[Oil-Finder]

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!

TheDude, I have already hit all of those, google search included. I also saw the Udall piece "The Illusive Bonanza," which is what I was talking about when I said that nothing I have seen provides any proof of the claim. This is all Udall says:

If crude oil is king, oil shale is a pauper. Pound per pound, oil shale contains just one-tenth the energy of crude oil, one-sixth that of coal, and one-fourth that of recycled phone books. Shale outcrops are common in Colorado, but in prehistoric times the Utes did not use it for heat; why bother when you could gather pine or juniper instead? In poor countries, millions of people heat their homes with dried manure. Dung cakes have four times more energy than does oil shale. Oil shale is a fossil fuel—but just barely. Searching for appropriate low-calorie analogues, we turn to foodstuffs, the realm of Weight Watchers. Oil shale is said to be “rich” when it contains 30 gallons of petroleum per ton. An equal weight of granola contains three times more energy. The “vast,” “immense,” and “unrivaled” deposits of shale buried in Utah and Colorado have the energy density of a baked potato. If someone told you there were a trillion tons of tater tots buried 1,000 feet-deep, would you rush to dig them up? Take a memo, Senator. Oil shale has one-third the energy density of Cap’n Crunch, but no one is counting on Kellogg to become a major energy producer soon. In other words, no one is drilling in the cereal aisle. The mystery is not that we lack an oil shale industry—it’s why we’ve spent billions trying to develop one.

There is no proof or evidence provided here - he just says it, thinking the reader will accept it as fact.

One of the links he provided as one of his references also says absolutely nothing about energy densities of potatoes:
http://hubbert.mines.edu/news/Youngquist_98-4.pdf

The RAND study says nothing on energy density.

The Laherrere review says nothing about energy density.

Neither do any of his other links.

Udall just says it without any proof or evidence whatsoever. And all the peakers here are willing believers, repeating it over and over without even investigating the claim, falling for it lock, stock and barrel.

The best he does is to provide a link to nutritiondata.com at the bottom of the page, and expects the reader to believe that the calories found in food and the energy found in fossil fuels are somehow equivalent energy sources - which is the most absurd thing imaginable.

Cap'n Crunch is a manufactured product, not one found lying around over thousands of square miles deposited by nature. Even if the energy density claims were true, the fact that nature has already made the shale, whereas food has to be grown or made by humans first, makes all the difference in the world. If Cap'n Crunch were a natural product of millions of years of geology, just sitting there, waiting to be harnessed by humans, then yes, it might be worthwhile to harness it as an energy source.

[Oil-Finder]

Incidentally . . .

Oil shale has one-third the energy density of Cap’n Crunch, but no one is counting on Kellogg to become a major energy producer soon.

Cap'n Crunch is made by Quaker Oats, not Kellogg. Goes to show how much Udall knows, and how much he bothers to do his research!

[TonyPrep]

Economic growth requires increasing resources.

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

Are you saying that economic growth (an increase in economic activity, over inflation, meaning more stuff produced and more services carried out) can go on indefinitely without using more resources to produce and use that extra stuff, and to provide those extra services?

An interesting hypothesis and it would be great if the world could understand that now and switch to yesplease economics. We then wouldn't have to worry, and even all of those extra 110 million people each year can be fed, clothed, housed and given cars without any extra resources needed. Fantastic.

[Oil-Finder]

]Are you saying that economic growth (an increase in economic activity, over inflation, meaning more stuff produced and more services carried out) can go on indefinitely without using more resources to produce and use that extra stuff, and to provide those extra services?

An interesting hypothesis and it would be great if the world could understand that now and switch to yesplease economics. We then wouldn't have to worry, and even all of those extra 110 million people each year can be fed, clothed, housed and given cars without any extra resources needed. Fantastic.

I think this is what yesplease means.

The UK, for example, has had oil consumption at a bit less than 2000K bpd since at least 1980:


Yet during that time, their GDP has grown by about 525%:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of ... ed_Kingdom

So yes, you can have economic growth without using more resources.

[yesplease]

Economic growth requires increasing resources.

