[Oil-Finder]

Oily you are asking me to do your homework. You expect other people to believe that this gunk, which has never amounted to anything ever, is suddenly going to power your personal trips to the Shopping Mall. It didn't work at $5/barrel. What makes you think it will power up at $10.

It didn't work at $20, what makes you think it will at $40?

It still doesn't and it won't at $200.

Don't you understand. You have the burden of proof. Not me.

I'm afraid that, once again, you are wrong. It is you who keep claiming that "oil shale has the energy density of a potato." I am asking you to prove it or provide a source for your claim - even though I have tried to find a source for your claim myself. The fact that you just skirted the question, not even attempting to provide a source, and simply repeated your standard litany, indicates to me you don't know anything about the source or veracity of your claim, and cannot be bothered finding out if it's even true.

[TonyPrep]

Don't you understand. You have the burden of proof. Not me.

I'm afraid that, once again, you are wrong. It is you who keep claiming that "oil shale has the energy density of a potato." I am asking you to prove it or provide a source for your claim - even though I have tried to find a source for your claim myself.

I think that what pstarr is getting at is that those who claim, or who appear to claim, that oil shale is a significant factor in keeping the party going (and, consequently, there is no need for anyone to worry about crashing societies) really should show that oil shale projects can produce millions of barrels per day, and starting quite soon.

Whether it might eventually be profitable for some companies is not really the issue, it's more a question of what is the likely (so some percentage of the optimistic estimates) net production rate for oil from shale. It took about 30 years to get tar sands up to 1 mbpd and there seemed to be a flurry of stories last year about project delays and escalating costs. That may rise to 2 mbpd in the next decade. And I don't think that is net energy. If oil shale could double that, how would that affect a decline in conventional oil, which may start within a few years?

[Oil-Finder]

Tony, nobody knows what future production rates from oil shale might be. They might be big, or they might be small. The fact that it hasn't produced much oil to date means little or nothing: The reason why the previous attempts to harness it went kaput is because 1) the technology to extract it at a reasonable price and quantity wasn't there, and 2) particularly in the early 80's when the last batch of interest arose, the price of oil collapsed soon afterwards. Nobody is claiming that extracting this stuff will be as cheap as extracting oil in Saudi Arabia, but in the CNN/Fortune article I linked earlier, Shell says their method can be profitable at $30/barrel. With oil around $90/barrel nowadays, it's looking good. This is probably why oil companies are investing hundreds of millions of $$ in research.

Just because something has never been done before, does not mean it will never be done. There is always a "first time" for everything - including extracting oil from shale in large quantities.

But all that is just an aside. Peakers like pstarr keep citing the claim that the energy density of oil shale is the same as that of a potato. I am asking that he provide proof of that claim. So far, he has refused to.

[FreddyH]

Oily you are asking me to do your homework. You expect other people to believe that this gunk, which has never amounted to anything ever, is suddenly going to power your personal trips to the Shopping Mall. It didn't work at $5/barrel. What makes you think it will power up at $10.

It didn't work at $20, what makes you think it will at $40?

It still doesn't and it won't at $200.

Don't you understand. You have the burden of proof. Not me.

I'm afraid that, once again, you are wrong. It is you who keep claiming that "oil shale has the energy density of a potato." I am asking you to prove it or provide a source for your claim - even though I have tried to find a source for your claim myself. The fact that you just skirted the question, not even attempting to provide a source, and simply repeated your standard litany, indicates to me you don't know anything about the source or veracity of your claim, and cannot be bothered finding out if it's even true.

There's lotsa comparisons out there. Here's one that i have...

From 2007 NPC Study:

"As a domestic source of transportation fuel, oil shale could compete with heavy oil and coal-derived liquids. Oil shale, heavy oil, and coal are all abundant in North America. Canadian tar sand production is already commercial. Coal can be treated with coal-derived solvents and gaseous hydrogen at high temperature to produce high grade synthetic crude. An advantage of oil shale is that it has the potential to produce a superior liquid-fuel product. However, the direct and indirect costs of fuel production from oil shale have not yet been fully evaluated.

Shell has estimated that its method is competitive with conventional crude oil selling at about $25 per barrel. Shell has recently announced that it will decide whether to proceed with oil shale production in Colorado by 2010, with first production expected by the middle of that decade.

The future of oil shale production depends not only on projections of the price of conventional crude oil, but also on the prospects for heavy oil and coal to serve as sources of petroleum liquids. Heavy oil production is a reality today and is ramping up very quickly, with production prices below $15/bbl. Although not as far advanced,
coal liquefaction is reasonably well understood, and recent estimates assert that coal liquids can be produced for about $45/bbl. In this competitive environment, oil shale technology is important because it has the potential to provide a superior liquid fuel product."

