Peak Oil News and Message Boards

Cliffhanger1983 wrote:

pstarr wrote:

The Anglo-Australian miner bought the US oil and gas assets at the height of the boom, when oil prices were above $100 a barrel. The division has become a lightning rod for dissatisfaction with the company’s strategy, with BHP under pressure from investors, including billionaire Paul Singer’s Elliott Advisors, to spin off the unit as oil prices struggle to recover above the $50-a-barrel level.

Like most everybody else, BHP neglected to check in with the doomers here at po.com. Dumb fools they are lol

Yes and their CEO is the fired former CEO from Ford motors. And I read that they lost around 50 billion dollars investing in shale. Shale oil is all hat and no cattle....

Some hat.....can anyone say...BIGGER THAN GHAWAR!!!! or is admitting how wrong you are one of those things they teach zealots to never do?

AdamB wrote:

Cliffhanger1983 wrote:

pstarr wrote:

The Anglo-Australian miner bought the US oil and gas assets at the height of the boom, when oil prices were above $100 a barrel. The division has become a lightning rod for dissatisfaction with the company’s strategy, with BHP under pressure from investors, including billionaire Paul Singer’s Elliott Advisors, to spin off the unit as oil prices struggle to recover above the $50-a-barrel level.

Like most everybody else, BHP neglected to check in with the doomers here at po.com. Dumb fools they are lol

Yes and their CEO is the fired former CEO from Ford motors. And I read that they lost around 50 billion dollars investing in shale. Shale oil is all hat and no cattle....

Some hat.....can anyone say...BIGGER THAN GHAWAR!!!! or is admitting how wrong you are one of those things they teach zealots to never do?

Ghawar is high quality oil. Shale is low quality oil. You are comparing apples to rocks....Not all energy is equal.

Ghawar is high quality oil. Shale is low quality oil. You are comparing apples to rocks....Not all energy is equal

Uh, no, completely incorrect. The oil from most of the shales is not "low quality", it is not sour, it is not heavy and it isn't of high viscosity. It sits at a slightly higher gravity than Ghawar but has equivalent viscosity, sulphur, BSW and wax content. In fact, some of it is very close in spec to the oil being produced at Shaybah, one of the newer fields in Saudi Arabia. You got that comment no doubt from Short who goes on and on about low-quality oil from shales when in fact putting much of it side by side with much of the North Sea oil would show very little difference.

So no, the oil from shales is not much different than the other oils produced in the US. Not surprising since all of the oils share the same local source.

rockdoc123 wrote:

Ghawar is high quality oil. Shale is low quality oil. You are comparing apples to rocks....Not all energy is equal

Uh, no, completely incorrect. The oil from most of the shales is not "low quality", it is not sour, it is not heavy and it isn't of high viscosity. It sits at a slightly higher gravity than Ghawar but has equivalent viscosity, sulphur, BSW and wax content. In fact, some of it is very close in spec to the oil being produced at Shaybah, one of the newer fields in Saudi Arabia. You got that comment no doubt from Short who goes on and on about low-quality oil from shales when in fact putting much of it side by side with much of the North Sea oil would show very little difference.

So no, the oil from shales is not much different than the other oils produced in the US. Not surprising since all of the oils share the same local source.

Shale oil hasn't matured long enough yet, and is extra light. That is why it's sold at a discount compared with Saudi crude....You dumb shill....Now go back to the trailer and screwing your sister/wife! I thought you would have had enough from yesterday. But I see you want more! Don't make me post some of my list again, Rock. I am warning you!

Shale oil hasn't matured long enough yet, and is extra light. That is why it's sold at a discount compared with Saudi crude....You dumb shill....Now go back to the trailer and screwing your sister/wife! I thought you would have had enough from yesterday. But I see you want more! Don't make me post some of my list again, Rock. I am warning you!

Is something wrong with you? I can tell immediately you do not have the degree you claim based on your posts. That beside the point I've worked in this industry for 30+ years. Do you care to look at the oil assays or not? Of course not....you are someone who thinks they know something when in fact they are completely wrong. 38 API which comes from the Permian and Eagle Ford is not superlight and the Saudis are making a ton of money selling the actual superlight from Shaybah. But you would not know that as apparently you know zip about this industry.

Shale oil is not sold at a discount you idiot. In fact it is blended with all the heavy oil from Canada (and traditionally form Venezuela) to make up the correct mix for the US refineries. And the older refineries in Europe actually want this type of crude, they were built for Brent and are happy with the light crude from Libya.

Please don't make a fool of yourself here. It is pretty clear from your demeanor that you do not have an advanced degree and all you are interested in doing is insulting people who actually know something about the subject.

Cliffhanger1983 wrote:Ghawar is high quality oil. Shale is low quality oil. You are comparing apples to rocks....Not all energy is equal.

