[vtsnowedin]

Who might the RCT be?

Abbreviation for Railroad Commission of Texas, usually RRC or TRC. Just thought that it was obvious; but apparently it wasn't. If you plot EIA data from 1960 forward using wholesale gasoline prices vs WTI it has actually averaged 68%. But the RCT, RRC, TRC is a little more authoritative.

If one calculates the heat required to boil a gallon of crude (7.19 lbs) including the latent heat of evaporation (113 BTU/ lb, decane), and a 30% loss (distillation towers operate at 850°F) it requires over 10,000 BTU per gallon just at the refinery to boil the stuff. 14,000 total is an absurd figure. That is how these stupid ideas are sold; they are accepted by people with no knowledge of physics or basic mathematical skills. Unfortunately that constitutes the bulk of the population.

After you have it boiling what other BTUs are required? The answer is not much. Your 50% figure is the one that is absurd.
The actual energy used is quite well documented. See the table in the link.
Notice that the crude oil input is ZERO.
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_ca ... _nus_a.htm

[asg70]

You have not done so, you have not questioned the assumptions or the methods . . . only the conclusions . . . because the conclusions confuse and anger you. So sad Sorry for you lol

Bullshit. ETP falls under Occam's razor in predicting doom. Hence the burden is on ETP to prove itself, not for those to disprove it.

Secondly, all you need to do to question its methods is to talk about classic supply and demand, then fan out from there. That has been done ad nauseum.

[shortonoil]

After you have it boiling what other BTUs are required? The answer is not much.

Stupid comment! Refineries are not a tin can and a Bunsen burner. They are hundreds of thousands of tons of steel, and hundreds of miles of pipe pumping a huge amount of heat into the environment at very high temperatures.

After primary distillation about 25% of the input has to go through a secondary vacuum distillation process. That one really burns the energy. Then there is the immense energy cost of providing roads, military protection, harbors, judicial services, and etc, and the gas that goes in the cars of the refinery's employees. If they don't get there the refinery doesn't refine. Look at the google imaging of a refinery, it is one massive heat source running at 850 °F. We break it all down here:

http://thehillsgroup.thehillsgroup.info ... el-is.html

[Tanada]

IOW you make up the numbers the way you want to get the answer you seek. This is the great failing of most EROEI based studies, you get to pick how much you 'charge' at every step and just keep adding steps if the number is not where you want it to be.

[Cog]

Shorty is getting desperate because the price of oil is not collapsing as his little model has predicted. Onlooker is going to lose his account at the end of 2018 because he bought into this nonsense. I almost feel sorry for him being taken in by the scam.

[rockdoc123]

"Some parts"

OK….you don’t actually understand what you, yourself wrote. You said “all tight shale is costly to produce” which it clearly isn’t. "Some parts" means "All" is a completely wrong assessment.

CNN Money estimates that development of the (Kashagan) field had cost US$116 billion as of 2012, which made it the most expensive energy project in the world,[7][8] 

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with EOR does it? What you said was “All major oil fields (old and new) are now produced under expensive EOR…” which is absolutely not true. The cost for Kashagan is neither here nor there when it comes to that discussion unless you are intent on developing a strawman.

Give me a break. Tight shale is source rock, if there was any drive it would have sent the fluid up and away, or under a some kind of structureal cap. No. There is no primary drive. As I said above, this method is costly, energy intensive and is used . . . because the fields above the tight shale structures are nearing depletion.

Once again you were not talking about shale, you were talking about conventional reservoirs . You even contradict yourself by saying here there is no drive in shales and then saying above that there was a drive that no longer works. It is pretty clear you don’t understand any of this. And there is not a shale in the world where MRC wells have been used, nor has there been any deployment of CO2 injection (with the exception of a two small test programs) in shales and SAGD/THAI are used in sandstone and carbonate (not shale) reservoirs in order to change the viscosity of oils. Your arguments are not very cogent, a product of not understanding the processes involved.