[FreddyH]

I think that what pstarr is getting at is that those who claim, or who appear to claim, that oil shale is a significant factor in keeping the party going (and, consequently, there is no need for anyone to worry about crashing societies) really should show that oil shale projects can produce millions of barrels per day, and starting quite soon.

Whether it might eventually be profitable for some companies is not really the issue, it's more a question of what is the likely (so some percentage of the optimistic estimates) net production rate for oil from shale. It took about 30 years to get tar sands up to 1 mbpd and there seemed to be a flurry of stories last year about project delays and escalating costs. That may rise to 2 mbpd in the next decade. And I don't think that is net energy. If oil shale could double that, how would that affect a decline in conventional oil, which may start within a few years?

Tony, heavy/xheavy/sands production is 3-mbd today and poised for an 8-mbd peak in 2030. Globally, kerogen could add 10 - 14mbd at peak to global supply in the latter half of the century.

Considering the ramp up time scale, there is little probability of these non-conventionals growing the Peak Rate. They will however dampen the decline considerably ... to about 1.4% over the next two decades.

[Oil-Finder]

Once again oily it comes down to your blind faith two unknowns:

The first a technology that has never made a cent or produced a commercial barrel of petroleum (THAI and SAGD);

and two your belief in an economic theory has never been proven (that declining petroleum cause potatoes, oil shale, or some other stuff) to have value as the primary energy source for any industrial system.

You are a religious fanatic of a particular kind. You worship technology and free-market supply side voodooism. How quaint

So, you still refuse to provide proof of your claim about oil shale and potatoes. Figures. What a coward.

You are a religious fanatic too. Not only do you make claims without providing proof, you worship nature, low technology and have a pathological hatred of modern civilization. How quaint.

[FreddyH]

FreddyH you can take your company press release somewhere else. I am going to sleep.

Your cynical comment is disingenuous considering the kerogen paper authors:

NATIONAL PETROLEUM COUNCIL
OIL SHALES AND HYDRATES SUBGROUP
OF THE
TECHNOLOGY TASK GROUP
OF THE
NPC COMMITTEE ON GLOBAL OIL AND GAS

TEAM LEADER
Robert L. Kleinberg
Schlumberger Fellow
Schlumberger-Doll Research

MEMBERS:

Edith C. Allison
Physical Scientist
Office of Future Oil and Gas Resources
U.S. Department of Energy

Timothy S. Collett
Research Geologist
U.S. Geological Survey

Robert A. Hardage
Senior Research Scientist
Bureau of Economic Geology
The University of Texas

Stephen A. Holditch
Noble Endowed Chair and Head of the Harold Vance Department of
Petroleum Engineering
Texas A&M University

James J. Howard
Principal Scientist
ConocoPhillips

E. Dendy Sloan, Jr.
Weaver Endowed Chair in Chemical Engineering
Colorado School of Mines

[TonyPrep]

Shell says their method can be profitable at $30/barrel. With oil around $90/barrel nowadays, it's looking good. This is probably why oil companies are investing hundreds of millions of $$ in research.

Just because something has never been done before, does not mean it will never be done. There is always a "first time" for everything - including extracting oil from shale in large quantities.

But all that is just an aside. Peakers like pstarr keep citing the claim that the energy density of oil shale is the same as that of a potato. I am asking that he provide proof of that claim. So far, he has refused to.

It's not an aside. If oil shale doesn't amount to a hill o' beans, it will not affect the decline much. So why all the fuss?

Do you actually believe Shell? I read a little about their technique and it sure sounds very energy intensive and likely to have a very low production rate. If it's profitable at $30, why are they entering yet another phase of testing? Probably because the profitability figure is a guess. There was a huge project after the first oil shock to produce commercial quantities of oil from shale. I think it lasted about 13 years and produced 5 million barrels. I don't know how many barrels were consumed in the projects but 5 million in 13 years is a proverbial drop in the ocean. Of course companies will try to figure out how to produce commercial quantities that make sense. Maybe it will make sense when we're half way down the downslope.

[TonyPrep]

Tony, heavy/xheavy/sands production is 3-mbd today and poised for an 8-mbd peak in 2030. Globally, kerogen could add 10 - 14mbd at peak to global supply in the latter half of the century.

Considering the ramp up time scale, there is little probability of these non-conventionals growing the Peak Rate. They will however dampen the decline considerably ... to about 1.4% over the next two decades.

