Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Whatever energy that's used, whatever it is, will start with scientists. Finding oil in discrete pools, like in Arabia, has had it's day. Whether it's two miles under the ocean, whether it's under a mountain in California, it doesn't matter. It starts with "scientists".
Yea, those same people Republicans insist "don't do anything worthwhile".
The damn college science professors can't teach them anything near the value of the high priced tuition the students are paying them for. Currently the higher education system is another sub-prime loan scam. They are peddling over valued educations instead of overvalued homes.
The damn college science professors can't teach them anything near the value of the high priced tuition the students are paying them for. Currently the higher education system is another sub-prime loan scam. They are peddling over valued educations instead of overvalued homes.
Brutal! May we assume you might have had a bad experience with colleges in general, or a college education in general?
College costs that are rising at twice the rate of inflation, CNBC investigates a system that encourages widespread borrowing—often with little regard to a student's ability to pay, leaving the average college graduate with tens of thousands of dollars in student-loan debt. How long can the system be sustained? Are student loans the next subprime mortgages? And if the bubble bursts, who will pay the price?
For each student who defaults on a loan, at least two more fall behind in payments on their student debt, a new study has found.
The Institute for Higher Education Policy, a nonprofit organization, said in a report that two out of five student loan borrowers were delinquent at some point in the first five years after they started repaying their loans.
Almost a quarter of the borrowers used an option to postpone payments to avoid delinquency.
“We want to get beyond the dichotomy of people who default on their loans and everyone else,” Alisa Cunningham, The study, based on data from five of the nation’s largest student-loan agencies, found that only 37 percent of student borrowers who started repaying their loans in 2005 were able to fully pay them back on time.
And that percentage is probably decreasing, given the high unemployment rate of recent years, Ms. Cunningham said.
With tuition rising more rapidly than inflation or family incomes, student borrowing has been growing. College seniors who graduated in 2009 had an average of $24,000 in student loan debt, up 6 percent from 2008, according to an annual report from the Project on Student Debt.
Mark Kantrowitz, the publisher of Finaid.org and Fastweb.com, estimates total student debt at about $896 billion — more than the nation’s credit-card debt.
Meanwhile, default rates have been rising, to 7 percent, for the 2008 fiscal year, the latest period for which data is available, from 5.2 percent in the 2006 fiscal year. Students who did not graduate were more likely to become deliquent or default.
According to the new study, the majority of student borrowers at both two- and four-year for-profit schools went into deliquency or default. The majority of student borrowers at community colleges also went into delinquency or default. But because community college tuition is far lower than that of for-profit institutions, most community-college students do not take out loans.
The damn college science professors can't teach them anything near the value of the high priced tuition the students are paying them for. Currently the higher education system is another sub-prime loan scam. They are peddling over valued educations instead of overvalued homes.
Brutal! May we assume you might have had a bad experience with colleges in general, or a college education in general?
We don't have the technology to pull oil shale out of the ground. We simply don't. We've known about Green River for many years. But we can't get at it.
However that was true for nat gas trapped in shale just 7 years ago before fracking.
I beg to differ, we are pulling oil out of the Bakken Shale, Barnett Shale, Eagle Ford Shale today.....
This is only the beginning for shale oil....
You are confused. The Bakken, Eagleford and Barnett (the liquids portion anyway) are shale oil.
Your reference to massive volumes of oil was to oil shale, a completely different animal, and not even an oil at all. There are reasons why amateurs do this very badly, no matter their advocacy position. Go google it up. Words matter.
GVW said:They told George Mitchell he couldn't get NG out of the Barnett Shale back in the early '80's, along came horizontal drilling and today the Barnett Shale is the largest gas play on the North American continent, thanks to perserverance....
Actually, the Barnett was discovered in the early 80's, and producing as well. Horizontal drilling has been around since the late 20's, and was put into full scale operation in California by the 1940's. It isn't new either. By the 1980's guys like me were drilling horizontal wells routinely with modern MWD technology, hardly a whipstock or single shot in sight! While the Barnett gas shales constituent quite a big field, it will never be the size of...say...Hugoton. Or even the gas cap at Prudhoe.