Rockdoc's anger and insistence on denigrating folks calls into question his oil-industry expertise or experience. Sure he has spent in life doing it, but it wasn't very satisfying.

Rockman is the opposite. The guy is hard at work making a crapload of money, staying in touch and and obviously having a wonderful time. 

I denigrate people such as yourself and shortonoil who make statements about oil and gas extraction that are completely and entirely incorrect. And yet you do so with such confidence. There are many people on this site who take a lot of what is said as if it comes from authority, you do a disservice to everyone here by spouting complete nonsense that any individual who had spent a couple of weeks working in the industry would know to be incorrect. If Rockman chooses to ignore your transgressions that is his choice, I choose to make sure idiotic comments are called out for what they are. IF you find that approach unpleasant then it might behoove you to be less emphatic about that which you have a poor understanding of.
As to a satisfying career….lets see I spent 30+ years working around the world mostly at senior executive positions. I’ve been involved with discovering several billion boe over the years. I retired because I didn’t need to work anymore, served on several Boards to keep busy. I don’t speak about making a “crap load of money” as it is irrelevant to the discussion about extraction of hydrocarbons. If some feel the need to brag about how much money they are making or made I have no problem with that, it doesn’t add to the discussion, although it might make them feel better.

[Cog]

There is some weird thinking going on here that if a person has expertise in a field, that makes them a shill for it, willing to lie to protect it. I very much doubt that rockdoc123 or Rockman are paid extra to come here and argue the industry position on topics concerning oil . If you have evidence of that please provide it. If I were asked to comment on the in's and out's of construction surveying or inspection, I would give you my best information. My paycheck doesn't matter whether I denigrate it or support it.

You would be wise to listen to people who work in whatever field that is a topic of discussion here. They have insights that are valuable in understanding what is going on.

[marmico]

We break it all down here:

More bull shit. A true breakdown. Process heating is ~70% of energy consumption in a refinery.

[AdamB]

Hi AdamB,

The cost curves are interesting, but eventually output will decrease because there won't be enough demand at the higher oil price to allow profitable extraction of the resource as higher oil prices will make alternatives more competitive.

That is exactly what those cost curves say. Which is why they aren't just interesting, but can be used in economic models of resource development. The folks who have the information build such things, are. Peakers can't compete, can't even talk intelligently about the issue unless they can figure out how to make their own.

I expect based on peer reviewed literature that a reasonable guess for oil URR is 3000 to 4000 Gb, if the middle of this range is correct (3500 Gb) then peak may be between 2020 and 2030.

The modelers using these techniques on resources at the International Energy Workshop back in July had this information down at the sub-basin level, and they weren't guessing at URR, and the answer to that question is dependent on $$...which is exactly what those resource cost curves nail down.

http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/ ... 30179.full

Figure 16 was the only thing that was even in the same ballpark as to state of the art modeling and resource cost curves, and it really wasn't even a resource cost curve. The curves demonstrated at the IEW were also probabilistic in nature, the accepted form of measure for reserves and resources. The authors of your paper looked to be doing nothing more than some generalizations for profiles and there didn't appear to be any interactive economic trigger for activation, I didn't see the CapX delay for projects, no discovery process complexities necessary to utilize USGS estimates of undiscovered, the entire concept of field growth at the field level didn't have an explanation, and it should as the geoscientists have built one.

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... by_country

Detailed projections of world fossil fuel production including unconventional sources were created by country and fuel type to estimate possible future fossil fuel production. Four critical countries (China, USA, Canada and Australia) were examined in detail with projections made on the state/province level. Ultimately Recoverable Resources (URR) for fossil fuels were estimated for three scenarios: Low = 48.4 ZJ, Best Guess (BG) = 75.7 ZJ, High = 121.5 ZJ.

Couldn't see the full article, but of interest was the idea that these folks are doing scenarios. Not full on probability calculations. I wonder why? Also, the current work isn't going on at the country level, but the sub-basin level. And there doesn't appear to be an indication in the abstract that they have built something based on the obvious, and something that caught the peak oilers by surprise.