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

Are you saying that economic growth (an increase in economic activity, over inflation, meaning more stuff produced and more services carried out) can go on indefinitely without using more resources to produce and use that extra stuff, and to provide those extra services?

Nope... Try again!

An interesting hypothesis and it would be great if the world could understand that now and switch to yesplease economics. We then wouldn't have to worry, and even all of those extra 110 million people each year can be fed, clothed, housed and given cars without any extra resources needed. Fantastic.

Only if by yesplease economics you're referring to your incorrect assumption.

Not all economic activity results in economic growth. Eliminating and/or minimizing those activities that only serve to transfer wealth between members of society via conspicuous consumption/wasted resources would allow for economic growth without increasing the resources used. Not to say this will happen, since people are greedy and always have been, just that it's possible.

[TonyPrep]

So yes, you can have economic growth without using more resources.

You can't be serious, Oil-Finder. When you've added all resources consumed by the UK and found a growth of 525%, then you might start to have a point. Resources does not equal oil.

[TonyPrep]

Not all economic activity results in economic growth.

Correct, only increased economic activity, beyond inflation, results in economic growth. If it's not extra, then there is no growth.

Eliminating and/or minimizing those activities that only serve to transfer wealth between members of society via conspicuous consumption/wasted resources would allow for economic growth without increasing the resources used.

Not if it doesn't result in increased economic activity above inflation. And when do you expect that to happen, anyway?

Not to say this will happen, since people are greedy and always have been, just that it's possible.

Well, you haven't shown that and I can't think of how it could ever happen, apart from, perhaps, occasional periods of improved efficiencies.

[yesplease]

Check out Japan from ~75-85. Energy consumption grew about 10% while GDP grew by ~250%.

In terms of efficiency, given how deliberately wasteful we are currently, the opportunities for gains are both plentiful and financially remunerative, just not for those selling the resources we are wasting.

[TonyPrep]

Check out Japan from ~75-85. Energy consumption grew about 10% while GDP grew by ~250%.

Well, energy is one resource and that grew (although it's a relatively short period in human lifetimes), thus strengthening the argument that: Economic growth requires increasing resources.

But, just as oil is not all resources (as I explained to Oil-Finder), energy is not all resources. As I say, it would be nice to think that our happy society can continue growing its economy indefinitely, without increasing resource consumption. But it just can't happen. How do you create more stuff, use more stuff, provide more services, without using more resources overall? This is true even without population growth. With population growth, the problem becomes more acute.

[yesplease]

Well, energy is one resource and that grew (although it's a relatively short period in human lifetimes), thus strengthening the argument that: Economic growth requires increasing resources.

Population grew roughly proportionally to energy during that time, so energy use per capita remained about the same while GDP per capita grew. While GDP does strongly correlate with energy use, the world hasn't seen much in the way of scenarios where we can't just go get more of whatever energy source. Since socio-economic shortages have resulted in a large drop in some resources, increase in others, and a near flat line in the total picture (in terms of energy of course), while GDP continued to climb, I don't see how geological shortages wouldn't do the same over some time period given the magnitude of waste present in industrialized society.

But, just as oil is not all resources (as I explained to Oil-Finder), energy is not all resources.

I suppose you can talk about all resources if you can find the numbers, but I'm not sure how you would relate them. Comparing energy is doable because regardless of source it's all still energy. Resources otoh, don't have any common metric I'm aware of. How would you compare an increase in Cu use to a decrease in Fe use? It seems silly to compare things that have no reasonably defined relationship.

As I say, it would be nice to think that our happy society can continue growing its economy indefinitely, without increasing resource consumption. But it just can't happen. How do you create more stuff, use more stuff, provide more services, without using more resources overall? This is true even without population growth. With population growth, the problem becomes more acute.

We can create more stuff, use more stuff, and provide more services in terms of energy if we increase the efficiency of services and the lifetime energy usage of the "stuff". It's possible, and has been done in the past, but like I said before, it isn't as financially remunerative for the wealthier among us compared to conspicuous consumption.

