Peak Oil News and Message Boards

Posted: **Sat 02 Oct 2010, 17:54:35**

I sure miss good homegrown peaches, the springtimes here are just too variable for much of a crop.

Carlhole wrote:Yeah, it's OK. the world has obviously shrugged off oil at prices of $100 and below.

I know you think the economy is just humming along carl, we must move in different circles so I'm just gonna disagree, in fact the economy worries me more than energy today.

Carlhole wrote:These higher prices have spurred all sorts of energy development activity. And it's a good thing

I agree with that and since I also think they have hurt the economy - killing off "dead-wood" or inefficient jobs and businesses, they've pushed us down the road to changing to a lower energy future. We're better off than we were a few years ago on that score.

That last bit is where I think we differ - you believe we'll extract/innovate our way to at least the level of luxury we have today and I think we will adapt to a lower level of energy use and consumption.

As for the climate change part I don't really pay much attention because like you say, we've lots of carbon left to burn and since I don't think there is any way we're not gonna burn it there isn't much use worrying about it.

Posted: **Sat 02 Oct 2010, 19:01:39**

pstarr wrote:Shale oil will always be just a little too expensive to mine.

Except for the places where it has already happened, is happening now, can be shown to be economical under reasonable conditions and will continue tomorrow?

My position, when reality (particularly historical reality) conflicts with a given worldview, is that the reality isn't where the adjustment needs made.

Posted: **Sat 02 Oct 2010, 20:54:07**

pstarr wrote:For heat in Estonia but not as a liquid-fuel replacement.

My break even cost estimates were for liquid fuels. I did not include the revenue benefits of selling the sulphur and ammonia.

Posted: **Sun 03 Oct 2010, 01:08:57**

Carlhole wrote:...
However, nukes don't get built overnight. They take time. But fortunately, there will be plenty of fossil fuels to last through the period of dramatic nuclear facility construction. Expect to see a thousand state-of-the-art reactors built in China over the next several decades.

Huge new discoveries, such as the Jordanian oil shale, merely provide for additional ample supply of fossil fuels, exerting a moderating price pressure. Gradually, nuclear energy will allow for a complete phase out of the filthiest fossil fuels.

As a moderate, I have to say Carl that I hope you're right. Clearly there is lots of oil out there. How much longer will it be affordable for the middle class to burn it though? The "several decades" you cite to build out the Nuclear facilities (and also the electric car facilities IMO) is a mighty long time, given the ascendancy of the third world middle class who want cars.

Consider China. I recently read two interesting articles in the WSJ abut China and cars over the next decade. The first said Chinese car demand is expected to soar from about 10 million/year now to about 17 million/year by the end of the decade. So, that's roughly 135 million new cars. Allowing for say 35 million to be wrecked or die of old age, that gives us roughly 100 million net additional cars in China alone in the next decade.

The second article discussed China's "aggressive" plans to build "green" cars in the coming decade. If all goes well, China hopes to have a total of 5 million "green" cars on the road by the end of the decade. And that includes hybrids, which of course burn gasoline.

Now, think about India and the rest of the third world. And about how expensive it will be to get at much of the new oil being found (if/when various governments allow it given the environmental issues).

Everything may end up dandy, but with all the cries of doom over $4.00 gas in the U.S., I hate to see what things will look like economically if we have sustained average oil prices of $200ish (or more) in the next 10 to 15 years, as we struggle to transform away from it.

Posted: **Sun 03 Oct 2010, 04:06:41**

Xenophobe wrote:
pstarr wrote:Shale oil will always be just a little too expensive to mine.

Except for the places where it has already happened, is happening now, can be shown to be economical under reasonable conditions and will continue tomorrow?

My position, when reality (particularly historical reality) conflicts with a given worldview, is that the reality isn't where the adjustment needs made.

+1

The article in Petroleum Economist cited a $65 break-even quote from the company Eesti Energia from Estonia where their methods were developed and which expertise they have now sold to the Jordanians. The article's mission was simply to report the agreement between the company and Jordan. I don't know much more than that.

Is that not worth posting somewhere? How impolitic of me to do so here on PO.com.

Posted: **Sun 03 Oct 2010, 12:22:40**

Estonia Energy ought to just consider a few large power stations for Jordan such as those in Estonia, burn the oil shale and ship it out by wire, maybe build an aluminum smelter next door if no electricity buyer can be found. Or do as the UAE did, build an indoor ski resort in the Middle Eastern desert. That ought to eat up a few GWh's!

Of course the carbon dioxide emissions will be horrifically high, though not really any worse than if it were to be converted into liquid fuel and burnt in the engines of all of our boxes-on-wheels.

Posted: **Sun 03 Oct 2010, 12:53:05**

RankineCycle wrote:Of course the carbon dioxide emissions will be horrifically high, though not really any worse than if it were to be converted into liquid fuel and burnt in the engines of all of our boxes-on-wheels.

It has been offered that humans have been altering the planets climate for perhaps 8,000 years now, since the implementation of original irrigation techniques to grow rice (Ruddiman, W.F., 2007, Plows,Plagues and Petroleum:How Humans Took Control of Climate).

