Page 11 of 25

Re: I.E.A. states we have 9 trillion barrels left

Unread postPosted: Thu 18 Feb 2010, 15:45:43
by shortonsense
rangerone314 wrote:
pstarr wrote:
shortonsense wrote: roof roads
So let's play engineer and drag out the napkin. :P Does $100 sq. ft. foot sound right for an steel beam engineered tunnel?

There are 41,000 miles of county roads in PA. A two lane county road is (with breakdown lane, curbs, drains, right of way, etc. ) ~80 ft. That roof would cost 41,000*5280*80*100=$1.7 trillion

PA townships and municipalities control 67,000 miles of road in PA. A two-lane town road is about -50ft. Those roofs will cost 51,376**5280*50*100=$1.8 trillion

Or do we need to spend $1000 sq. ft. foot? Do we need to roof the scooters? How many ICE's do we need to crush?

Awwww... no need to spoil the fun with FACTS!!!!


And there is no need to assume that his post contains any such thing.

Re: I.E.A. states we have 9 trillion barrels left

Unread postPosted: Thu 18 Feb 2010, 16:39:02
by copious.abundance
pstarr wrote:. . . when I pointed out that natural gas pipelines and electric transmission lines do not follow interstates . . .

Oh really? Then, all those gas stations, houses, farms and businesses found along the interstates must be powered by horse manure?

And, as has been pointed out to you multiple times, natural gas lines run just about everywhere in the country. You can even drive from LA to Miami, Seattle and New York and always be just a stone's throw from a natural gas line.

Image

pstarr wrote:Good. Do I get paid for your elementary education in Real World Studies?

No, sorry, you don't get paid a dime, cuz you just massively failed Real World Studies.

Re: I.E.A. states we have 9 trillion barrels left

Unread postPosted: Thu 18 Feb 2010, 20:14:12
by shortonsense
pstarr wrote:Shorty, I did make not make a mistake--the total costs are correct. I did made a transposition error. The second calc. should have said 67,000 (not 51,376)*5280*50*100=$1.8 trillion.


Maybe they were, maybe they weren't. I wasn't about to proof someone's calculations who proclaims that there is no locally grown produce in America. I don't mind you living in an alternate reality, I just object to you pretending that the rest of us should live in it with you, I'm certainly not about to encourage such behavior. Go troll someone else.

Re: I.E.A. states we have 9 trillion barrels left

Unread postPosted: Thu 18 Feb 2010, 20:21:57
by shortonsense
OilFinder2 wrote:
pstarr wrote:Good. Do I get paid for your elementary education in Real World Studies?

No, sorry, you don't get paid a dime, cuz you just massively failed Real World Studies.


His world is different. They build a dozen gigawatt coal fired powerplants a year in the US there, sublimation isn't taught in chemistry classes to "masters" of science and EROEI is used by all the oil companies to decide which projects to give the go ahead to. Its a weird place.

Re: I.E.A. states we have 9 trillion barrels left

Unread postPosted: Thu 18 Feb 2010, 20:49:27
by SeaGypsy
In the Philippines a gallon of petrol or diesel costs about $4. Wages average between $5 and $10 PER DAY. The standard transport is a 125cc motorcycle with a sidecar on. They have customised roofing and windscreens. These 150mpg vehicles suffice in torrential rain and will carry a family of 4 in reasonable comfort (dry, padded seats). Once you get used to these they are a lot of fun. A Japanese made one will set you back $1200 US a chinese one about 2/3rds of that. For longer journeys there are jeepneys and busses. The jeepneys are extended 4 cylinder diesels which get 50mpg with room for 20 people with luggage. Busses are the standard thing for journeys over 10 miles. There are 3 motorbikes/ trikes on the road for every car. Virtually all cars are small engined. This situation was not brought about by legislation but by real cost to earnings.

Re: I.E.A. states we have 9 trillion barrels left

Unread postPosted: Thu 18 Feb 2010, 22:12:24
by copious.abundance
This is so clueless I don't know why I bother, but . . .
pstarr wrote:pretty picture. cute concept, but really not too relevant.

These are collection and bulk distribution lines and do not service population or transportation clusters . . .

So you mean to tell me all those transmission lines exist in isolation and don't serve anyone? :lol: :lol: I suppose they just kinda lie there, filled with gas, but the gas goes nowhere. :lol: :lol:

pstarr wrote:Note also that New Jersey, New Hampshire, Vermont, North Carolina etc. are appear to have little service.

Utterly, totally clueless!!! :lol:

In New Jersey there are 2.6 million residential natural gas customers.

Image

New Hampshire has 95,000 residential natural gas customers

Image

North Carolina has over 1 million residential natural gas consumers

Image

And Vermont has 35,000 residential natural gas consumers

Image
Source for all

Plus each state has commercial users as well.

I suppose the natural gas for these people arrives out of thin air! :lol:

Re: I.E.A. states we have 9 trillion barrels left

Unread postPosted: Thu 18 Feb 2010, 22:41:02
by copious.abundance
pstarr wrote:In the big cities or suburbs. But not along the interstates where big trucks drive. You need to get out more. Leave the basement keyboard and get some fresh air

Here is a map of Piedmont Natural Gas' service area:
http://www.piedmontng.com/aboutUs/servi ... /ncRegion#

Notice they even service the rural areas of eastern North Carolina, where there supposedly aren't any transmission lines on the map above.

