Peak Oil News and Message Boards

pstarr wrote:Okay. I've taken enough guff from you two industry flacks (and the make-believe industry guy);

Yes, oil shale and shale oil are different.

Yes, I understand the difference. I read Wiki also.

It's mind-numbingly stunning to think this guy has been posting here as long as he has, and he's only just learning this now.

pstarr wrote:Yes, SAGH and THAI have been applied to both types of unconventional plays. Not without reason, as both structures are, from a traditional oil industry perspective, a tad unusual. You would have laughed twenty years ago if someone told you we'd be blowing up rock to get at crummy oil. Hey, but that's peak for ya!

And this one he just finally learned about tonight! (see post above) I've been at this board half the time he has, but I learned what SAGD and THAI are about 2 years ago.

Unbelievable.

Pops and TheDude got it right. According to the IEA, at best we will get a 9 pct increase in global energy produced from oil and gas sources, but energy demand may rise by around 2 pct per annum. As demand hits the production ceiling, we will see long-term recession. And that's assuming that conventional sources simply flat line and no other problems involving the economy or due to climate change don't take place.

pstarr wrote:What is unbelievable is that you keep drumming up scams. When I came here it tar sands would save us, then bakken NG, and now bakken oil. Is it any wonder that someone is confused. You keep spinning the bottle looking for another peak-oil genie to make you some money.

The cluelessness continues. The focus of the Bakken was never on NG, it was always on oil.

But what the hell do you know, you don't pay any attention to this stuff. Then you make an ass of yourself when you try to talk about.

pstarr wrote:Oil . . . natural gas . . . oh whatever, it's all the same to me.

pstarr
Expert
posts 12798

yes, I might occasionally become too involved in the local economic give and toke, I mean take.

I'm jealous. Seriously. Once I shuffle off the corporate yoke and the random yearly drug test I'd like to set up shop in your part of the woods.

pstarr wrote:You've spent the previous 3 years promoting Chesapeake shale NG. We know how that went. They were forced to cut the reserves by what? 80%? Now you have latched onto the bakken shale oil scam.

Must be a pretty good scam if prices of natural gas are less than they were in the 1990s, and they are projected to stay that way for quite awhile. Also, there is a huge divergence in price of natural gas and oil. I don't think the gap is sustainable. Oil is going to come down or gas is going to go up... (Chesapeak is a good investment either way)

I haven't read enough to know for sure, but I have a feeling there might have been some politics involved in getting the reserves cut. The USGS is almost always way off when they make predictions. The Bakken is a good example. The original USGS esimate was something like 230 million barrels of production. The new estimate is about 4 billion, and I expect them to be around 8 billion the next time they evaluate the formation. Industry is expecting 20 billion+ combined production between Bakken and some of the other formations.

Regardless, natural gas drillers have moved there rigs from gas to liquids because they can make more money. Natural gas a is a very abundant resource in North America, and we could potentially run most of the country off it for a lot less than current alternative technologies.

pstarr wrote:You've spent the previous 3 years promoting Chesapeake shale NG. We know how that went ...

Here we go again.

You're right pstarr, shale gas has been a MISERABLE failure. It's been such a FAILURE that production has gone THROUGH THE ROOF!



And prices have CRATERED and STABILIZED.



Yep, a complete and total failure! If shale oil repeats this same failure, we can expect US production to get up to maybe 7-10 million bpd and prices to crash to about $50/barrel - and stay there for a long time. A catastrophic failure and investment scam!

Reserves have nothing to do with price.
That "HOT AIR" still has the same value as gas regardless of price.

You previous graph does not represent a decline curve. I really hope you don't actually believe that it does.

Every time you make a new post I question your education and motivation for posting.
troll....

We explained the drive mechanism to you yesterday...

It is not BS it is basically fact based on what they know right now. I think the cost per barrel is probably off, but the oil is there and is producible.

right-wingnut? politics.... really?
For the record No...

I shall reiterate since you wil not respond in your own thread:

It will take 10,000 days (28 years) to withdraw a 4,000 day (11 year) supply of oil in North Dakota shale oil.

This is akin to bong scraping.

How can you not understand that this is not a rosy picture, for either me, you or our children?

As pstarr is trying to point out, it took about 1 day to withdraw three month's supply in the past conventional oilfields.

Get it?

basil_hayden wrote:I shall reiterate since you wil not respond in your own thread:

It will take 10,000 days (28 years) to withdraw a 4,000 day (11 year) supply of oil in North Dakota shale oil.

This is akin to bong scraping.

Then you scrape 10 bongs. And suddenly have 40,000 days of supply, creating a massive surplus of bong scraped oil, and the price crashes. The consumer rejoices because they don't care what their oil is made of ( CTL,GTL, synthetic tar sand crude, french fry grease or palm oil) as long as they can pump it into their diesel/gas tanks and continue on their way.

As for the drive mechanism, it is a solution gas drive reservoir of course.

"Although this reservoir differs
geologically from other shale plays, its complex shale source/reservoir system keep it
categorized as a significant shale play. One distinguishing feature of the Bakken
Shale is its drive mechanism, solution gas drive system."

Veronica's master thesis covers it pretty well.

http://mpge.ou.edu/research/documents/2 ... nzales.pdf

Bruce_S wrote:

basil_hayden wrote:I shall reiterate since you wil not respond in your own thread:

It will take 10,000 days (28 years) to withdraw a 4,000 day (11 year) supply of oil in North Dakota shale oil.

This is akin to bong scraping.

Then you scrape 10 bongs. And suddenly have 40,000 days of supply, creating a massive surplus of bong scraped oil, and the price crashes.

The price can't crash, or the bong scraping will stop. See the Chinese handcuffs we're in? There will not be another price drop to below $75 per barrel. Period.

pstarr wrote:Oily's standard diversion--cherry-picked short-term trend to support said scam.



Here is the long-term trend; a plateau followed by the longgggggggggggg decline.

Look who's cherry picking? Conveniently your graph is the yearly one which ends at 2010. Here is the most recent one, which is now being followed by a biiiiiiiiiiigggg increase in production.

Only pstarr would consider it bad if farmers produced a bumper crop of something, sending the price down. Which is basically what's happened in the NG industry.

Yeah, abudance and low prices are a sign of failure. Sure.

pstarr wrote:

OilFinder2 wrote:And prices have CRATERED and STABILIZED.

Precisely why Chesapeake reserves were downgraded by 90% The market will not buy $6 shale gas when regular is available for $4.

So what Chesapeake was declaring to be an asset . . . is now considered HOT AIR.

basil_hayden wrote:The price can't crash, or the bong scraping will stop. See the Chinese handcuffs we're in? There will not be another price drop to below $75 per barrel. Period.

Yes there can, because the great majority of that bong scraping is profitable at $60 and even $50 a barrel.

Same thing with the shale gas - supposedly it's not profitable at current prices, but they're producing more of it anyway.