Peak Oil News and Message Boards

pstarr wrote:

AdamB wrote:

pstarr wrote:Oil is for all practical purposes, the only source of oil. There are no oil rigs running today soley off power-plant tranmission electricity.

There are. I've worked on them. What is the point of using diesel to run the gensets if you don't need to?

Not that kind of oil rig AdamB

Quite true. Not that kind of rig, I was thinking more of something owned by Nabors.



P.S. It figures the first thought that jumps into your mind is doper stuff. How perfectly expected.

shortonoil wrote:

What is the Minimum EROI that a Sustainable Society Must Have?

Charles Hall (Cutler Cleveland's protege) put it a 7:0.

And both of them put their name on Charlies paper declaring the end of oil drilling in the US by 2000 because of net energy. So the professor who knows nothing about how the oil and gas business works and has already been discredited using those ideas passed it along to some gullible student. Sounds almost as bad as Aleklett and Hook at Uppsala.

AdamB wrote:.....

They tried. Gutless wonders like you and shorty either refused, or have already reneged. Such is your confidence in a random number generator, surprisingly it does reveal what you think, rather than just the nonsense you say.

"Gutless wonders like you and shorty ...."

I asked Adam some weeks back why he finds it necessary to use derogatory labels when responding to other folks on these forums. Adam called it a strange question. At first I thought he was simply avoiding the question, but I now understand that Adam doesn't even know the answer.

No point in asking again.

pstarr wrote:

vtsnowedin wrote:

pstarr wrote:One must rely on Etp's assumptions, math, and conclusions and the integrity of its methods.

Why would anyone ever rely on someone else's assumptions?

It's how science works.

How would you know? Lying, either because it is in your character, or through ignorance because you can't be bothered to understand how things work and then represent them that way, looks to be the overwhelming visible stamp on your posting history.

The idea that you know anything about science, with those as your defining personal characteristics, is just...well....a picture is worth 1000 words, so I will be brief.

Yoshua wrote:Snow

I wrote ENERGY CONTENT not VOLUME. The Etp Model is analyzing Energy not Volume.

The still gas and petroleum coke is burned to refine the crude. Asphalt and lubricants are useful but not energy sources.

If 50% is used and refineries use 35% then refineries use 70% of the energy used by the petroleum industry.

You are an idiot. The energy content of finished oil products has not changed one bit sense the first refineries were designed.
What percentage of oil industry energy use is at the refineries is not important considering the low total industry use compared to the energy content of the finished products. 70 percent of five percent is just 3.5%.

shortonoil wrote:

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.

Spoken like someone who never used IHS or RyStad information.

But forget them, they are just some of the best information money can buy, we'll just stick with IEA doing just that, and perhaps someone who knows more about oil then you and your 10,000 hours ever even noticed apparently.

Your statement is very revealing Short. The only people that DON'T get where a URR of 4000 billion barrels comes from are you and yours, the "attach a random decline and announce the end of the world" gang.

I can guarantee you this....the experts doing this certainly are familiar with, and using, those larger estimates, and giving presentations, and publishing, while you are busy excluding information, pretending it doesn't exist, and doing everything you can to drive that number down, when all the people who know something about oil and gas aren't.

shortonoil wrote:

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.

Well why don't you go tell that to the scientists studying it, and demonstrating how the resource to reserve replacement speed works? I'm guessing the scientist, any one of which has forgotten more about oil stuff and geology then you've ever known, operating in concert and with real live petroleum engineers running around to help them out, don't just have you beat, but you can't get an invite to use their restrooms because, well, they are scientists, and you can't even fool forum denizens who are familiar with the topic.

pstarr wrote:Etp is a mathematical equation, based fundemental physical law and data supplied by oil companies

See what I mean about you not knowing anything about science? The etp is an equation, and as a random number generator it works fine. Can't tell yet if this is just you lying again on purpose, but I'm betting it is just ignorance lying again. It does define you.

onlooker wrote:

rockdoc123 wrote:

.... and it depends on what the definition of "is" is.

and you actually think anyone here would understand your cryptic reference?

A certain Clinton said it
Oh and Rockdoc, I may not be an expert like you but I know enough to say that Reserves has an element of subjectivity to it.

Accounted for within the system used to measure them.

Or if you would just prefer a reference that some of us use quite often. Monograph 3 here, I would loan you mine but...well...no...I won't loan you mine. I'm not about to begin discussing probability measures with someone who doesn't understand the difference between that and "subjectivity".

Yoshua wrote:The economic engine runs on those liquid fuels.

The economic system runs on many things, coal, natural gas, solar, some economic activity runs on the tides (surfers spend money too!).

The key that DCoyne78 mentioned quite quickly, and completely accurately, is that etp can't be meaningful because obviously it doesn't discuss the ENERGY available to the economy, only a minority fraction, and one used primarily as a transport fuel at that.

And even worse...some of us don't even use it for that any more because there are better alternatives. Right now. Today. Even before etp explodes because random number generators can't predict prices.

GHung wrote:

AdamB wrote:.....

They tried. Gutless wonders like you and shorty either refused, or have already reneged. Such is your confidence in a random number generator, surprisingly it does reveal what you think, rather than just the nonsense you say.

"Gutless wonders like you and shorty ...."

I asked Adam some weeks back why he finds it necessary to use derogatory labels when responding to other folks on these forums.

I consider "gutless wonder" to be completely accurate when an advocate of an idea that they insist is correct, instead of betting some small token on that certainty, displays the characteristics of...X. I filled in X with "gutless wonder". Would you prefer a different ACCURATE characterization? Scaredy cat perhaps? Spineless jellyfish? What characterization would you prefer, that contains within it the correct connotation of distaste for those without the courage of their convictions and claims?