Shale oil is absolutely wonderful stuff, when it comes to quality. This is an oily forum (at least on occasion) so do try and LEARN something while you are here.

Cliffhanger1983 wrote:Shale oil hasn't matured long enough yet, and is extra light.

How about this as a suggestion, try and wiki and then cut and paste something someone else might have attempted to get right, that way there is at least a CHANCE you will say something that doesn't make you look ignorant.

Extra-light...gotta love that one....you have an objection to crude oil so much like gasoline coming out of the ground that they call it..."natural gasoline"? Try thinking about that one for a little while, before saying something else.

cliffhanger1983 wrote:That is why it's sold at a discount compared with Saudi crude....You dumb shill....

Well now, that depends on demand for a given weight to achieve a particular assay. And knowing something about the industry doesn't make someone a shill..but writing stupid things does prove someone is ignorant.

cliffhanger1983 wrote:Now go back to the trailer and screwing your sister/wife! I thought you would have had enough from yesterday. But I see you want more! Don't make me post some of my list again, Rock. I am warning you!

What list? Perhaps you missed the over-write that was done on it, along with code violations dropped in its place?

Oh, you mean the list you thought you dropped off, didn't notice it had been blasted, and don't have what it takes to talk about anything in it anyway?

rockdoc123 wrote:

Shale oil hasn't matured long enough yet, and is extra light. That is why it's sold at a discount compared with Saudi crude....You dumb shill....Now go back to the trailer and screwing your sister/wife! I thought you would have had enough from yesterday. But I see you want more! Don't make me post some of my list again, Rock. I am warning you!

Is something wrong with you? I can tell immediately you do not have the degree you claim based on your posts. That beside the point I've worked in this industry for 30+ years. Do you care to look at the oil assays or not? Of course not....you are someone who thinks they know something when in fact they are completely wrong. 38 API which comes from the Permian and Eagle Ford is not superlight and the Saudis are making a ton of money selling the actual superlight from Shaybah. But you would not know that as apparently you know zip about this industry.

Shale oil is not sold at a discount you idiot. In fact it is blended with all the heavy oil from Canada (and traditionally form Venezuela) to make up the correct mix for the US refineries. And the older refineries in Europe actually want this type of crude, they were built for Brent and are happy with the light crude from Libya.

Please don't make a fool of yourself here. It is pretty clear from your demeanor that you do not have an advanced degree and all you are interested in doing is insulting people who actually know something about the subject.

Shale is not a substitute for conventional crude because it takes 3 to 5 barrels of conventional to process one barrel of shale. Its API gravity is too high to be processed without the blending of conventional. Every refinery in the world is set up to process about 33° crude. The light ends just don't cut it by themselves. It’s not much of a substitute if it can’t do any substituting. And you are obviously jealous of my education which means you must have none. WOW..Big shocker there..Remember yesterday Rock when you threw a shit fit and tried to get me censored..LOL You are such a freaking pussy it's sad...You are an enemy of reason.

https://www.alternet.org/environment/we ... my-down-it
"A new peer-reviewed study led by the Institute of Physics at the National Autonomous University of Mexico has undertaken a comparative review of the EROI of all the major sources of energy that currently underpin industrial civilization—namely oil, gas, coal, and uranium.For shale oil and gas, the situation is even more dire: “The EROI varies between 1.5 and 4, with an average value of 2.8. Shale oil is very similar to the tar sands; being both oil sources of very low quality. The shale gas revolution did not start because its exploitation was a very good idea; but because the most attractive economic opportunities were previously exploited and exhausted.”

In effect, the growing reliance on unconventional oil and gas has meant that, overall, the costs and inputs into energy production to keep industrial civilization moving are rising inexorably."

Shale is all hat and no cattle....

Chevron CEO warns US shale oil alone cannot meet the world's growing demand for crude
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/01/us-shal ... warns.html

Saudi Aramco CEO believes oil shortage coming despite U.S. shale boom
http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2017 ... -boom.html

"Shale is not a substitute for conventional crude because it takes 3 to 5 barrels of conventional to process one barrel of shale. Its API gravity is too high to be processed without the blending of conventional. Every refinery in the world is set up to process about 33° crude. The light ends just don't cut it by themselves."
Wrong.
cliffbanger, you're an idiot. Do you get paid for posting your crap? Or does stupidity just come naturally?

Cliffhanger1983 wrote:Shale is all hat and no cattle....

I've already answered that one. And then we all discovered that you don't know anything about oil quality and were just making stuff up, apparently not even knowing how MUCH oil that hat can replace.