We had a shale oil scam here in kY years ago. it came it went nothing changed except many were scammed of money.
I see no proof that the latest BIG discovery is any different.
So the definition below is wrong? Care to elaborate?
Shale Oil vs Oil Shale – What is the Difference?
December 5, 2010 | Geology.com
Two very similar terms are being used for very different substances…
Oil Shale: A rock that contains significant amounts of kerogen (a solid organic compound) that can yield liquid oil if it is heated in the absence of oxygen. Significant deposits of oil shale exist in the Green River Formation of Colorado.
Shale Oil: Crude oil that is produced from tight shale formations such as the the Niobrara Shale of Colorado, the Bakken Shale of North Dakota and the Eagle Ford Shale of Texas. Hydraulic fracturing is generally used to fracture the rock unit, liberate the oil and provide the porosity needed for production.
GWV said:The Hugoton field was at one time the largest, but it was has been at #6 for several years now...
GWV said:I am not certain why you said virtually the same thing I said about the Barnett Shale???? It took Mitchell over a decade to make it work. I have a close family member who has worked for Mitchell Energy, now Devon Energy for over 25 years. He will tell you there was a point in time there was a strong doubt they would make it work. Currently they have chosen to stay out of the Barnett Shale oil play for now....one of their largest competitors EOG Resources on the other hand has made it quite successful, take a look at these numbers from the Texas RRC....
GWV said:Here is a quote from The father of Shale Gas....
Forbes.com
Q&A
The Father Of Shale Gas
Jesse Bogan, 07.16.09, 07:34 PM EDT
George Mitchell and his engineers developed the techniques to exploit shale in the Barnett Shale formation in North Texas.
GVW said:I have been out of the Oil Patch for over 20 years now, but remain close through a family business on the drilling side, amateur is the wrong word for me, novice would be more accurate. Currently have a strong interest in the Barnett Shale Combo Play for financial reasons....
So the definition below is wrong? Care to elaborate?
Shale Oil vs Oil Shale What is the Difference?
December 5, 2010 | Geology.com
Two very similar terms are being used for very different substances
Oil Shale: A rock that contains significant amounts of kerogen (a solid organic compound) that can yield liquid oil if it is heated in the absence of oxygen. Significant deposits of oil shale exist in the Green River Formation of Colorado.
Shale Oil: Crude oil that is produced from tight shale formations such as the the Niobrara Shale of Colorado, the Bakken Shale of North Dakota and the Eagle Ford Shale of Texas. Hydraulic fracturing is generally used to fracture the rock unit, liberate the oil and provide the porosity needed for production.
These definitions are correct. The way you used the words was not.
GWV said:The Hugoton field was at one time the largest, but it was has been at #6 for several years now...
In terms of size (for non associated natural gas), Hugoton is unmatched in the western hemisphere of this planet.
To determine this I did not use current production rates, I was referring to its ultimate recovery. Using USGS estimates, the Barnett is perhaps a 20+ TCF technically recoverable accumulation. The Hugoton (and its outliers such as Guymon) have probably produced...if memory serves...more than 50 TCF already? Maybe 60?
I am more familiar with the Barnett than you know. And it depends on what you mean by "make it work". The Barnett shale was producing shale gas in 1982. That was a well which "worked" and didn't require any of the heavy duty stimulation and completion techniques which arrived later. Through the end of the 90's there were perhaps 500 wells in the core Newark East field area, all of them were "working" as well. The expansion of the field was made possible by using horizontal drilling and multi stage fracs in rocks of lower quality surrounding the original core area. Crappier geology, but more rock connected to the wellbore, resulting in similar size rates of production as the original vertical wells in the core area which "worked".
There was a good poster at AAPG last month on just this topic.
GWV said:Here is a quote from The father of Shale Gas....