I'm not sure what you mean by "poised". Do you mean, "by some estimates, heavy unconventional oil production could reach a gross total of 8 mbpd within 22 years"? I realise that you don't think that will do much for oil decline but it certainly doesn't fill me with confidence for our future. And maybe kerogen could peak at 10 mbpd in 70 years hence but it is all wishful thinking, from my viewpoint (this is not to imply it's not possible). And with such paltry amounts ramping up ever so slowly, I can't see how it will have any significant effect on decline, if decline starts soon. If underlying decline rates are 8%, then new production has to add 7 mbpd just to stand still. If new projects start to fail in that aim, soon, then a slow ramp up to 8 mbpd in 22 years, then down and up to maybe 14mbpd in 60 years time, doesn't seem to be particularly helpful.

What would be more helpful is an acceptance of limits and figuring out how to organise our societies to be sustainable.

[Oil-Finder]

It's not an aside.

It was an aside because you had responded to my request to pstarr to provide a source or proof of his claim about oil shale having the energy density of a potato. Since your reply also did not respond specifically to that, yes, it was an aside to what I had inquired about.

Do you actually believe Shell? I read a little about their technique and it sure sounds very energy intensive and likely to have a very low production rate. If it's profitable at $30, why are they entering yet another phase of testing? Probably because the profitability figure is a guess. There was a huge project after the first oil shock to produce commercial quantities of oil from shale. I think it lasted about 13 years and produced 5 million barrels. I don't know how many barrels were consumed in the projects but 5 million in 13 years is a proverbial drop in the ocean. Of course companies will try to figure out how to produce commercial quantities that make sense. Maybe it will make sense when we're half way down the downslope.

Big research projects on potentially huge engineering projects using new technologies takes years. Not only do they have to test the technology itself, they are probably re-testing it, making tweaks as they go along, trying new things, etc., so on, and so forth. If that weren't enough, they have to conduct environmental studies, get water rights, do a political dance with the state of Colorado, local governments and DOE, and a whole ton of other things. All this isn't something you can do overnight.

[TonyPrep]

Big research projects on potentially huge engineering projects using new technologies takes years. Not only do they have to test the technology itself, they are probably re-testing it, making tweaks as they go along, trying new things, etc., so on, and so forth. If that weren't enough, they have to conduct environmental studies, get water rights, do a political dance with the state of Colorado, local governments and DOE, and a whole ton of other things. All this isn't something you can do overnight.

Quite. And you still hold out hope for this stuff making a significant contribution to the solution? Well, I guess that if you believe that new discoveries can keep (relatively) conventional oil production slowly rising, then you might possibly believe that oil shale production can start to be significant before serious declines kick in. Shell, of course, don't need to believe that, they only need to believe that they can make some money from the project. I don't have much problem with Shell believing that but, even with FreddyH's figures, I do have a problem with the notion that oil shale could be a significant contributor to our energy needs before we hit a crisis.

This is why it wasn't an aside to your request to pstarr. It may not have answered you directly but it gave a possible/probable interpretation of what he was getting at by his remark. If you really want to compare the energy densities of a baked potato and oil shale, I'm sure that it can't be too hard to do that, though it may take a day or two of digging around for the information. Personally, I've always taken the phrase to mean "oil shale energy density is a small fraction of that of conventional oil". But I've seen arguments about that as a valid comparison, too. I guess we'll see when those oil gushers start appearing in those Colorado hills. If I'm still around.

[FreddyH]

Tony, heavy/xheavy/sands production is 3-mbd today and poised for an 8-mbd peak in 2030. Globally, kerogen could add 10 - 14mbd at peak to global supply in the latter half of the century.

Considering the ramp up time scale, there is little probability of these non-conventionals growing the Peak Rate. They will however dampen the decline considerably ... to about 1.4% over the next two decades.

I'm not sure what you mean by "poised". Do you mean, "by some estimates, heavy unconventional oil production could reach a gross total of 8 mbpd within 22 years"? I realise that you don't think that will do much for oil decline but it certainly doesn't fill me with confidence for our future. And maybe kerogen could peak at 10 mbpd in 70 years hence but it is all wishful thinking, from my viewpoint (this is not to imply it's not possible). And with such paltry amounts ramping up ever so slowly, I can't see how it will have any significant effect on decline, if decline starts soon. If underlying decline rates are 8%, then new production has to add 7 mbpd just to stand still. If new projects start to fail in that aim, soon, then a slow ramp up to 8 mbpd in 22 years, then down and up to maybe 14mbpd in 60 years time, doesn't seem to be particularly helpful.

