2.5 Trillion barrels of Oil Shale Oil

[JiggsCasey]

moron, that is all liquid fuels... not light crude... your graph includes production from the vastly non-viable tar sands ...

your last 2-3 posts are beyond laughable.... you officially don't know what you're talking about... this was confirmed by the fact that you actually believe the last 39 years of U.S. oil production decline is a mere result of politics, not geology. ... Right, of course. ... clearly you know far more than petrol geologist, the IEA, the Pentagon, and the Dept. of Energy.

idiot.

 

[Big Fitz]

your graph includes production from the vastly non-viable tar sands

interesting that most Canadian Oil, our largest supplier, which provides us almost half of our liquid fuel is getting it from tar sands. Oops.

 

[Samson]

moron, that is all liquid fuels... not light crude... your graph includes production from the vastly non-viable tar sands ...

your last 2-3 posts are beyond laughable.... you officially don't know what you're talking about... this was confirmed by the fact that you actually believe the last 39 years of U.S. oil production decline is a mere result of politics, not geology. ... Right, of course. ... clearly you know far more than petrol geologist, the IEA, the Pentagon, and the Dept. of Energy.

idiot.

your graph includes production from the vastly non-viable tar sands

interesting that most Canadian Oil, our largest supplier, which provides us almost half of our liquid fuel is getting it from tar sands. Oops.

Yeah, I wondered that too: How are US refineries receiving "Syn-crude" (Crude from tar sands in Canada) if this source is "vastly non-viable?"

Suncor Refineries in Denver are owned by Canadians for the specific purpose of marketing Syn-Crude products that arrive via pipeline from Alberta.

 

[JiggsCasey]

well, if you're content with strip mining vast expanses of western canada for an energy source that yields something like 1.5:1, and at best 4:1, on your investment, and you honestly believe that is viable, longterm, for an economic paradigm that demands 86 million barrels per day with 5-7% growth, well... good luck...

rest your hat on gummy tar sands all you like... it's not light crude, and it's not going to maintain growth. Period, end of story.

The fact that our government is desperately turning to it more and more only underscores the reality of global light crude oil depletion. If light crude production wasn't slowly dying all over the world, there would be no need to frack rock and burn tar sediment at the rates we currently lean upon. It's dirtier, heavier oil, and not nearly as versatile for industries that use oil in their products.

 

[Samson]

well, if you're content with strip mining vast expanses of western canada for an energy source that yields something like 1.5:1, and at best 4:1, on your investment, and you honestly believe that is viable, longterm, for an economic paradigm that demands 86 million barrels per day with 5-7% growth, well... good luck...

rest your hat on gummy tar sands all you like... it's not light crude, and it's not going to maintain growth. Period, end of story.

The fact that our government is desperately turning to it more and more only underscores the reality of global light crude oil depletion. If light crude production wasn't slowly dying all over the world, there would be no need to frack rock and burn tar sediment at the rates we currently lean upon. It's dirtier, heavier oil, and not nearly as versatile for industries that use oil in their products.

I thought the USA daily demand was 180 million barrels

 

[JiggsCasey]

well, if you're content with strip mining vast expanses of western canada for an energy source that yields something like 1.5:1, and at best 4:1, on your investment, and you honestly believe that is viable, longterm, for an economic paradigm that demands 86 million barrels per day with 5-7% growth, well... good luck...

rest your hat on gummy tar sands all you like... it's not light crude, and it's not going to maintain growth. Period, end of story.

The fact that our government is desperately turning to it more and more only underscores the reality of global light crude oil depletion. If light crude production wasn't slowly dying all over the world, there would be no need to frack rock and burn tar sediment at the rates we currently lean upon. It's dirtier, heavier oil, and not nearly as versatile for industries that use oil in their products.

I thought the USA daily demand was 180 million barrels

the world consumes 86 million barrels per day; the U.S. accounts for roughly one-quarter of that consumption.

in the absence of recession/depression, this demand was growing... but, as we know, we are in recession, and demand will no longer be allowed to grow -- because supply can not and will not keep up. ... thus, a perpetual state of recession exists (or eventually, worse)....

 

[Big Fitz]

Moving goalposts or changing sports?

First it's we're running out of oil!

Then it was "We're running out of light sweet crude! Nothing else will work! work as well... I mean"

Now it's "Well if you insist on using gummy tar sands... it's not really oil and doesn't meet MY definition of practical..."

The peak oil theory is the only thing that seems to have peaked... and is producing less and less with every passing year we find more ways to make fuel economical from so many sources. Sure, it's not bubbling out of the ground in as many places. But to say that means there's no more easy oil left there's no oil left at all.

ludicrous... like you.

 

[Samson]

Moving goalposts or changing sports?

First it's we're running out of oil!

Then it was "We're running out of light sweet crude! Nothing else will work! work as well... I mean"

Now it's "Well if you insist on using gummy tar sands... it's not really oil and doesn't meet MY definition of practical..."


.

Dejavu all over again

 

[Big Fitz]

Thanks Yogi.

 

[Samson]

Thanks Yogi.

Its the same discussion every time:

"Evul Corporations want to Destroy the Planet to Make a Profit......"

...how?

"By Developing Dead-End Resources!!!"

The absurdity of this arguement always entertains me, and always reminds me that there is a growing population that hasn't a clue.

 

[Big Fitz]

Tis why those who are peak oils are never capitalists, but communist in nature.

 

[Samson]

Tis why those who are peak oils are never capitalists, but communist in nature.

Well, "conveniently communist."

They tend to ignore the fact that communists, while never worrying about profitability, also never worried about environmental contamination.

 

[JiggsCasey]

Thanks Yogi.