Forbes.com
Q&A
The Father Of Shale Gas
Jesse Bogan, 07.16.09, 07:34 PM EDT
George Mitchell and his engineers developed the techniques to exploit shale in the Barnett Shale formation in North Texas.
Mitchell is not the father of shale gas. He wasn't even born in the correct century.
The father of shale gas was William Aaron Hart. He was born in 1797.
You need to find better sources than newspaper articles which don't know dick about oil and gas.
GVW said:I have been out of the Oil Patch for over 20 years now, but remain close through a family business on the drilling side, amateur is the wrong word for me, novice would be more accurate. Currently have a strong interest in the Barnett Shale Combo Play for financial reasons....
I have been in the oil business long enough to have seen cable tool drilling in action. And I was completing shale gas and oil wells before George Mitchell drilled his first Barnett well.
Texans like to claim credit for having invented everything oil, but I think it is because they are jealous that a bunch of hillbillies beat them to it by nearly a century.
We had a shale oil scam here in kY years ago. it came it went nothing changed except many were scammed of money.
I see no proof that the latest BIG discovery is any different.
You know the point I was making. I should have said alternative energy with higher EROEI could be used to get the hard to extract Crude Oil from Oil Shale & Tar Sands with a EROEI so low that it can't sustain it's own production.
As for the Wind EROEI of 18:1 I googled it & that is what game up. Here is a chart.
Mitchell gets the credit in a lot of opinions for the Barnett, it's irrelevant to me, if I had listened to everything that relative described, we would have never signed the first lease, just gathering info....[/SIZE][/FONT]
Wow, are the cornucopians taking a beating here the past couple of weeks.
Wow, are the cornucopians taking a beating here the past couple of weeks.
If the parrot name fits, parrot, then why not use it. At least those of us who think about these topics use real information and aren't cutting and pasting church doctrine as some silly substitute for independent thought.
Wow, are the cornucopians taking a beating here the past couple of weeks.
If the parrot name fits, parrot, then why not use it. At least those of us who think about these topics use real information and aren't cutting and pasting church doctrine as some silly substitute for independent thought.
Actually, you most certainly are cutting and pasting church doctrine, hypocrite.
JiggsCasey said:I'll try this again, oh great champion of shale: Just how much has shale gas contributed to the overall production figures? Why not be honest with the forum for once?
Fuck oil. Let's start using more solar.
If the parrot name fits, parrot, then why not use it. At least those of us who think about these topics use real information and aren't cutting and pasting church doctrine as some silly substitute for independent thought.
Actually, you most certainly are cutting and pasting church doctrine, hypocrite.
Oh please. Polly want a cracker? Run off and bring back someone with neurons which actually work.
JiggsCasey said:I'll try this again, oh great champion of shale: Just how much has shale gas contributed to the overall production figures? Why not be honest with the forum for once?
Find a single piece of information I have provided which isn't true. Just one parrot. Your ignorance of the details (do you even HAVE a memory?) of ongoing conversations in this forum is pathetic. Go back to the church and bring back someone who knows anything about the topic.
As far as shale gas goes, a conversation with you on the topic is meaningless because of your lack of knowledge on any of the relevant topics ( how the industry works, petroleum geology in general, the geosciences in particular, and even the composition of methane, let alone the other components of a run of the mill natural gas stream).
To date all you have proven is that you don't actually read (or understand) the references you regularly cut and paste, you know nothing of the history of oil (or gas) production in general, you don't even know the history of the peak oil religion itself.
I recommend you find your parents and slap both of them for unleashing an ignorant fool on society. After that, learn to read what has actually been written rather than imprinting your preconceived notions onto the words of others, and after that a good library for 8 hours a day for a few weeks. After you've covered the basics, I would recommend checking every reference provided in "Oil Panic and the Global Crisis" and reading them.
Do that, and at the very least you won't keep making the same stupid mistakes and claims you've been parroting. And you might learn something relevant along the way.
Oops, never gonna offset existing decline. Neither is your magical "reservoir self-replenishing" theory.