[Tanada]

Does anyone have a handy breakdown of BTU/ton of shale vs brown coal?

[TonyPrep]

We can create more stuff, use more stuff, and provide more services in terms of energy if we increase the efficiency of services and the lifetime energy usage of the "stuff". It's possible, and has been done in the past, but like I said before, it isn't as financially remunerative for the wealthier among us compared to conspicuous consumption.

I can imagine occasional efficiency drives might achieve more without using more resources but these will, inevitably, be short term situations, not least because efficiencies have limits too.

It doesn't really matter that you can't find a measure for overall resource usage, can you imagine, long term, creating more stuff, using more stuff and providing more services without using more resources to do so?

Where did you get your energy flat line from? According to the EIA, here are the world quadrillion BTU figures since 2008: 283.481 281.125 280.869 284.571 299.851 308.494 316.165 326.025 338.256 344.279 347.424 347.985 348.419 353.543 357.427 365.046 374.935 381.097 382.135 389.792 398.134 402.292 410.711 426.639 447.605 462.798

The general trend has been up, up. up. Yes, per capita usage may be showing a plateau or even a decline but that translates to higher energy usage (with the growth of developing nations, the per capita use may even be increasing, judging by the big increases in recent years). But you say that energy can just be increased from some source or another, without regard for the fact that energy takes other resources to harness it (and the harnessing takes energy).

On a finite planet, economic growth is unsustainable. If resource consumption ever flat lines (as you put it) that is the end of economic growth.

[Oil-Finder]

So yes, you can have economic growth without using more resources.

You can't be serious, Oil-Finder. When you've added all resources consumed by the UK and found a growth of 525%, then you might start to have a point. Resources does not equal oil.

Well I'm not sure what you mean by "resources" then. But in addition to oil . . .



It's also true of coal:



Though natural gas consumption has gone up.



Of course to have economic growth - or even an economy at all - you do need to consume "some" resources. But you don't necessarily need to consume "more" resources.

[Oil-Finder]

On a finite planet, economic growth is unsustainable. If resource consumption ever flat lines (as you put it) that is the end of economic growth.

No. Look again at the figures shortonoil provided for Japan as well as my figures for the UK. In Japan, energy consumption over a period of 10 years grew only 10% while GDP grew 250%. In the UK, over a period of 25 years, oil consumption remained flat, coal consumption declined while natural gas consumption rose, roughly equating flat growth in energy resource consumption. Here we have two cases where resource consumption (at least for energy) flat lined but the economies grew 250% over 10 years and 525% over 25 years.

To be sure, in developing nations energy use will most certainly have to increase in order for economic growth to occur. The reason for that is because these nations didn't consume much energy to begin with. But once an economy matures (like Japan and the UK), it can become increasingly efficient and grow without needing greater energy inputs.

[TheDude]

One of the links he provided as one of his references also says absolutely nothing about energy densities of potatoes:
http://hubbert.mines.edu/news/Youngquist_98-4.pdf

Are you familiar with the literary device of absurdity? He's conveying how low the energy density is to make his point, which is totally lost on you, as has been the case with all these unconventional sources of oil you triumph.

The RAND study says nothing on energy density.

The Laherrere review says nothing about energy density.

Neither do any of his other links.

Udall just says it without any proof or evidence whatsoever. And all the peakers here are willing believers, repeating it over and over without even investigating the claim, falling for it lock, stock and barrel.

Here's what he does say:

Oil shale is said to be "rich" when a ton yields 30 gallons of oil.

1 gallon of crude oil = 138095 BTU. 4,142,850 BTU to the ton.

The energy density of various fuels can be found online. Caloric content of foodstuffs is at http://www.nutritiondata.com/
Typical carbohydrates would have about 4 Calories per gram. This is equivalent to approximately 7,000 BTU per pound, or 14,000,000 BTU/ton.

And now let's stare at Udall's graph for the overall picture:



I'm becoming more and more convinced we need something beyond forums and blogs for this subject - a web resource that will put all this debunking at our fingertips, since it is a waste of time to have to illustrate these points over and over. We need to work on mitigation as fast as possible, as the energy issue is the most critical in history. A resource that would aggregate the data on good solutions at the same time as putting poor ones like shale into perspective, of course.