Shale is not a substitute for conventional crude because it takes 3 to 5 barrels of conventional to process one barrel of shale. Its API gravity is too high to be processed without the blending of conventional. Every refinery in the world is set up to process about 33° crude. The light ends just don't cut it by themselves. It’s not much of a substitute if it can’t do any substituting. And you are obviously jealous of my education which means you must have none. WOW..Big shocker there..Remember yesterday Rock when you threw a shit fit and tried to get me censored..LOL You are such a freaking pussy it's sad...You are an enemy of reason.

It would seem you are a sock puppet of Short and nothing more. First of all not every refinery in the world is set up to process 33 API crude, that is something Short said and it is patently wrong. Most of the refineries in Europe were built to deal with Brent crude which is around 38 API and this was the problem when Libya crude was shut in because it was the main source or light oil for those refineries. Perhaps you need to understand the industry a little bit better than you do (which apparently is zero). And recently in the US they are commissioning refineries to deal with the light oil. In actual fact, it is easier to process light oil than it is moderate to heavier fractions. The issue is the specs to which the refineries were built, they can always be adjusted which is happening as we speak.

It is pretty clear to everyone here you are not a "rocket scientist" as you claim to be. No one of that background would behave the way you do on this site. And it is pretty clear you know zip about the oil and gas industry, all the insults you want to throw may way are not going to change that.

rockdoc123 wrote:

Shale is not a substitute for conventional crude because it takes 3 to 5 barrels of conventional to process one barrel of shale. Its API gravity is too high to be processed without the blending of conventional. Every refinery in the world is set up to process about 33° crude. The light ends just don't cut it by themselves. It’s not much of a substitute if it can’t do any substituting. And you are obviously jealous of my education which means you must have none. WOW..Big shocker there..Remember yesterday Rock when you threw a shit fit and tried to get me censored..LOL You are such a freaking pussy it's sad...You are an enemy of reason.

It would seem you are a sock puppet of Short and nothing more. First of all not every refinery in the world is set up to process 33 API crude, that is something Short said and it is patently wrong. Most of the refineries in Europe were built to deal with Brent crude which is around 38 API and this was the problem when Libya crude was shut in because it was the main source or light oil for those refineries. Perhaps you need to understand the industry a little bit better than you do (which apparently is zero). And recently in the US they are commissioning refineries to deal with the light oil. In actual fact, it is easier to process light oil than it is moderate to heavier fractions. The issue is the specs to which the refineries were built, they can always be adjusted which is happening as we speak.

It is pretty clear to everyone here you are not a "rocket scientist" as you claim to be. No one of that background would behave the way you do on this site. And it is pretty clear you know zip about the oil and gas industry, all the insults you want to throw may way are not going to change that.

I never said I was a rocket scientist. I am a chemist at a Midwest university. .And I know you are jealous of my education because you keep bringing it up. Which shows you must have zero education...you are just a paid shill for the oil industry. And I can tell they are paying shit these days...And like I said Rockbrain. If you dont stop i will post more peer reviewed studies that will make you go cry to the mods again...You don't want to wet yourself again like yesterday do you?

World Scientists “Warning to Humanity” Signed by 1,700 Scientists Including the Majority of all Nobel Prize Winners
http://www.ucsusa.org/about/1992-world- ... eKJx49Sziw

Scientific American: Apocalypse Soon: Has Civilization Passed the Environmental Point of No Return?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... no-return/

NASA Study: Industrial Civilization is Headed for Irreversible Collapse (Motesharrei, 2014)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 0914000615

The Royal Society: Study, Now for the First Time A Global Collapse Appears Likely (Ehrlich, 2013)
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/ ... 4/20122845

Study: Limits to Growth was Right. Research Shows We're Nearing Global Collapse (Turner, 2014)
http://sustainable.unimelb.edu.au/sites ... r_2014.pdf

Study: Financial System Supply-Chain Cross-Contagion: in Global Systemic Collapse (Korowicz, 2012)
http://www.feasta.org/2012/06/17/trade- ... -collapse/


I told you deniers...Don't make me George Bush this button over nothing..

Cliffhanger1983 wrote:World Scientists “Warning to Humanity” Signed by 1,700 Scientists Including the Majority of all Nobel Prize Winners
http://www.ucsusa.org/about/1992-world- ... eKJx49Sziw

I told you deniers...Don't make me George Bush this button over nothing..

I don't know what your obsession with posting 10+ year old claims is but why not stretch yourself and post things from current research on the issue of peak oil? Nobody around here gains traction by simply repeating 10+ year old studies because out here in reality things have progressed. Fracking as it has developed over the 2006-2017 time period has provided humanity with a breather on the consequences of the energy system as designed 1859-2005. Fracking is no more a permanent solution than the North Sea or Prudhoe Bay were, but it represents a heck of a lot of energy injected into the world supply system and has succeeded in causing a short term glut in world oil supply. Ignoring that by only posting 10+ year old article links, without even quotes to show what parts you want people to understand, is futile. Doing it over and over is a violation of the COC as you have been told.

