RE: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy

Fri, 02 Jan 2015 12:36:58 -0800 

 

 

From: [email protected] 
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2015 11:25 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy

 

On Fri, Jan 2, 2015  'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
<[email protected]> wrote:

> The big gusher oil wells in Texas, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Mexico had EROI of 
> better than 100:1.

The EROI most certainly was not 100, not if you include the internal energy of 
the crude oil as part of the cost of investment,

 

The fact that you keep going back to this concept of internal energy makes it 
clear to me that you don’t have a clue what EROI measures. Educate yourself 
then get back to me. I am tired of teaching you the basics.

 

 

 

it would ALWAYS be less than one; of course only a fool or a liar would include 
the internal energy of the crude oil as part of the cost of the investment, but 
you and your environmental buddies do it for Kerogen so why not do it for crude 
oil too? There are only 2 reasons I can think of for not doing that, integrity 
and brains. 

 

If 50% of the oil in a reserve must be consumed in order to extract the 
remaining net energy then tell me why should it not be counted as energy 
invested? The fact of the matter though is that this is not the case – 
especially for the gusher type wells of big high pressure fields – the oil 
gushes out. The only energy invested is the energy required to sink the well 
and lay the pipelines (plus pumping stations) to transport the oil to the 
refinery or the tanker terminal.

The difficulty you have understanding this leads me to question both your 
integrity and your brains.

 

> you libertarian moron.

 

Opinions differ on the moron part but I am certainly a libertarian. Do you have 
a problem with that?  

 

I have a problem with your obnoxious attitudes towards those who do not share 
your own ideological firmament. I do have a problem with your brand of 
Libertarianism because of all the ideological baggage you have piled on to it.

 

 

 

>> And there is also something called the second  law of thermodynamics and if 
>> you use that too you can ensure that the EROI never even gets as high as 1, 
>> it's always less, and so nothing, absolutely positively nothing, is worth 
>> doing. That's all you need to come up with EROI numbers that are always as 
>> low as you want them to be. Well.., you need one other thing, a desire to 
>> deceive. 

 

 > Show me an actual commercially producing shale oil operation?

I will just as soon as you show me a place where oil can be sold for more than 
$120 a barrel. I don't dispute that with oil selling as cheaply as it is today 
it's not economical with existing technology, but to say as you do that it will 
never be economical no matter how high oil sells for flies in the face of 
reality.

Oil cracked through the $120 a barrel price point on several occasions over the 
last years and was hovering well above $100 for some years – where were all the 
Kerogen developments lining up in funding the pipeline…. As they would have 
been if you were correct? 

There was almost nothing – no rush of promising startups knocking at the gates 
of venture capitalists with plans to develop kerogen. 

I smell more BS on your part – the clue being your carefully chosen floor price 
of $120, which was just above the plateau hovering around $110 that oil was at 
for several years following the last big price crash of 2008-2009.

 > Screw those BS numbers.

 

Yes screw Wikipedia and everybody else,  believe in Chris de Morsella's 
prejudices.   

No I just screw BS artists like you John who quote BS numbers that are not 
based on anything actually real.

> In 1982 Exxon threw in the towel after dumping some $5 billion down the shale 
> oil money pit.

In 1837 Charles Babbage used 1837 technology to try to make the first fully 
programmable digital computer, but after dumping the equivalent of many 
millions of dollars into that money pit he threw in the towel. In 2015 people 
use 2015 technology and can make computers successfully. In 1982 Exxon was 
using 1982 technology, today they use 2015 technology.   

And do you see Exxon rushing to get back into the Kerogen extraction game in 
2015? 

NO YOU DO NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT TOUCHING THAT CRAP WITH A TEN FOOT POLE

 

 > John I don’t think you understand how EROI numbers are produced

 

I understand it one hell of a lot better than you do. 

BS John – I doubt you even know who Charles Hall is. You display unwarranted 
arrogance believing your own BS is manna from heaven. 

First you say the true EROI numbers are 2.5:1 but that was inconsistent with 
everything you were saying, when I pointed this out you correct that to 1:2.5, 
but nobody familiar with EROI would state it that way, they'd say .4:1. Never 
mind that even your room temperature IQ environmental buddies would say it's 2 
not .4, my point is that even your erroneous information is stated in a 
ignorant manner.  

> or what they seek to measure.

 

When you or environmental morons generate EROI numbers they don't measure 
anything at all except the magnitude of the desire to deceive, the lower the 
number the greater the deception. 

The hot air of your pure polemic is like a fart John.. .you may feel better 
having it out of you, but everyone else turns their noses. Please find some 
place private to fart.

> I suggest you read Charles Hall’s seminal work on EROI to get a more in depth 
> understanding.

 

Why on earth would I follow a recommendation of yours about EROI when you've 
demonstrated not just ignorance but dishonesty on this subject? 

 

Because Charles Hall invented the term you pompous idiot. 

 

 

 

 

By now we both know that a EROI figure of .4 for Kerogen is bullshit, and yet 
you continue to try to convince people of it. 

 

No it is not John – less than half of the energy contained in the deposit is 
returned on energy invested you idiot. You invented the term “self-energy” to 
make it seem like this is of no consequence or cost. There are very real costs 
associated with this – even if this processing input energy  is derived from 
the  extracted oil (and gas) cooked out of the kerogen containing shale. It 
remains energy invested; energy that will not be available as NET ENERGY 
extracted.

There is also an environmental cost of burning all this carbon fossil fuel in 
the extraction process – in fact the carbon footprint of kerogen is off the 
charts high (as is the carbon footprint of tar sands for a similar reason – it 
also needs to be cooked)

Though a Libertarian brain addled ideological idiot like yourself may not 
comprehend this – there is a big problem, in the world with very rapid global 
climate change driven by human caused CO2 pollution. 

 

 

>> ive seconds is all it takes to prove that you're dead wrong. I was wrong a 
>> while back and when it became clear to me that I had made a mistake I 
>> admitted it, do you have the intellectual courage to do the same thing?

> Yeah right LOL -- Mr. Wikipedia. You have not proved anything.

 

Well I've certainly proved one thing, I've proved that Mr. Chris de Morsella is 
a intellectual coward incapable of admitting he's wrong even when it's clear as 
a bell that he is. 

You can feel as smug as you want in your self-ignorance John you have proved 
nothing of the sort. You don’t understand EROI or shale oil – in fact it is I 
who had to educate you on the very clear and crucial difference between tight 
oil and kerogen shale deposits. You were treating them as being one and the 
same. 

All you have shown is that you are a gullible man who believes whatever 
authority presents as “facts” and that you lack the intellectual curiosity and 
depth to delve in deeper and look at those facts with a critical eye, looking 
at the raw data behind them, that  the “facts” should reflect (but often DO NOT)

You are an innocent lamb Mr. Clark who believes those bullshit reserve numbers 
put out by the EIA and the IEA that are being shown – by examining real world 
historical wellhead production data -- to be based on wildly optimistic 
assumptions about both tight oil bearing shale deposits and kerogen shale 
deposits. 

In some ways you are smart – but your arrogance and ideological nature blinds 
you as well. For this reason you are demonstrating this stubborn stupidity. 

And one thing I am fairly certain of is that you never actually read the study 
– published in Nature (a journal you profess to read) – that this thread began 
from. A study that was showing how the EIA projections for tight oil reserves 
were wildly optimistic and that was based off of examining historic real world 
well head production data that is available from both the Eagle Ford, Bakken 
and Marcelus formations.

Mr. John Clark, it is at times like this, that you really make it seem like you 
have pure unadulterated bullshit for brains.

Sincerely,

Chris de Morsella

 

  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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to