[Oil-Finder]

TheDude, that graph is one of the things he did not provide a citation for. He just drew a graph. He provided no calculations. And I repeat what I said above:

The best he does is to provide a link to nutritiondata.com at the bottom of the page, and expects the reader to believe that the calories found in food and the energy found in fossil fuels are somehow equivalent energy sources - which is the most absurd thing imaginable.

Cap'n Crunch is a manufactured product, not one found lying around over thousands of square miles deposited by nature. Even if the energy density claims were true, the fact that nature has already made the shale, whereas food has to be grown or made by humans first, makes all the difference in the world. If Cap'n Crunch were a natural product of millions of years of geology, just sitting there, waiting to be harnessed by humans, then yes, it might be worthwhile to harness it as an energy source.

The comparison of a naturally-abundant resource (oil shale) to either a manufactured product (Cap'n Crunch) or an agricultural product (potatoes) is absurd. In order to harvest energy from Cap'n Crunch, it would first have to be manufactured. In order to harvest energy from potatoes, it would first have to be grown. This is not true of oil shale: It is just sitting there, already made by nature. Furthermore, neither potatoes nor Cap'n Crunch contain oil. We're not going to run our cars by burning starch or other calories from foodstuffs any time soon. But we can run our cars on oil from oil shale. Udall's analogy is a red herring.

[FreddyH]

Oil-Finder. Dude. Y'all are both right, so stop beating up on each other before someone says something they regret.

The cereal analogy is perverse. Cereal's second ingredient is the added sugar. All that stupid argument proves is that biofuels are a better source than kerogen. Nobody would argue that.

Is kerogen a worthwhile resource. Absolutely. It's better than the tar sands and yet Suncor announced this week that it's putting $20-bil more into that venture.

What Dude wants us to realize methinx, is that it is an inferior product to crude and too late the party anyways. And that's what i try to depict in my "2500" chart. This week's version is built on a 5.7-Tb URR. And yet, there is no light at the end of the tunnel.

Things aren't hopeless. Non-conventionals will give us a 1.4% Decline Rate instead of Hubbet's 3.75% rate. But all this talk about biofuels, shale, deep ocean, heavy, CTL, GTL, NGL, etc won't mean a hill of beans for those around fifty years from now when we only have half the oil flow as today. Not a prospect that seems likely with a URR that is twice what we thought available in 1993.

Let's look at Saudi vs Alberta. Most here (not me) think the Saudi's have the same reserves as there is tar sands: 175-Gb. Yet while Aramco is poised to hit their peak plateau at 12-mbd All Liquids in 2012, Canada will be pleased to peak at 3-mbd. This stuff is crummy.

It's all about the flow rate ... not the reserves ... not the resources.

[TonyPrep]

Well I'm not sure what you mean by "resources" then.

Raw materials, "provided" by the earth and which are used to make and operate stuff, and to provide services. Think of everything you buy. Is it grown with topsoil, minerals, fertilizers? Is it sown, tended and harvested by equipment and oil? Is it transported to processing centres? Is it wrapped and packaged? Are the boxes made from anything? Is your house made from anything? Your car?

Living needs resources. Economic growth needs more resources. I don't understand why this is so difficult to grasp. Energy (though that has grown as I've shown, and as the Japanese example has shown) is just one (or a few) of the resources that we use to keep the economic wheel turning and growing. So it's pointless showing graphs of one or two resource consumption curves.

[Tyler_JC]

Oil Shale need not be a great energy source in order to be profitable.

We are going to need hydrocarbon feedstock for use in the chemical industry for centuries.

Oil shale with an EROEI of 3:1 could still be worth the effort if we need the chemicals.

Of course, we might have moved on to methane hydrates for chemical feedstock at that point and who knows how much plastic garbage we could create out of that stuff.

I'm not saying it will happen, I'm saying it is within the realm of possibility.