Peak Oil, Schmeak Oil.

Mobius · Post by **Mobius** » Fri Sep 09, 2005 3:08 pm

It's always seemed to me the doom sayers were wrong. The 1000 square miles in the test area in Colorado contains over a billion, easily extractable barrels of oil. The Brazillian and Canadian oil shales (the ones which are easy to get to) contain more than 5 times the amount of oil that's ever been extracted to date.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/n ... 09,00.html

In other words, there's no shortage of oil in the world, and no reason oil shouldn't settle back down to a price less than $50 a barrel once oil shales are exploited.

"Peak Oil" is simply a bunch of dumb people who the oil companies have no reason to discredit, because it allows them to make record profits off the backs of uninformed consumers. *sigh*

Pun · Post by **Pun** » Fri Sep 09, 2005 3:39 pm

that's freakin amazing.

will_kill · Post by **will_kill** » Fri Sep 09, 2005 4:58 pm

Has anyone ever thought of trying to see what role these oil and gas pockets play in Mother Earth's grand scheme? Are we rippin' her guts out or what? Mobius, whad'ya think?...any1 else?

MD-2389 · Post by **MD-2389** » Sun Sep 11, 2005 12:11 pm

$5 says gas prices won't change much for some time after that oil is tapped.

Any takers?

Top Wop · Post by **Top Wop** » Sun Sep 11, 2005 4:53 pm

Prices will not go down no matter WHAT they do unless refinery capacity is increased. It has not increased since 1970 and you have the militaristic liberal environmentalists to thank for that. Unless one is built you will not see the prices go down. That and Exxon and other compaies are making billions per FREAKING QUARTER and they dont give a ★■◆● about you, the consumer or the American economy. So unless they go "oh ★■◆●, we better lower the prices or else" it will not go down.

A more efficient solution however would be to hold a gun against the head's of these billionaires and "politely ask" that they "give back" to the American economy.

Mr. Perfect · Post by **Mr. Perfect** » Sun Sep 11, 2005 5:50 pm

Dont you wish fusion was real right about now? I know I do...

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sun Sep 11, 2005 6:24 pm

Riiiiiight do you really think that the environmentalists will let any more drilling in the U.S.

No President will step up and do it, even the much beloved by the left Oil Baron Bush wont do it

Grendel · Post by **Grendel** » Sun Sep 11, 2005 6:27 pm

Uhm --

While the rock is cooking, at about 650 or 750 degrees Fahrenheit, how do you keep the hydrocarbons from contaminating ground water? Why, you build an ice wall around the whole thing. As O'Connor said, it's counterintuitive.

But ice is impermeable to water. So around the perimeter of the productive site, you drill lots more shafts, only 8 to 12 feet apart, put in piping, and pump refrigerants through it. The water in the ground around the shafts freezes, and eventually forms a 20- to 30-foot ice barrier around the site.

Sounds like a lot of energy to get the oil out..

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Sun Sep 11, 2005 6:42 pm

The republicans control the house, senate, and the presidency. Blaiming 'the environmentalists' is becomming clichÃ©. They don't have anywhere near the political sway as the oil companies. If the oil companies wanted us to be drilling in Colorado, we would be drilling in colorado. They don't.

Riiiiiight do you really think that the environmentalists will let any more drilling in the U.S. No President will step up and do it, even the much beloved by the left Oil Baron Bush wont do it

Do you really think Bush cares about the environmentalists opinion? He wont step up and do it, because he is an 'oil baron'. With the current system the oil companies profits are through the roof. Even conservative Bill Oreilly has asked that they just 'give some money back.'

Edward · Post by **Edward** » Sun Sep 11, 2005 7:16 pm

Well that sucks I was kinda looking forward to seeing what the USA would do when and after we hit POP. Probabilly just swhich to coal till alternatives were developed.

Oh and if cold fusion was perfected and in use you probibally wouldent know about OPEC would make sure of that.

Sarge · Post by **Sarge** » Sun Sep 11, 2005 7:22 pm

The problem isn't the amount of crude available, the problem is the (intentional) lack of refining capacity.

There hasn't been a major refinery built (in the US) since the 70s!

Tricord · Post by **Tricord** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 5:38 am

Sarge wrote:The problem isn't the amount of crude available, the problem is the (intentional) lack of refining capacity.