URR is $$ dependent.The EIA knows this, and they are just a bunch of analysts. How long do you think it'll be before the academics catch up? Nobody gets to say "URR" nowadays without attaching a cost to it. Even niche market economic companies are doing this.

Time for peakers to get dragged into the current century, even if it is kicking and screaming! They screwed the pooch on the other peak oils (going all the way back to Campbell's 1990 claim) because they just couldn't see the economic tie in, they really need to get it nailed down prior to doing the entire wolf is coming routine all over again.

[shortonoil]

I expect based on peer reviewed literature that a reasonable guess for oil URR is 3000 to 4000 Gb

No one in the world has ever estimated URR at 4000 Gb. In 2000 the USGS gave a 5% chance that it could reach 3,400. Colin Campbell replied; "there was a 5% chance that I'm was a frog". As usual your comments are absurd wishful thinking, and misleading. Since you do it consistently we have to assume that it is on purpose (for what ever stupid reason that could be)?

[vtsnowedin]

After you have it boiling what other BTUs are required? The answer is not much.

Stupid comment! Refineries are not a tin can and a Bunsen burner. They are hundreds of thousands of tons of steel, and hundreds of miles of pipe pumping a huge amount of heat into the environment at very high temperatures.

After primary distillation about 25% of the input has to go through a secondary vacuum distillation process. That one really burns the energy. Then there is the immense energy cost of providing roads, military protection, harbors, judicial services, and etc, and the gas that goes in the cars of the refinery's employees. If they don't get there the refinery doesn't refine. Look at the google imaging of a refinery, it is one massive heat source running at 850 °F. We break it all down here:

http://thehillsgroup.thehillsgroup.info ... el-is.html

Don't argue with me. Argue with the EIA's table which uses real hard facts to show you are a lying piece of crap.

[Outcast_Searcher]

After you have it boiling what other BTUs are required? The answer is not much.

Stupid comment! Refineries are not a tin can and a Bunsen burner. They are hundreds of thousands of tons of steel, and hundreds of miles of pipe pumping a huge amount of heat into the environment at very high temperatures.

After primary distillation about 25% of the input has to go through a secondary vacuum distillation process. That one really burns the energy. Then there is the immense energy cost of providing roads, military protection, harbors, judicial services, and etc, and the gas that goes in the cars of the refinery's employees. If they don't get there the refinery doesn't refine. Look at the google imaging of a refinery, it is one massive heat source running at 850 °F. We break it all down here:

http://thehillsgroup.thehillsgroup.info ... el-is.html

Don't argue with me. Argue with the EIA's table which uses real hard facts to show you are a lying piece of crap.

Apparently for the ETP true believers, his empty words mean more than the real numbers, backed by credible citations, folks like you, AdamB, rockdoc, etc. keep posting.

If he's refused to change thus far, I don't see him doing that until the model and his predictions fail miserably enough that even the hard core ETPers give up on him unless he changes his narrative.

That's when we can expect rapid and major goal post moving, and denials/naming calling for those who challenge him on it.

Meanwhile, I'm "a troll" of course, for point this out.

[rockdoc123]

No one in the world has ever estimated URR at 4000 Gb.

Well the IEA did in 2012.
https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/Resources2013.pdf

Currently estimated recoverable resources for unconventional oil are about the same as those for conventional oil (Figure 1.10). The potential total of long-term remaining recoverable oil resources, which includes: conventional oil volumes plus extra-heavy oil, oil sands, kerogen shale and undiscovered recoverable volumes is estimated to be almost 6 trillion barrels. Adding CTL and GTL could increase this potential to about 8 trillion barrels

[GHung]

" .....kerogen shale and undiscovered recoverable volumes....
....and don't forget the fairy dust!

[asg70]

....and don't forget the fairy dust!