What would be more helpful is an acceptance of limits and figuring out how to organise our societies to be sustainable.

Forty years from now the world population will have already peaked - at about 9-Bil. The TrendLines 23-model AVG indicates that global production will drop from 87-mbd to 67-mbd in 2048. My own scenario shows a more conservative 55-mbd. 30% more people. 30% less oil.

Substitution and conservation inspired technologies will assist somewhat with that transition. But granted there is little strategic long term planning under way. It's 'cuz those numbers do not define a mandate worthy of crisis management. And, it is outside the time frame of most policy makers.

If we look at 2028, we're up 15% in population with 8% less oil. Even less scary. Looking at their daily lives ... families, businesses, institutions & industry don't see a significant problem achieving mitigation that cuts back usage 10%.

The book sellers want us to think the world is running out of oil. But there are no numbers anywhere out there that justify that fantasy that ordinary folk will be driven to turn to para-amish lifestyles.

[TonyPrep]

Forty years from now the world population will have already peaked - at about 9-Bil.

Whilst population growth estimates showed slowing growth to 2003, since then, the estimate remained stable, with an upturn in 2007. These are from the figures in the CIA World Fact Book, from 2000 to 2007:

2000 1.3%
2001 1.25%
2002 1.23%
2003 1.14%
2004 1.14%
2005 1.14%
2006 1.14%
2007 1.167%

If we look at 2028, we're up 15% in population with 8% less oil. Even less scary. Looking at their daily lives ... families, businesses, institutions & industry don't see a significant problem achieving mitigation that cuts back usage 10%.

Scary.

The book sellers want us to think the world is running out of oil. But there are no numbers anywhere out there that justify that fantasy that ordinary folk will be driven to turn to para-amish lifestyles.

The Limits to Growth book? It just takes common sense, not numbers. The earth is limited. Economic growth requires increasing resources. Ergo, growth must end. Jet fuel may not be substitutable at the right scale. Ergo, no just in time freighted food. Topsoil loss, fresh water scarcity. Biodiversity loss. Etc.

By the way, the world is running out of oil. That's what happens when you use finite resources. It may not completely run out for quite some time, but it is most certainly running out.

[TheDude]

Oily you are asking me to do your homework. You expect other people to believe that this gunk, which has never amounted to anything ever, is suddenly going to power your personal trips to the Shopping Mall. It didn't work at $5/barrel. What makes you think it will power up at $10.

It didn't work at $20, what makes you think it will at $40?

It still doesn't and it won't at $200.

Don't you understand. You have the burden of proof. Not me.

I'm afraid that, once again, you are wrong. It is you who keep claiming that "oil shale has the energy density of a potato." I am asking you to prove it or provide a source for your claim - even though I have tried to find a source for your claim myself.

Uh, how about searching for the terms potato and "oil shale"?

Energy Bulletin piece by Randy Udall and Steve Andrews, founding members of ASPO-USA.

Searching for appropriate analogies, we enter the realm of Weight Watchers. Oil shale is said to be "rich" when a ton yields 30 gallons of oil. An equal weight of granola contains three times more energy. America's "vast," "immense" deposits of shale have the energy density of a baked potato. Oil shale has one-third the energy density of Cap'n Crunch, but no one is counting on the Quaker Oats Company to become a major energy producer soon.

Humor columnist Dave Barry once demonstrated that if you put a "strawberry Pop-Tart in a toaster for five minutes and 50 seconds, it will turn into a snack-pastry blowtorch, shooting flames up to 30 inches high." Putting a chunk of oil shale into your toaster would not offer similar excitement, but in a strange way, Shell's fascinating experiments near Rangely resemble something Barry might attempt if he had the money to build the world's largest underground toaster oven.

Also Udall/Andrews' paper The Illusive Bonanza: Oil Shale in Colorado “Pulling the Sword from the Stone”, which has links to other papers and the sources they use for the food/shale comparisons.

Not that you care, right? There's 1.5 trillion barrels there! OK, right now we produce 10kbbs/day from shale worldwide, but we just haven't tried yet!

Now, explain to me why we shouldn't ramp up Cap'n Crunch production. America Needs to Obtain Energy Independence from Islamofascists!

[yesplease]

Economic growth requires increasing resources.

Since when? Unless of course you're referring to the growth of those selling said resources.

[yesplease]

Economic growth requires increasing resources.

Since when?

Hold on, I have to look up the answer .
Okay. Since God made us good Consumers?

If by God you mean Nik3, Fj0rd, M1k3yD33s, etc... Then sure.