at a high temperature and pressure leaving the petcoke after driving off gases and volatiles, and separating off remaining light and heavy oils. .IOW chains that might be mixed in with the other liquid portion of the distillation process."

So again I must apologize since I seldom read much of the details about a model that lacks any relevance to the petroleum industry where I've been employed for the last 4 decades.

But: "So Shorties numbers are off by a factor of 40 percent. That's really rigorous ." So how many here didn't understand that no portion of the energy used to make gasoline, diesel and most of the other products actually came from the crude oil itself? For you I sincerely regret not having presented the actual EIA numbers linked above that proves that FACT.

pstarr - So the model "is a mathematical model that accurately mirrors the maximum money folks spend on oil at any point in time . . . and the maximum oil that will be produced. It seems to have been proven remarkably accurate . . . as far as I can tell."

So in 1998 when oil was selling for less the $20/bbl the Wood Group predicted the price would more then double in less the 2 years? And that in 2002 the Wood Group predicted oil would increase to $140+/bbl by 2008? And then fall to $58/bbl in 2009. And then in mid 2009 the Wood Group predicted oil would increase to $100/bbl in a few years but then just a few years later fall to under $50/bbl?

So these were the oil price predictions the Wood Group started making 20 years ago. I think we would love to see you post those old reports when those predictions were made. Thanks in advance.

The masturbators who dismiss any accounting for energy in oil extraction implicitly assume and assert that there will always be cheaper energy sources to extract the expensive oil (and gas). Where is there as single shred of evidence of cheaper energy sources being deployed in oil and gas extraction? You clowns can't get away with some spontaneous future transition to these mythical cheap sources since any such transition requires years of expensive infrastructure development.

Rockman, you're misinterpreting the model. The model never says anything about the type of fuel/source that is used to process the raw crude. The model neither says anything about volumes or barrels of oil.

The model is focused on the energy that you need to obtain the final product and distribute it to the end consumer. The moment you need to spend more energy to put the same unit of energy (Coming from petroleum) into the market is when you have to worry- When the first overcomes the second, petroleum companies go out of the business.

ROCKMAN wrote:But: "So Shorties numbers are off by a factor of 40 percent. That's really rigorous ." So how many here didn't understand that no portion of the energy used to make gasoline, diesel and most of the other products actually came from the crude oil itself?

For you I sincerely regret not having presented the actual EIA numbers linked above that proves that FACT.

You and I have repeatedly presented the actual EIA numbers only to have them go yapping off into ad homs or other totally irrelevant side issues with very long verbal diarrhea to turn the page and hide the facts we have presented from new readers.
How many times must we post the facts before these idiots are driven away one way or the other?

pstarr - My bad. I've been reading so much from the Wood Group lately I had it on my mind. Sub Hill Group for the Wood Group in that post.