Be careful. That sort of dismissive rhetoric once casually shrugged off the potential of shale, which only made the entire peak-oil movement look like it was nothing but a bunch of hopelessly biased doom-mongers. That perma-pessimism is a hallmark of doomerism and it's sad that some have still not learned the future is more...ambiguous.

[shortonoil]

That's when we can expect rapid and major goal post moving, and denials/naming calling for those who challenge him on it.

Reserves are not being replaced, and can not be replaced. Which means that the oil age is ending. An extractive industry dies when its reserves get depleted. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about it. To not be able to understand that would mean that one would have to be an idiot, or in such a state of mental discord that they should be locked up someplace. This society ran out of room to do that several decades ago so they now run loose on the streets. The Model is not gong to fall through because the conclusion is already cast in stone. The only thing missing at this point to confirm that conclusion is an inscribed golden plaque delivered by Archangel Gabriel himself. It is right in our faces in black and white, and extra large letters.

Get used to it! It is the reality that we must now live with.

As a side note: a cardiologist's assistant was telling me a couple of days ago that a lot of her patients do not have the presence of mind, nor can they see the importance of taking their own blood pressure. How such a completely dysfunctional society can ever hope to cope with something as catastrophic as the coming end of the oil age is beyond knowing, and there can be no doubt about it; it is coming!

[vtsnowedin]

Everybody please take note the shortonoil has had nothing to say about this chart that proves his oft repeated charge that the oil industry is consuming +50% of the oil coming out of the ground to refine that oil is a steaming pile of $((T.
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_ca ... _nus_a.htm

[onlooker]

He is not saying +50 % to just refine but the entire process from well to wheel with all the associated energy/monetary expenses. As for that chart, I have repeatedly been seeing your links to EIA etc. Well guess what, they have not done the thermodynamic calculations that the Etp model has. So their conclusions and figues obviously are not going to tell the same story that Etp is. That is the whole point of what makes this Etp model valuable it goes beyond the simple accounting that the EIA and others do. So, your derogatory assertions are not swaying anybody here one way or the other.

[ROCKMAN]

"Reserves are not being replaced, and can not be replaced. Which means that the oil age is ending. An extractive industry dies when its reserves get depleted." Obviously not true. new reserves are continuously being added. Maybe just slopping wording. Now how much is being replaced is a very different proposition. And runs into believing (or not believing) the new reserves numbers being tossed out. Some seem very solid while others seem rather questionable. But given that approximate 35 billion bbls of existing reserves are being depleted that's going to take a lot of new discoveries to replace all of that production. Of course the added complication is the huge amount of proven reserves that are lost or added strictly by the changing price of oil. As far as validating those changes and newly discovered bbls is the lack of geologic details available to the public and folks like the EIA and USGS. Thus the endless arguments amongst of happy family here.

But bottom line: the industry IS constantly adding some reserves as it depletes other reserves. So no: the petroleum industry has been depleting its reserves the first day Col. Drake began producing his first well. And it hasn't died yet. Which doesn't mean it won't "die" eventually. When will that happen? Have at it: y'all are free to argue yourselves blue in the face. I have doubt either side can come up with the correct answer. LOL.

[vtsnowedin]

He is not saying +50 % to just refine but the entire process from well to wheel with all the associated energy/monetary expenses. As for that chart, I have repeatedly been seeing your links to EIA etc. Well guess what, they have not done the thermodynamic calculations that the Etp model has. So their conclusions and figues obviously are not going to tell the same story that Etp is. That is the whole point of what makes this Etp model valuable it goes beyond the simple accounting that the EIA and others do. So, your derogatory assertions are not swaying anybody here one way or the other.

Perhaps I can't sway your opinion with the thick neanderthal skull you obviously have but the EIA data which takes account of every barrel produced ,or imported , refined, sold or exported in the USA is the best source available. Their data certainly includes any "thermodynamic" effects that result in any significant result in the amount of finished products that reach the open market.
That you can't see that indicates that you are blind or have your head buried in the sand or somewhere else the sun doesn't shine.