On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 10:23 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote
I thought Wikipedia was consistently wrong about everything and only used
by shallow people like me.
I go to Wikipedia quite a bit myself but
Oh yes, I knew there would be a
On Saturday, January 3, 2015 9:29:22 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 10:23 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: wrote
I thought Wikipedia was consistently wrong about everything and only used
by shallow people like me.
On 1/3/2015 1:29 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 10:23 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote
I thought Wikipedia was consistently wrong about everything and only
used by
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark
On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 10:23 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote
I thought Wikipedia was consistently wrong about everything and
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2015 5:31 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy
On 1/3/2015 1:29 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Jan 2
On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 9:46 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
And the thought still cracks me up with laughter… imagine how wrong your
carefully laid plans could go…. You set up this one way ticket to eternity…
then, unfortunately you do not
On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 8:31 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
If that is the correct way to calculate EROI, and assuming you think
the first law of thermodynamics is valid please explain how the EROI of
ANYTHING is EVER greater than 1. Perhaps I shouldn't have made that
assumption,
On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 8:26 PM, zibblequib...@gmail.com wrote:
jeez...you two are ripping eachother's balls off verbally. How did things
get to this? Not I to caste stones in glass houses mind you. Then
againI never / have never called anyone names like you two to
oneanother here.
Yeah
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2015 8:42 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy
On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 9:46 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2015 9:13 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy
On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 8:31 PM, meekerdb meeke
On Friday, January 2, 2015 7:25:15 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: wrote:
The big gusher oil wells in Texas, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Mexico had EROI
of better than 100:1.
The EROI most
On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com 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
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2015 1:29 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy
On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
believable spark up solar
storage.
-Original Message-
From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Fri, Jan 2, 2015 2:25 pm
Subject: Re: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy
On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 6:01 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
I give you the definition as it is defined in Wikipedia
But I thought Wikipedia was consistently wrong about everything and only
used by shallow people like me.
* EROI* is the
On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
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?
Because the last I in EROI stands
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2015 5:34 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy
On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 6:01 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com]
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2015 1:20 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy
Not to beat a dead aardvark, but the oil dudes knocked it out of the park
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2015 11:25 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy
On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 3:26 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
You are misrepresenting EROI numbers
Let's talk a little about misrepresenting EROI numbers. There is something
called the first law of thermodynamics and it says that no process
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2015 12:56 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 3:26 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 10:55 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 3:26 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via
On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 12:16 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
Look at the history of attempts at kerogen extraction. How did all of
these attempts end?
None of them could make money off of kerogen if oil was selling at less
than $60 a
From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 12:04 PM
Subject: Re: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy
On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 12:16 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 3:26 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
Perhaps the existence of this string of failures and no corresponding
list of success stories should tell you that maybe, just maybe those 2.5:1
EROI numbers I gave are on the
Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thu, Dec 25, 2014 6:28 pm
Subject: RE: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy
I don’t look to the Weekly Standard for energy news or opinion – or any news
or opinion
On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
OK Chris, you made some valid points and you've convinced me that I wasn't
paying enough care in distinguishing between the very common kerogen oil
shale that would need considerable
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com]
Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2014 4:42 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy
Understood, but whether its the Huffington Post or the Standard, my question
fallacy
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com]
Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2014 4:42 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy
Understood, but whether its the Huffington Post or the Standard, my question
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark
On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
OK Chris, you made some valid points and you've convinced me that I
@googlegroups.com]
Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2014 12:48 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy
Unless there is a technology improvement, the kerogen might stay locked up
perpetually, because of the cost of water in the parched western US
On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
A lot of the bets made in the US shale boom are not going to pay off for
the investors holding on to the debt; holding those one or two year
duration futures hedge contracts priced at $90 a
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2014 4:05 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy
On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything
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
On Tuesday, December 23, 2014 9:12:09 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: wrote:
In the USA oil production rose by more than half a million barrels per
day between 2007 and 2011 to the highest
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark
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.