Its the same discussion every time:

"Evul Corporations want to Destroy the Planet to Make a Profit......"

...how?

"By Developing Dead-End Resources!!!"

The absurdity of this arguement always entertains me, and always reminds me that there is a growing population that hasn't a clue.

"Hasn't a clue?" That's rich...

This from a poster who had no idea how much oil the United States consumes per day.

Really, when you reveal yourself in such an embarrassingly misinformed way, you should really think twice before running your mouth with straw man arguments and hollow allusions to communism.

 

[JiggsCasey]

The peak oil theory is the only thing that seems to have peaked... and is producing less and less with every passing year we find more ways to make fuel economical from so many sources. Sure, it's not bubbling out of the ground in as many places. But to say that means there's no more easy oil left there's no oil left at all.

ludicrous... like you.

Hey there... It's the conceptually challenged Frank Drebbin who slinked from the discussion weeks ago, back for more.

Peak oil is simply about demand outstripping supply. You can change the definition of what constitutes commercially viable energy sources all you like. But until you show how much there is for industrial nations needing 86 million barrels of the stuff each day (and growing), your "nothing to see here" rhetoric rings rather hollow. Not that your goofy pablum has ever amounted to much of anything throughout the entirety of the energy subforum, from what I've seen.

Bitumen (oil shale) and kerogen (tar sands) will never do what light crude does for capitalism. It takes far too much energy to produce it and get it to market. We are where we are today due to incredibly abundant CHEAP oil. .... The fact that we're increasingly turning to heavy oil at the same time the global economy stands on the brink only underscores the FACT that there is a serious energy supply problem for 7+ billion people. And it's beginning now, not just for our grandchildren to worry about.

I'm still waiting for any of you arrogant geniuses to explain how or why the IEA, the DoE, the Pengaton, the EIA, Lloyds, Total Oil, ASPO and countless whistle-blowing petroleum geologists are somehow lying. Or just how they're wrong in their models. None of you can do it, because even though you're all convinced you know everything, you can't find an explanation for why those entities all forecast a 10 million dollar shortfall between supply and demand by 2015, and most sooner. If you're smarter than those entities, please refine your message to them by writing a convincing rough draft that we'll all be happy to edit for grammar and style. We can't wait for you to put a halt to Sustainability initiatives all over the planet by calming any and all concerns.

Because surely if we just drill everywhere, throw lots of money to Big Oil, and pray wicked hard, God will put more oil in the ground for us all to enjoy, and maintain "growth."

 

[Big Fitz]

Models also predicted a global temperature rise of 10 degrees by now. Models predicted mass starvations and death too.

Models are only as good as the garbage you put into them.

Aren't you getting tired running around with that goalpost on your back?

 

[Samson]

Thanks Yogi.

Its the same discussion every time:

"Evul Corporations want to Destroy the Planet to Make a Profit......"

...how?

"By Developing Dead-End Resources!!!"

The absurdity of this arguement always entertains me, and always reminds me that there is a growing population that hasn't a clue.

"Hasn't a clue?" That's rich...

This from a poster who had no idea how much oil the United States consumes per day.

Really, when you reveal yourself in such an embarrassingly misinformed way, you should really think twice before running your mouth with straw man arguments and hollow allusions to communism.

Meh...that's all you got, huh?

But it's typical of the clueless: Find one data point, and extrapolate it rather than admit the massive fail of every absurd point in one's own arguement.

Regardless, continue to cut-and-paste more Anti-Globalist nonsense, and ridiculously illogical babblings.

The stupidity still amuses me.

 

[JiggsCasey]

Models also predicted a global temperature rise of 10 degrees by now. Models predicted mass starvations and death too.

By who? Who said that? Were they models by our department of defense? Our own Dept. of Energy? By the International Energy Agency? You're comparing apples to oranges, and extrapolating a deeply flawed conclusion. It's what people like you do, liar.

Run along now. Adults are talking.

 

[JiggsCasey]

Meh...that's all you got, huh?

The undeniable fact that you don't have a basic grasp of the subject matter before pontificating about it? Do I need much else? lol...

But it's typical of the clueless: Find one data point, and extrapolate it rather than admit the massive fail of every absurd point in one's own arguement.

Regardless, continue to cut-and-paste more Anti-Globalist nonsense, and ridiculously illogical babblings.

The stupidity still amuses me.

The irony here is priceless. You don't even UNDERSTAND one data point, let alone all of them. And "extrapolation?" Are you f'ing serious? You wrote the book on extrapolation throughout this sub-forum. It's what you utterly rely on, certainly in THIS argument that desperately tries to convey "there's centuries of oil!"

Sam, you've made yourself irrelevant to this discussion many, many pages ago. If you can't stop running at the fingers from the sidelines, at least answer the one question that trumps all: "Where is the oil, and in what amount?" Then we can apply obvious consumption rates, and come to a basic agreement. Shall we?

If not, stay on the sidelines.

 

[Old Rocks]

Models also predicted a global temperature rise of 10 degrees by now. Models predicted mass starvations and death too.

Models are only as good as the garbage you put into them.

Aren't you getting tired running around with that goalpost on your back?

Well, Fritz, you seem to be adapting Walleyes method of telling the big lie.

Nobody reputable ever predicted a ten degree rise by now.

 

[Big Fitz]

Models also predicted a global temperature rise of 10 degrees by now. Models predicted mass starvations and death too.

By who? Who said that? Were they models by our department of defense? Our own Dept. of Energy? By the International Energy Agency? You're comparing apples to oranges, and extrapolating a deeply flawed conclusion. It's what people like you do, liar.

Run along now. Adults are talking.

That's right. History started in 1999, didn't it?

Do your own pre 1980 research, I've got other things to do that bring you up to remedial history levels.