Come let us reason together. Post a quote and a link, and comment on the veracity and quality of that quoted passage. Members here will eagerly discuss both the quoted passage and your commentary about it, which is a far more useful form of communication than repetitive link baiting and proclamations of superior knowledge. It would also go a long way towards proving you have some ideas of your own instead of just a minimal capability of link baiting.

Tanada wrote:

Cliffhanger1983 wrote:World Scientists “Warning to Humanity” Signed by 1,700 Scientists Including the Majority of all Nobel Prize Winners
http://www.ucsusa.org/about/1992-world- ... eKJx49Sziw

I told you deniers...Don't make me George Bush this button over nothing..

I don't know what your obsession with posting 10+ year old claims is but why not stretch yourself and post things from current research on the issue of peak oil? Nobody around here gains traction by simply repeating 10+ year old studies because out here in reality things have progressed. Fracking as it has developed over the 2006-2017 time period has provided humanity with a breather on the consequences of the energy system as designed 1859-2005. Fracking is no more a permanent solution than the North Sea or Prudhoe Bay were, but it represents a heck of a lot of energy injected into the world supply system and has succeeded in causing a short term glut in world oil supply. Ignoring that by only posting 10+ year old article links, without even quotes to show what parts you want people to understand, is futile. Doing it over and over is a violation of the COC as you have been told.

Come let us reason together. Post a quote and a link, and comment on the veracity and quality of that quoted passage. Members here will eagerly discuss both the quoted passage and your commentary about it, which is a far more useful form of communication than repetitive link baiting and proclamations of superior knowledge. It would also go a long way towards proving you have some ideas of your own instead of just a minimal capability of link baiting.

Scientific American: Apocalypse Soon: Has Civilization Passed the Environmental Point of No Return?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... no-return/

NASA Study: Industrial Civilization is Headed for Irreversible Collapse (Motesharrei, 2014)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 0914000615

The Royal Society: Study, Now for the First Time A Global Collapse Appears Likely (Ehrlich, 2013)
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/ ... 4/20122845

Study: Limits to Growth was Right. Research Shows We're Nearing Global Collapse (Turner, 2014)
http://sustainable.unimelb.edu.au/sites ... r_2014.pdf

Study: Financial System Supply-Chain Cross-Contagion: in Global Systemic Collapse (Korowicz, 2012)
http://www.feasta.org/2012/06/17/trade- ... -collapse/

Cliffhanger1983 wrote:

Tanada wrote:

Cliffhanger1983 wrote:World Scientists “Warning to Humanity” Signed by 1,700 Scientists Including the Majority of all Nobel Prize Winners
http://www.ucsusa.org/about/1992-world- ... eKJx49Sziw

I told you deniers...Don't make me George Bush this button over nothing..

I don't know what your obsession with posting 10+ year old claims is but why not stretch yourself and post things from current research on the issue of peak oil? Nobody around here gains traction by simply repeating 10+ year old studies because out here in reality things have progressed. Fracking as it has developed over the 2006-2017 time period has provided humanity with a breather on the consequences of the energy system as designed 1859-2005. Fracking is no more a permanent solution than the North Sea or Prudhoe Bay were, but it represents a heck of a lot of energy injected into the world supply system and has succeeded in causing a short term glut in world oil supply. Ignoring that by only posting 10+ year old article links, without even quotes to show what parts you want people to understand, is futile. Doing it over and over is a violation of the COC as you have been told.

Come let us reason together. Post a quote and a link, and comment on the veracity and quality of that quoted passage. Members here will eagerly discuss both the quoted passage and your commentary about it, which is a far more useful form of communication than repetitive link baiting and proclamations of superior knowledge. It would also go a long way towards proving you have some ideas of your own instead of just a minimal capability of link baiting.

Scientific American: Apocalypse Soon: Has Civilization Passed the Environmental Point of No Return?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... no-return/

NASA Study: Industrial Civilization is Headed for Irreversible Collapse (Motesharrei, 2014)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 0914000615

The Royal Society: Study, Now for the First Time A Global Collapse Appears Likely (Ehrlich, 2013)
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/ ... 4/20122845

Study: Limits to Growth was Right. Research Shows We're Nearing Global Collapse (Turner, 2014)
http://sustainable.unimelb.edu.au/sites ... r_2014.pdf

Study: Financial System Supply-Chain Cross-Contagion: in Global Systemic Collapse (Korowicz, 2012)
http://www.feasta.org/2012/06/17/trade- ... -collapse/

Again no quotes from any of these four links and no commentary on the quotes which means these are link bait without even the context that normal link bait gets from advertisers. I do not understand your failure to perceive the problem but clearly you are not comprehending what I am telling you so think about it and try again.