Peak Oil News and Message Boards

Posted: **Tue 12 Aug 2014, 03:18:38**

Sand use for fracing in the U.S is approaching 45 million metric tonnes a year.

http://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/m ... upper.html

http://www.lselectric.com/sand-wars-fra ... s-foundry/

Posted: **Sun 20 Nov 2016, 21:09:38**

Other than the rumors of sand being in short supply for mortar and cement work why does this matter at all?

Posted: **Sun 20 Nov 2016, 21:50:55**

Is there a shortage of seaweed? Assuming you have any idea of what you are talking about.

Posted: **Sun 20 Nov 2016, 23:17:40**

pstarr wrote:The Price of Agar. Because of a seaweed shortage, the price of the common lab reagent agar has sharply increased, Nature News reports. The wholesale price of agar is some $35 to $45 per kilogram, about triple what it was before the shortage.Dec 8, 2015
The Price of Agar | GenomeWeb
https://www.genomeweb.com/scan/price-agar

So really nothing to do with the shortage of suitable sand then.

Posted: **Mon 21 Nov 2016, 11:50:22**

pstarr - One of the reasons a lot of frac'ers have gone to manmade propants. Especially where high closing pressures will crush sand and reduce permeability. For example:

http://www.carboceramics.com/ceramic-proppant/

Posted: **Thu 03 Aug 2017, 12:17:54**

$20 per bbl??? That remains to be seen IMHO. But at current prices? Folks that didn't understand the pressure that the managers of pubcos feel to increase booked reserves y-o-y that led to the original shale boom will also have trouble understanding this report.
From

http://www.rigzone.com/news/oil_gas/a/1 ... its_Expand

"The shale surge that’s tied down global oil prices shows no signs of abating, as four of the biggest U.S. drillers said they’re not backing away from lofty production targets for 2017. In second-quarter earnings reports, EOG Resources Inc., Devon Energy Corp., Newfield Exploration Co. and Diamondback Energy Inc. all outlined goals on Tuesday that would help push U.S. output toward a record 10 million barrels a day next year. Even Pioneer Natural Resources Co., which trimmed the top end of its forecast due to delays in the Permian shale basin, still expects to increase oil and natural gas volumes by 16 percent at year’s end.

The reports suggest staying power for a supply glut that’s kept world oil prices on a roller-coaster ride this year, even as OPEC nations vowed to reduce output. The optimism from the U.S. shale fields followed quarterly reports last week that showed major international producers including Exxon Mobil Corp. and Royal Dutch Shell Plc are also learning to make money at $50 a barrel,less than half the peak that crude reached three years ago.

“In the best parts of the basins, shale is here to stay," said Rob Thummel, managing director at Tortoise Capital Advisors LLC in Leawood, Kansas, which manages $16 billion in energy-related assets. “Shale production is going up. It’s not a matter of if; it’s just a matter of how much."

Learning to make a profit at $50 a bbl shouldn't be to difficult: all Big Oil has to do is remember how it made profits from 1982 to 2004 when the inflation adjusted price of oil was significantly less then the current price. The big question will be whether it finds a meaningful number of projects similar to what it found during those 2 decades.

Posted: **Thu 03 Aug 2017, 12:36:43**

"I will never convince you that energy is lost getting energy." That would seem to beg the question: if the world is currently consuming more then the IEA estimate in 2013 of a total primary energy supply of 1.575 × 10 to the 17 power Wh (= 157.5 PWh, 5.67 × 10 to the 20 power joules) or 13,541 Mtoe...then where are we getting this apparently inexhaustible supply of energy used to produce the energy we're consuming?

Posted: **Thu 03 Aug 2017, 13:55:29**

And another one bites the dust . http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-0 ... hedge-fund

Posted: **Thu 03 Aug 2017, 17:17:01**

dirtyharry wrote:And another one bites the dust . http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-0 ... hedge-fund

Keep cleaning out the amateurs...just show them to the door, the sooner the chaff gets swept away, the sooner the wheat is revealed.

Posted: **Fri 04 Aug 2017, 00:43:41**

"And another one bites the dust." And bare in mind that neither of these dead fish every drilled an oil/NG well or invested in one. Just more fools who thought the could predict the future price of petroleum.

Posted: **Fri 04 Aug 2017, 11:00:29**

Learning to make a profit at $50 a bbl shouldn't be to difficult: all Big Oil has to do is remember how it made profits from 1982 to 2004 when the inflation adjusted price of oil was significantly less then the current price. The big question will be whether it finds a meaningful number of projects similar to what it found during those 2 decades.

The main challenge I see notwithstanding the inflation issue is that manpower costs have steadily risen over the years irrespective of the numerous price corrections we saw. Companies may have hired less people but there is a limit to how low you go if you are running a going concern. The issue is salaries and total compensation for employees just continued to rise over the years. That's a good thing for employees of course but does make it more difficult each price crash. Companies seem to be more apt to decrease their total staff rather than ask staff to take substantial pay cuts. The rationale here is that companies are worried that if they drop salaries and total compensation they are suddenly in a very uncompetitive position when price rises and risk losing their best employees. In any event it just means that over time the lowest price that companies can operate under and still be successful is a continual tug of war between rising employment costs and the ability to decrease other operating costs through innovation and technology.