Image

Down the road in South Carolina, you can also get natural gas service from another company in most of the state.

http://www.sceg.com/en/small-business/c ... -area-map/

Image

Piedmont Natural Gas (see first link) serves elsewhere in South Carolina.

http://www.piedmontng.com/aboutUs/servi ... n/scRegion

Image

But go ahead, continue making up your little "facts," it's a lot of fun displaying how clueless you are! :lol:

Re: I.E.A. states we have 9 trillion barrels left

Unread postPosted: Thu 18 Feb 2010, 22:56:24
by shortonsense
pstarr wrote:
shortonsense wrote:and EROEI is used by all the oil companies to decide which projects to give the go ahead to. Its a weird place.
I believe you mean your ex-buddy, tar-sands middle-manager MD20/20 (maddog :lol: )does not understand net energy analysis.


No...what Maddog explained to us was that EROEI was never used as a criteria to decide to explore for, drill, complete or produce a well in the history of the known world.

And when questioned about your experience in the field to refute his statement, you did the old shuck and jive and ran away rather than admit you didn't know a thing about it.

Re: I.E.A. states we have 9 trillion barrels left

Unread postPosted: Fri 19 Feb 2010, 02:40:17
by TonyPrep
shortonsense wrote:
TonyPrep wrote:
shortonsense wrote:Good thing I specialize in science and critical thinking
Oh boy.

Shakes head in disbelief.
Don't worry Tony. My days of managing big projects are over, now I just instruct children in how to think for themselves. :-D
You may well put a smiley on it but that is even more worrying, if true.

Re: I.E.A. states we have 9 trillion barrels left

Unread postPosted: Fri 19 Feb 2010, 04:14:33
by shortonsense
TonyPrep wrote:
shortonsense wrote:
TonyPrep wrote:
shortonsense wrote:Good thing I specialize in science and critical thinking
Oh boy.

Shakes head in disbelief.
Don't worry Tony. My days of managing big projects are over, now I just instruct children in how to think for themselves. :-D
You may well put a smiley on it but that is even more worrying, if true.


Only to true believers, only to true believers.

Re: I.E.A. states we have 9 trillion barrels left

Unread postPosted: Fri 19 Feb 2010, 10:03:11
by rangerone314
EROEI is a silly concept for an energy company to worry about.

If it were to take 3 barrels of oil to extract 2 barrels of oil the oil company would be losing MONEY.

And they would be losing money long before the 2:3 ratio, because of expenses other than raw materials, cost of goods sold etc (like overhead, adminstrative & salary expenses, maintenance)

Its like a doctor worrying about lead poisoning from someone who has been shot 20 times: the patient will die from blood loss and shock long before lead poisoning becomes an issue.

Re: I.E.A. states we have 9 trillion barrels left

Unread postPosted: Fri 19 Feb 2010, 10:32:41
by shortonsense
rangerone314 wrote:EROEI is a silly concept for an energy company to worry about.

If it were to take 3 barrels of oil to extract 2 barrels of oil the oil company would be losing MONEY.


Oil Returned on Oil Invested is not EROEI.

What if the company invested 3 barrel equivalents of natural gas energy to get 2 barrels of oil out? They could make money.

rangerone314 wrote:And they would be losing money long before the 2:3 ratio, because of expenses other than raw materials, cost of goods sold etc (like overhead, adminstrative & salary expenses, maintenance)


Good thing it isn't Oil Invested On Oil Returned then.

Re: I.E.A. states we have 9 trillion barrels left

Unread postPosted: Fri 19 Feb 2010, 11:03:24
by rangerone314
If the playing field between different forms of energy gets leveled, as some cornucopians would suggest (if electricity and natural gas get increasing used for transportation) then return-on-energy not return-on-petroleum would be relevant...

In the future you will either be able to chose your forms of energy for transportation etc or NOT and a substitution effect would suggest a balancing of prices between different forms, give or take production stability/predictibility.

EROEI is irrelevant for practical purposes because money serves not only as a proxy for energy, but as a medium of exchange for other activities, not all of which require much energy. (A scissors haircut for $15 requires less energy than 5 gallons of gasoline will produce)

Companies and governments only use scientists to discover what is theoretically possible, they use accountants and actuaries to determine what is affordable. Obviously there are fewer things that are affordable than are theoretically possible... you could have EROEI of 2:1 and if for some reason your overhead was too high and non-energy expenses were high, then your company would still go belly up.

If EROEI (and NOT MONEY) was the deciding factor EVER, then you would never see any energy companies fail before EROEI goes below 1. (Ask George W Bush about Spectrum 7)

Re: I.E.A. states we have 9 trillion barrels left

Unread postPosted: Fri 19 Feb 2010, 16:57:08
by TonyPrep
shortonsense wrote:What if the company invested 3 barrel equivalents of natural gas energy to get 2 barrels of oil out? They could make money.
Of course it would make sense to the energy company. It makes no sense to anyone else (except you and the cornies), unless that gas is stranded.

From the climate perspective, it makes no sense at all.

Re: I.E.A. states we have 9 trillion barrels left

Unread postPosted: Fri 19 Feb 2010, 21:14:18
by shortonsense
TonyPrep wrote:
shortonsense wrote:What if the company invested 3 barrel equivalents of natural gas energy to get 2 barrels of oil out? They could make money.
Of course it would make sense to the energy company. It makes no sense to anyone else (except you and the cornies), unless that gas is stranded.

From the climate perspective, it makes no sense at all.


I think you missed the point on this one Tony.