Oil

[Samson]

It is economically viable to produce a mere 10 million barrels of oil during an entire year from 20,000 separate sites. It's being done here in Illinois. They're called "marginal" wells and there are roughly a half million of them in the U.S.

They are called marginal because they are dying out and close to abandonment, which further underscores my entire thesis: U.S. production is in terminal decline and has been for decades.

As long as oil is a non-renewable resource, the thesis that not only is U.S. production in decline, but worldwide production is in decline, could be a no-brainer. The only thing that could possibly make your thesis worthwhile is if we ignore the potential that technological advances, and economics have for finding and producing reserves of crude. The fact that it is more economical to produce oil NOW from marginal wells, has no bearing on future production.

To believe otherwise, you'd also need to assume that every fall will be the last harvest of crops, and you'd appear as ridiculous as Chicken Little.

[Unproven reserves are nothing more than figures on paper, based on hope, to inflate investment optimism. They are the bane of the global oil debate.

When you're discussing EROI and economic viability in regards to light crude drilling, there is only one figure that matters -- PROVEN reserves.

I'm not sure how anyone would seperate EROI and economic viability to light crude drilling, and producing any other type of crude, but at any rate I'll accept that we limit the figure that matters to "proven" reserves (although, here again, there's the debate between what is "proven" and what is "unproven").

Anyway, according to The Energy Resource Conservation Board, The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, Oil and Gas Journal, and the United States Energy Information Administration there are as of 2007, 211 BILLION bbl PROVEN oil reserves in North America.

 

[JiggsCasey]

As long as oil is a non-renewable resource, the thesis that not only is U.S. production in decline, but worldwide production is in decline, could be a no-brainer. The only thing that could possibly make your thesis worthwhile is if we ignore the potential that technological advances, and economics have for finding and producing reserves of crude. The fact that it is more economical to produce oil NOW from marginal wells, has no bearing on future production.

To believe otherwise, you'd also need to assume that every fall will be the last harvest of crops, and you'd appear as ridiculous as Chicken Little.

Ah... Time, and financing. Two of the three main components of this equation.

Still, no where did I discredit innovation, or say anything about technological advances, pro or con.

Regardless, my thesis of domestic oil production decline IS "worthwhile," because it's true. And it explains US national security and foreign policy aims almost entirely since 1945.

U.S. oil production is in decline, and the likelihood of new significant pools of conventional oil being found are next to nil. This earth has been scoured, make no mistake about it. Using technology that would make a some people's head explode with its genius. ... It's been scoured for decades.... It's not being found. .... Still. Let's say a miracle pool crops up 10 miles under ground some day. Right there in Texas, even, where infrastructure is already in place!... ... Once you find it, if you can get to it, you got a very long lead time before that black gold ever gets in your gas tank. Years, actually... From discovery all the way to gassing up the Humvee.

Meanwhile, collapse is starting now. What's the count now on banks that have gone belly up? What's the real unemployment figure? What's the trade deficit at?

I'm not sure how anyone would seperate EROI and economic viability to light crude drilling, and producing any other type of crude, but at any rate I'll accept that we limit the figure that matters to "proven" reserves (although, here again, there's the debate between what is "proven" and what is "unproven").

Anyway, according to The Energy Resource Conservation Board, The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, Oil and Gas Journal, and the United States Energy Information Administration there are as of 2007, 211 BILLION bbl PROVEN oil reserves in North America.

211 bbl, indeed... Not a whole lot, if we're thinking about our kids. ... And three-quarters of it is in Canada, and most of THAT is heavy bitumen in tar sands. Look at the map on page 4 of your link. Look how sprinkled the remaining conventional pools are, yet how solid the huge tar sands nightmare is.

It's a crisis. ...

I'll just say it plainly.... Peak oil > climate change. ...

Compared to the joke that climate change debate has become, no one really talks about oil depletion and what it means for our empire. It's pathetic, but I suspect big media has absorbed the corporate mandate loud and clear: "do no upset the markets with truth... ever!"

When one gets his head around the fact that energy is the No. 1 priority for our the 'growth' of our monetary system, everything else sort of explains itself as to the question of why our leaders do what they do.

 

[Big Fitz]

I'll just say it plainly.... Peak oil > climate change. ...

Hah! One fantasy is worse than another. There is some degree of logic to this, were either of them true, though.

 

[FactFinder]

We are swimming in oil and as demand continues its decline the ocean of it is only likely to deepen.