On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 1:33 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
I'm sorry Chris but that simply isn't true. Yes the Monterey shale
reserve was vastly overestimated, at one time they thought it contained
15.4 billion barrels of oil but the
Subject: RE: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy
div id=AOLMsgPart_2_e09e1d06-08e7-47de-8de3-6b1829c217ec
style scoped=#AOLMsgPart_2_e09e1d06-08e7-47de-8de3-6b1829c217ec td{color:
black;} @font-face {font-family:Helvetica; panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face {font-family:Helvetica; panose-1:2 11
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Thursday, December 25, 2014 8:59 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy
On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 1:33 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via
@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy
Sent from AOL Mobile Mail
In addition to not being the energy future we all wanted, here, to my mind, is
the next likely step, by price, by technology, in energy. I don't completely
trust the author, but his summary is thorough
On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
the very same EIA that got it so wrong with the Monterey shale deposit
reserve projections it made in 2011
Yes they got it wrong with Monterey, estimating reserves isn't easy and is
more a
From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2014 10:53 AM
Subject: Re: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy
On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
the very
: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, Dec 24, 2014 2:36 pm
Subject: Re: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy
From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
From: spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2014 12:22 PM
Subject: Re: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy
It could be a bubble but its not. Nothing has paid off like shale gas.
Nothing else
On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
The Monterey reserves as stated by the EIA in their very highly visible
projections they made in 2011 accounted for well over 60% of the TOTAL
tight oil reserves in the USA
I'm sorry
@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, Dec 24, 2014 03:31 PM
Subject: Re: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy
div id=AOLMsgPart_2_49c90262-6718-404b-b7f4-b7b78347aa20
div class=aolReplacedBody
div style=color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:Courier New,
courier, monaco, monospace, sans-serif;font
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2014 7:49 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy
On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 'Chris de Morsella' via
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2014 9:10 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy
Sent from AOL Mobile Mail
It could be just as you suggest, a chemical
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
In the USA oil production rose by more than half a million barrels per
day between 2007 and 2011 to the highest level in 15 years, and in that
same year the USA exported more gasoline and
From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
In the USA oil production rose by more than half a million barrels per day
between 2007 and 2011 to the highest level in 15 years, and in
On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 7:08 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
I was under the mistaken impression that you understood that
historically the proven oil reserves of a country have remained about as
constant as the New York Stock Exchange, it
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2014 8:18 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy
On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 7:08 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via
On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 11:47 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
When the research arm of an investment house is leading the booster
charge – “America the Saudi Arabia of Shale” etc. and is knowingly using
these false projections
What in the
From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2014 11:46 AM
Subject: Re: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy
On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 11:47 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote
On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
In depth article in Nature warning against the current unfounded
euphoric optimism regarding the scale of the future supply of shale gas
(oil).
The fact that just 5 years ago NOBODY
On Sunday, December 21, 2014 6:40:21 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: wrote:
In depth article in Nature warning against the current unfounded
euphoric optimism regarding the scale of the
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of zibblequib...@gmail.com
Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2014 11:53 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy
On Sunday, December 21, 2014 6:40:21 PM
On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
The fact that just 5 years ago NOBODY predicted the huge increase in oil
and gas production that occurred doesn't exactly fill me with confidence
that those same experts who got it so wrong 5
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2014 4:03 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy
On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything
On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 , 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
You are out of touch on energy matters my dear fellow. The EIA and even
more so many investment houses such as Goldman Sachs for example where
making spectacular predictions about the extent
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2014 7:01 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy
On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 , 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything
All we know for certain is that oil and gas are finite resources that are
damaging the environment. The exact details of how this will play out are
uncertain, but we're getting more and more once in a lifetime weather
events around the world.
--
You received this message because you are
to the full article in the journal Nature:
http://www.nature.com/news/natural-gas-the-fracking-fallacy-1.16430
“The main difference between the Texas and EIA forecasts may come down to how
fine-grained each assessment is. The EIA breaks up each shale play by county,
calculating an average well
63 matches
Mail list logo