AdamB wrote:

GHung wrote:

AdamB wrote:.....

They tried. Gutless wonders like you and shorty either refused, or have already reneged. Such is your confidence in a random number generator, surprisingly it does reveal what you think, rather than just the nonsense you say.

"Gutless wonders like you and shorty ...."

I asked Adam some weeks back why he finds it necessary to use derogatory labels when responding to other folks on these forums.

I consider "gutless wonder" to be completely accurate when an advocate of an idea that they insist is correct, instead of betting some small token on that certainty, displays the characteristics of...X. I filled in X with "gutless wonder". Would you prefer a different ACCURATE characterization? Scaredy cat perhaps? Spineless jellyfish? What characterization would you prefer, that contains within it the correct connotation of distaste for those without the courage of their convictions and claims?

That addresses the 'what'. Like I said, you don't have a clue about the 'why'.

True, the economy runs on many different fuel types. Petroleum is perhaps called the master resource since it's used somewhere in production line of all goods and services, even coal, nat gas, nuclear, hydro, wind and solar. Petroleum is used in food production which is our energy source.

If can make a transition from fossil fuels to an electric world that can sustain it self, then fine...but if we can't...well...then you know...doom and gloom...if the Etp Model's energy analysis is correct.

Yoshua wrote:
And as the quality of the crude oil goes down the energy intensity goes up.

But of course, over time, the energy intensity of the entire ECONOMY of both the US and the world has been going down quite steadily as a trend for decades now, and is projected to continue doing so for quite a while.

So even as we move away from oil over the coming decades, we'll be using less and less total energy to produce a dollar of GDP. IOW, the opposite of doom re total energy usefulness.

And since the overall energy the refineries are generally using to produce a barrel of crude aren't increasing much (if at all) unlike what the ETPers claim, you have the overall effects of energy intensity exactly backwards.

Not that the ETPers will ever acknowledge that, no matter how many times they are presented with the data.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=10191

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG ... E.KO.PP.KD

vtsnowedin wrote:What percentage of oil industry energy use is at the refineries is not important considering the low total industry use compared to the energy content of the finished products. 70 percent of five percent is just 3.5%.

But since the ETPers live in a make-believe world where facts don't matter, they ignore such facts and make absurd claims like the energy used to produce a barrel of crude is now well over 50% and escalating every year.

It's like a child who insists monsters live under their bed, no matter now often and how clearly you show them that there are no monsters there.

For a young child, the fear might be understandable. For adults to ignore basic facts and arithmetic year after year, and continuing spewing FUD, not so much.

The refineries in California are processing a lot of heavy oil and they use more energy per bbl to refine it. The energy intensity is higher when heavy oil is processed. As the quality of crude oil goes down, the energy intensity goes up. It takes more energy to extract, pipe and refine heavy oil.

Outcast_Searcher wrote:It's like a child who insists monsters live under their bed, no matter now often and how clearly you show them that there are no monsters there.

Actually, that's the perfect analogy. Oil, given it exists under the ground, has just enough uncertainty to it that people can make up their own opinions about how much is left as their imagination desires. On the one hand you have fast-crash peakers who say we're about to go off the shark-fin. On the other you have the abiotic crowd who think it just naturally replenishes itself from processes deep in the earth's core.

The end result is that opinions about oil have more to do with our own fears and desires than about any sort of scientific model. It's just that, as adults, we feel we have to rationalize our opinions with a bunch of charts and graphs, but in large part it's just a way to reinforce our own prejudices.

California has consistently been the nations 1st, 2nd or 3rd largest oil producer, yet it requires all sorts of upgrading and work and refinery losses. Two-thirds of California crude has a gravity under 20 degrees. In fact, the state's oil fields are estimated to contain more than 40 percent of the country's heavy oil.

Almost all the new oil brought on line over the last 15 years has been heavy, and usually sulfur contaminated; that increases processing energy cost tremendously. Not only has viscosity been declining, but well debt, and water cut have been increasing. The energy to extract energy from petroleum is gong up. If it wasn't we have wound up in the wrong universe! This one has its rules, and they are not negotiable.

shortonoil wrote:Almost all the new oil brought on line over the last 15 years has been heavy, and usually sulfur contaminated; that increases processing energy cost tremendously. Not only has viscosity been declining, but well debt, and water cut have been increasing. The energy to extract energy from petroleum is gong up. If it wasn't we have wound up in the wrong universe! This one has its rules, and they are not negotiable.

Even when this was posted back in 2017 it was blatantly incorrect. Yes some of the new oil brought into production between 2002 and 2017 was heavy sour oil, but when the Fracking boom started in 2009 the resulting oil production was almost exclusively light sweet crude. In fact it was so light that in order to bring it closer to WTI (intermediate) standard it had to be blended with heavier crude to raise its API gravity and make it easier to refine in industry average refineries. This actually led to quite a bit of irritation when some "blenders" would just mix super like fracked crude with heavy sour crude in proportion to get an intermediate average weight without filling in the broad middle range product profile. Sure it was technically intermediate crude by weight but it was missing many of the higher value product components which made it just as problematic for a refiner who still had to upgrade the heavy crude component to produce more saleable products. Several refiners took to the practice of doing their own blending by mixing something like 50% WTI with 30% Fracked light ends and 20% heavy sour crude from the Canadian bitumen production. This gave them a useful blend they could refine at lower cost than the WTI crude that they started with because the abundant light fracked ends and heavy bitumen sands ends were cheaper than the WTI which had not changed in production rate much during the Fracking and Athabaska exploitation boom of the 2010's. By 2014 there was a surplus of light ends and this led to the economic crash in the fracking world of mid 2015 to mid 2016 before prices started to recover.

Once again, Economic reality trumped theory.