IN terms of projects out there I am of the opinion that the next sea change will not be a new shale basin but rather improvements in recovery factor associated with the unconventionals. Currently the average recovery factor from tight formations in North America is in the 3% - 7% range compared to conventional reservoir primary recovery of somewhere in the 25% - 50% range. A quick perusal of the SPE recent literature shows a number of promising research initiatives to this end. One I read not that long ago indicated that their studies related to CO2 flooding resulted in 1.5 times increase in recovery factor. This is significant if you consider that the EIA estimate of technically recoverable tight oil resources would suddenly rise from 78.2 Gbbls to 122 Gbbls. Areas of play trends which were less attractive due to EUR that just didn't cut it would suddenly become places where activity is concentrated. The whole idea of secondary recovery in unconventionals is just now starting to gain a bit of traction.

Posted: **Fri 04 Aug 2017, 19:39:20**

AdamB wrote:
dirtyharry wrote:And another one bites the dust . http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-0 ... hedge-fund
&

Keep cleaning out the amateurs...just show them to the door, the sooner the chaff gets swept away, the sooner the wheat is revealed.

I just read yesterday how hedge funds just lost over $half a billion betting against Tesla earnings this week. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/03/hedge-f ... tesla.html

(I don't make unhedged bets against the likes of Tesla. I'm smart enough to be too "skeered" of pain).

Overall, hedge funds under-perform the S&P 500 over time, while charging overall fees in the ballpark of TWO orders of magnitude more than the most efficient S&P 500 index funds, such as Vanguard's admiral version.

It makes you wonder how long these clowns can keep fooling the dumb rich folks.

And I know, some hedge fund clowns do outperform. Well, short of having a time machine, tell me how you reliably predict WHO outperforms apriori, and don't forget to factor in the huge fees. :lol:

Posted: **Fri 04 Aug 2017, 19:56:34**

It is interesting to look at the way oil and gas companies trade hedges. The one main reason for hedging if you are an O&G company is because there is a certain price point below which the pain is too great and your company is at risk. To that end most companies will give away some of the upside to protect their downside. When companies make acquisitions they tend to hedge the value of that purchase at a price close to the purchase price so as to protect their downside. I think there are very few traders working for large companies that seek to "beat the market".

Posted: **Fri 04 Aug 2017, 22:27:26**

Doc - So true. In fact, every one of the big acquisitions I've seen in at least the last 20 years that included a big loan the lender REQUIRED the company to put a significant hedge in place. The lenders didn't want any "big pain" filtering down to then.

But don't be confused folks: a petroleum company hedging its production has nothing to do with hedge funds loosing their asses. Two different dynamics.

Posted: **Sat 05 Aug 2017, 10:44:45**

pstarr wrote:Regarding the trolls, I just yesterday posted a private message to Newfie asking the same. Perhaps if others were to do so, it would have an effect? There are other moderators also.

As for Asy7, I don't see where ETP reference at a peak-oil web site can be considered trolling.

Advertising and pimping for SALES is the problem.

People reference stupid crap all the time, Gail's work, Art Berman, Zerohedge, once upon a time it was FTW, LATOC, etc etc.

Referencing bad ideas as you wish, but when people are pimping and advertising for sales, that is something else altogether.

pstarr wrote: It's a useful and seemingly highly-predictable model of declining oil-field permeability/porosity and middle-API resources. Not that much different in effect than measures that are used to define USGS reserves. It measures mathematically the difficulty and energy expense required to produce oil.

It does no such thing...but then it requires someone who can do that thinking thing to figure it out apparently. Try it sometime, you must be DECADES away from your learning at the Stoner Instructional Complex, break free from the intellectual chains they installed on your mind and THINK already.

pstarr wrote:It seems that is only a problem for two, maybe three people. I would ask them politely to desist from their self-appointed responsibilities of moderating this site. This is our discussion, if you don't care to join with respect and maturity than please leave. Find another playground

I agree. How soon can you find another playground? Maybe you and Short can get a forum up and running to supercharge report sales, he can provide all the necessary sock puppets, you can provide the unthinking commentary, and maybe he'll cut you in on a portion of the profiles as incentive to just be as ignorant as you always are?

You have to admit, in this world when someone will pay you to be yourself, this isn't a bad thing.

Posted: **Thu 17 Aug 2017, 10:40:26**

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Ru ... cking.html

Russia Claims To Have Invented Alternative To Fracking

Russian scientists and local oil field services companies claim to have created a technology for thermochemical gas fracturing that could be an alternative to hydraulic fracturing and could increase oil production by between 1.7 and 6 times, Russia’s news agency RIA Novosti reports, citing the University of Tyumen’s press service.

Peak Oil News and Message Boards

THE Fracking Thread pt 4

Mr Sandman and fracing

Re: Mr Sandman and fracing

Re: Mr Sandman and fracing

Re: Mr Sandman and fracing

Re: Mr Sandman and fracing

Re: Shale Oil Profitable at $20 Barrel Pt. 3

Re: Shale Oil Profitable at $20 Barrel Pt. 3

Re: Shale Oil Profitable at $20 Barrel Pt. 3

Re: Shale Oil Profitable at $20 Barrel Pt. 3

Re: Shale Oil Profitable at $20 Barrel Pt. 3

Re: Shale Oil Profitable at $20 Barrel Pt. 3

Re: Shale Oil Profitable at $20 Barrel Pt. 3

Re: Shale Oil Profitable at $20 Barrel Pt. 3

Re: Shale Oil Profitable at $20 Barrel Pt. 3

Re: Shale Oil Profitable at $20 Barrel Pt. 2

Re: THE Fracking Thread pt 3