On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> DO you even know what the term “tight oil” means technically? > Yes. Tight oil is just another name for shale oil, it's light oil in kerogen rich shale deposits that needs hydraulic fracking to be extracted economically. There is a enormous amount of tight oil in the Earth but until just a few years ago it might as well have been on the moon for all the good it did us, but things change and sometimes very very rapidly. Technology marches on. > Kerogen IS NOT OIL! But when heated to about 150 degrees centigrade in the absence of oxygen kerogen releases crude oil, and when heated to 200 degrees it releases natural gas. > Kerogen bearing shale is a very different kind of resource Huh? Very different from what? > that has proven uneconomical And yet this "uneconomical" resource has caused the oil production of the USA to skyrocket. And in July 2008, well before this "uneconomical" process was implemented, the worldwide price of West Texas Intermediate Crude oil was $147 a barrel, but today on December 25 2014 West Texas Intermediate crude oil is selling at $56 a barrel. I don't think the word "uneconomical" means what you think it does. > Shell Oil has just recently abandoned its kerogen extraction attempts For christ's sake, if you're wildcatting for conventional oil or shale oil you're always going to run into dry holes from time to time, it's part of the price of doing business. So back in 2013 Shell oil announced they were abandoning one minuscule 30 million (that's million with a m) dollar shale oil pilot project. Big deal. On the very same day they said there were going to build a HUGE 12.5 billion dollar plant (that's billion with a B) in Louisiana to turn natural gas into diesel and jet fuel > > And as I've said existing technology can only exploit about 25% of it, > but that's more than enough to change the economy of the world. > > I bet you just pulled that 25% figure out of your ass John. Then I guess I have a well educated ass because the Paris based IEA says there are 3.7 trillion barrels of shale oil in the USA but only 1 trillion can be economically recovered with existing technology. You do the arithmetic. > The very EIA (and IEA) numbers you keep siting are under attack They are under attack by you and by some environmentalists, but as I've said before most environmentalists are not serious people, they are very silly people. To make any difference in your lifetime the numbers would have to be off by at least a order of magnitude, and the energy Department doesn't think they are, nor Paris based IEA, nor any reputable professional organization of geologists. > There is no informed consensus – outside of shale oil boosterism circles > – about the fact that by far most of these resources ARE NOT reserves. > [...] Just because the EIA and IEA (both captive organizations staffed by a > revolving door system with insider vested fossil and nuclear interests) say > something does not make it the word of God! > And it looks like even Wikipedia is part of this evil conspiracy of disinformation lies and mendacity because it says: "Global technically recoverable oil shale reserves have recently been estimated at about 2.8 to 3.3 trillion barrels (450×109 to 520×109 m3) of shale oil, with the largest reserves in the United States, which is thought to have 1.5–2.6 trillion barrels (240×109–410×109 m3)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale_oil#Reserves_and_production In that same article it says: "In March 2011, the United States Bureau of Land Management called into question proposals in the U.S. for commercial operations, stating that "*There are no economically viable ways yet known to extract and process oil shale for commercial purposes*"". Also in March 2011 there is a article in Forbes magazine about economist Nouriel Roubini who must have agreed with the United States Bureau of Land Management, and a lot of oil traders must have agreed with them too: http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisbarth/2011/03/07/roubini-predicts-oil-will-hit-150-per-barrel-traders-betting-on-200/ The headline of the article is "*Roubini Predicts Oil Will Hit $150 Per Barrel, Traders Betting On $200*" . Remember that was March 2011, yesterday December 25 2014 oil was selling at $56 a barrel. > So go ahead keep calling me a tree hugger if that makes you feel better OK. > Nobody is disputing that the global spot price for oil has gone down; And there must have been a reason for such a gargantuan economic event. OPEC did not increase production but the USA increased oil production enormously, do you think that maybe just maybe that had something to do with it? And how did the USA increase production, it can't be shale because you tell me the oil companies are abandoning it, and yet the USA somehow managed to dramatically increase production. What's the secret? > > you keep trumpeting it like it had some magical hidden meaning. It's not magical and it's not hidden but it sure as hell has meaning, it means that if shale oil were all smoke and mirrors as you insist it is then the price of the most important commodity in the world would not have dropped from $147 to $56. Only something COLOSSAL could have caused a drop like that, if it was not "uneconomical" shale oil then what was it? > What does the current sot price have to do with the size of the global > reserve figures If the collective wisdom of millions of people, that is to say the market, thought that you were right and we were about to run out of shale oil then the price would go up. It hasn't. Could the market be wrong? Sure it's not infallible, in 2011 the market thought shale oil would never be economical; but even so I think the market is more likely to be correct than you are. > I recall many months back when you made a complete idiot of yourself on > this very list – trying to portray the global solar PV capacity numbers I > had quoted as being off by many orders of magnitude when in fact – as > everyone knows – you messed up your math. > Speaking of solar cells, the USA recently put a enormous tariff on Chinese solar cells because they said they were selling them too cheaply, which tells me what they really think about solar cells with crystal clarity, they think they're useless in meeting world energy demands; but it plays well with the masses, tree huggers love solar cells and they like tariffs too. But can you imagine the USA putting a tariff on something that's really useful, like oil from Saudi Arabia, because it's being sold too cheaply? I can't. I'm not naive enough to expect any of these facts to cause you to change your mind, you like solar cell so despite the facts you've convinced yourself they can solve our energy problems, and you don't like shale oil so despite the facts you've convinced yourself it can't. Well I like solar cells too and I'm perfectly willing to admit that they would be a better solution than shale oil IF THEY WORKED, but I am also aware that my personal preference does not change reality. John K Clark > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