Because it seems unlikely that any necessary majority of humankind will want to go back to a pre-irrigation agricultural existence to return the planet to its path to the next glaciation, baby steps like worrying about transportation CO2 emissions seems pretty irrelevant unless we are willing to go "the whole 9 yards" as it were. I agree with Pops, if it can be combusted to do useful work, humans will combust it. If the planet is already doing something other than its next regularly scheduled glaciation as Ruddiman argues, we should be happy we don't have to adopt all the Canadian citizens moving south who would otherwise be buried under a miles deep ice sheet.

Posted: **Sun 03 Oct 2010, 12:57:00**

$80 Barrel Oil Price Drives Oil Discovery, Production

Even countries not known for their oil, such as India and Colombia, are finding new oil thanks to new discovery efforts. In fact, Colombia may overtake its unruly neighbor Venezuela in oil production within 10 years.

New Iraqi reserves and production threaten to drop a glut of oil supply on the global markets. And Iraq has just gotten started.

Brazil is bursting with offshore oil, creating many of the internal problems that oil-rich states are famous for.

Canada is rapidly becoming one of the world's richest hydrocarbon producers, and is making new oil discoveries all the time.

Much of the new oil will cost more to produce, perhaps placing a floor of $60 a barrel under such new production. But only a total idiot expects technology to sit still while there is money to be made. Such price floors will be tested and eventually broken.

The real threat to oil supplies is political -- as in Obama Pelosi reich energy starvation. Having succeeded in beginning to break down the advanced US biomedical industry, the Obama Pelosi reich will eventually get around to every aspect of the US economy. Energy starvation has always been a long term goal of the O P reich. EPA policies declaring CO2 a dangerous pollutant are merely the bare tip of the spearhead of the OP thrust to starving US industries of fuel.

The future of advanced western technologies that could lead to a "singularity" or to "the next level" all depend upon the capacity to bridge the inevitable geopolitical turbulence that is coming. If the western nations lack the "depth" to sustain the losses that rapid and violent change is bringing to the world, they will be lost to the future. It is not a game that can be reset and started over.

Posted: **Sun 03 Oct 2010, 14:06:07**

Shale oil will be with us for a long time. I'm just skeptical that it'll be a significant cost-effective replacement for the cheap oil we've got now. Moreover, all oil acquisition activities (including shale oil), such as exploration, drilling, refining and distribution currently depend on cheap oil. If the cost of that oil increased suddenly (e.g. multi-country resource nationalism), I'm skeptical about whether we could continue to cost-effectively mine the stuff in large quantities.

Still, some is better than none. It may not replace our entire supply at a low price and high EROEI, but if mined at low rates and used judiciously, it could conceivably last for centuries and provide some limited practical use.

Posted: **Sun 03 Oct 2010, 15:31:05**

ian807 wrote:Shale oil will be with us for a long time. I'm just skeptical that it'll be a significant cost-effective replacement for the cheap oil we've got now.

It won't need to be a replacement for the oil we have now. It will simply provide more moderating price pressure, keeping the barrel price in a manageable $60 - $100 range.

Ample supplies of fossil fuels (and moderate prices) only have to last long enough for nuclear energy to take over the heavy lift.

Check this oil guru:

Nuclear Energy and Fossil Fuels

Posted: **Sun 03 Oct 2010, 15:46:57**

Pstarr,
You are debating a troll.

Posted: **Sun 03 Oct 2010, 16:03:41**

pstarr wrote:
Carlhole wrote:$80 Barrel Oil Price Drives Oil Discovery, Production

But only a total idiot expects technology to sit still while there is money to be made. Such price floors will be tested and eventually broken.
Have you taken to quoting yourself?. That insulting language has your MO all over it.

I linked to Al Fin whose quote that was, you moron.

Posted: **Sun 03 Oct 2010, 16:05:27**

Carlhole wrote:
pstarr wrote:
Carlhole wrote:$80 Barrel Oil Price Drives Oil Discovery, Production

But only a total idiot expects technology to sit still while there is money to be made. Such price floors will be tested and eventually broken.
Have you taken to quoting yourself?. That insulting language has your MO all over it.

I linked to Al Fin whose quote that was, you moron.

My point of view is the same as M. King Hubbert's, for chrissakes (see above).

Peak Oil News and Message Boards

Jordan: 500 Billion Barrels of Oil Equivalent in Oil Shale

Re: 500 Billion Barrels of Oil Equivalent in Jordan's Oil Sh

Re: 500 Billion Barrels of Oil Equivalent in Jordan's Oil Sh

Re: 500 Billion Barrels of Oil Equivalent in Jordan's Oil Sh

Re: 500 Billion Barrels of Oil Equivalent in Jordan's Oil Sh

Re: 500 Billion Barrels of Oil Equivalent in Jordan's Oil Sh

Re: 500 Billion Barrels of Oil Equivalent in Jordan's Oil Sh

Re: 500 Billion Barrels of Oil Equivalent in Jordan's Oil Sh

Re: 500 Billion Barrels of Oil Equivalent in Jordan's Oil Sh

Re: 500 Billion Barrels of Oil Equivalent in Jordan's Oil Sh

Re: 500 Billion Barrels of Oil Equivalent in Jordan's Oil Sh

Re: 500 Billion Barrels of Oil Equivalent in Jordan's Oil Sh

Re: 500 Billion Barrels of Oil Equivalent in Jordan's Oil Sh

Re: 500 Billion Barrels of Oil Equivalent in Jordan's Oil Sh