There hasn't been a major refinery built (in the US) since the 70s!

If refinement is the bottleneck, why is crude oil so expensive then?

It's just oligopolist capitalism and China starting to take up a good share of oil. Plus, where there's oil, there are a$$holes

Pun · Post by **Pun** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 6:09 am

Grendel wrote:Uhm --

While the rock is cooking, at about 650 or 750 degrees Fahrenheit, how do you keep the hydrocarbons from contaminating ground water? Why, you build an ice wall around the whole thing. As O'Connor said, it's counterintuitive.

But ice is impermeable to water. So around the perimeter of the productive site, you drill lots more shafts, only 8 to 12 feet apart, put in piping, and pump refrigerants through it. The water in the ground around the shafts freezes, and eventually forms a 20- to 30-foot ice barrier around the site.
Sounds like a lot of energy to get the oil out..

umm...

Rocky Mountain News wrote:The energy balance is favorable; under a conservative life-cycle analysis, it should yield 3.5 units of energy for every 1 unit used in production. The process recovers about 10 times as much oil as mining the rock and crushing and cooking it at the surface, and it's a more desirable grade.

Sounds pretty good to me. A lot better than hydrogen fuel cells anyway.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 10:26 am

http://www.psilocybin.be/The_Hirsch_Report.pdf

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 12:43 pm

They don't need subsidies; the process should be commercially feasible with world oil prices at $30 a barrel.

Well good luck with that then!

Scratch · Post by **Scratch** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 12:58 pm

Man I'm all for getting gas prices back to reasonable levels! Hell I would love to have gas prices when I was in college -- 87 cents a gallon! And that was back in late 90's!

I hope this comes though -- it will be interesting to watch.

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 1:33 pm

Alright, maybe I'm reading that sentence differently than you are, but I understand it to mean that when oil comes back down to $30 a barrel the process will be economically feasible without subsidy.

I'm not exactly holding my breath for that one.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 1:42 pm

it's not gonna come back to $30 a barrel. or $40, or even $50. Those days are done.

you'll be looking at $70 a barrel in the not too distant future.

will_kill · Post by **will_kill** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 2:17 pm

Ferno wrote:it's not gonna come back to $30 a barrel. or $40, or even $50. Those days are done.

you'll be looking at $70 a barrel in the not too distant future.

...and $120-$150 pb within a quarter century.

dissent · Post by **dissent** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 2:33 pm

Recovery from oil shales or tar sands; if it were as easy and potentially profitable as the article suggests, then why aren't at least some producers tripping over themselves to do it?

Maybe because they don't believe the economics quoted. Maybe because there's more involved in infrastructure layout required here than is well understood.

Genghis · Post by **Genghis** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 8:55 pm

I think y'all are reading that sentence wrong. It should be commercially viable at >=$30/barrel, not <=$30/barrel. Meaning it's already commercially viable and has been for quite a while.

Although I doubt their claim of a 3.5:1 energy payoff. I'll bet that's for the heating portion only and that the sustained refrigeration portion of the energy budget isn't reflected in it.

I am fully prepared to be incorrect in both of my assertions above.

roid · Post by **roid** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 10:36 pm

interesting.

but is anyone else asking to this statement:

The process recovers about 10 times as much oil as mining the rock and crushing and cooking it at the surface, and it's a more desirable grade.

WHY?

why is more recovered through non-lab (not on the surface) conditions? it doesn't add up to me.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 12:09 am

uhm.. you can't create energy. it always has a 1:1 ratio. meaning energy remains constant, but changes form.

HaAGen DaZS · Post by **HaAGen DaZS** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 2:41 am

this petrol business is bull★■◆● and im getting sick of it. we had to cancel 2 gigs out of the city becuase we can't afford travelling.

corporate WHORES!

roid · Post by **roid** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 3:30 am

Ferno wrote:uhm.. you can't create energy. it always has a 1:1 ratio. meaning energy remains constant, but changes form.

who was talking about creating energy?
the energy payoff means the energy "profit".

like an energy investment - you use a certain amount of energy to mine a bigger amount of energy.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 5:36 am

ok then. I wish that was more clear in the beginning, though.