BP Gulf Oil Find May Hold 3 Billion Barrels: Petrobras, ConocoPhillips Also Stakeholders in Field
BP Gulf Oil Find May Hold 3 Billion Barrels: Petrobras, ConocoPhillips Also Stakeholders in Field

Bakken Oil Shale Map - North Dakota- Bakken Shale Formation

over 4000 active wells in North Dakota alone.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2008/3021/

Using a geology-based assessment methodology, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated mean undiscovered volumes of 3.65 billion barrels of oil, 1.85 trillion cubic feet of associated/dissolved natural gas, and 148 million barrels of natural gas liquids in the Bakken Formation of the Williston Basin Province, Montana and North Dakota

 

[Big Fitz]

:::waves hand:::

This is not the oil you are looking for.....

 

[JiggsCasey]

We are swimming in oil and as demand continues its decline the ocean of it is only likely to deepen.

BP Gulf Oil Find May Hold 3 Billion Barrels: Petrobras, ConocoPhillips Also Stakeholders in Field
BP Gulf Oil Find May Hold 3 Billion Barrels: Petrobras, ConocoPhillips Also Stakeholders in Field

Bakken Oil Shale Map - North Dakota- Bakken Shale Formation

over 4000 active wells in North Dakota alone.

USGS Fact Sheet 2008-3021: Assessment of Undiscovered Oil Resources in the Devonian-Mississippian Bakken Formation, Williston Basin Province, Montana and North Dakota, 2008

Using a geology-based assessment methodology, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated mean undiscovered volumes of 3.65 billion barrels of oil, 1.85 trillion cubic feet of associated/dissolved natural gas, and 148 million barrels of natural gas liquids in the Bakken Formation of the Williston Basin Province, Montana and North Dakota

Love when new people drop into the thread and pump the same non starter.

Bakken was put into proper perspective in this thread and/or the one right under it. Shale is not oil, combustible engine vehicles won't run on it. Plenty of jet fuel, though... at great cost.

Oh, and 3.65 billion barrels is a kiddie pool. That's also been covered. Sorry. The world consumes 85 million barrels per day.

 

[Big Fitz]

 

[JiggsCasey]

I'll just say it plainly.... Peak oil > climate change. ...

Hah! One fantasy is worse than another. There is some degree of logic to this, were either of them true, though.

Neither are fantasy.

Your "everything-is-fine, nothing-to-see-here," Frank Drebbin routine got dismantled, and the best you were able to come back with was punting to the tired claim that Wiki was "liberal biased."

So, in addition to Big Oil, the "enviros", the IEA, the USGS, ASPO and the U.N., ... now Wikipedia is also in on the grand conspiracy to dupe us all into believing there is an energy crisis. The geologists, of course, are all well-documented liars for liberal causes, and Wikipedia is in their hip pocket!!!

What's it like being a person like you, where you can just assign blame for everything that ails you by simply pointing at some group you don't like and yelling "THEY did it!!!" really loud?

 

[Big Fitz]

This from a man claiming we are going to run out of oil sooooooon.

You have no credibility, you know. So it is Ironic that you accuse others of not having credibility for they deny the claims of your fantasy supporting claimants.

 

[Samson]

As long as oil is a non-renewable resource, the thesis that not only is U.S. production in decline, but worldwide production is in decline, could be a no-brainer. The only thing that could possibly make your thesis worthwhile is if we ignore the potential that technological advances, and economics have for finding and producing reserves of crude. The fact that it is more economical to produce oil NOW from marginal wells, has no bearing on future production.

To believe otherwise, you'd also need to assume that every fall will be the last harvest of crops, and you'd appear as ridiculous as Chicken Little.

Ah... Time, and financing. Two of the three main components of this equation.

Still, no where did I discredit innovation, or say anything about technological advances, pro or con.

Regardless, my thesis of domestic oil production decline IS "worthwhile," because it's true. And it explains US national security and foreign policy aims almost entirely since 1945.

U.S. oil production is in decline, and the likelihood of new significant pools of conventional oil being found are next to nil. This earth has been scoured, make no mistake about it. Using technology that would make a some people's head explode with its genius. ... It's been scoured for decades.... It's not being found. .... Still. Let's say a miracle pool crops up 10 miles under ground some day. Right there in Texas, even, where infrastructure is already in place!... ... Once you find it, if you can get to it, you got a very long lead time before that black gold ever gets in your gas tank. Years, actually... From discovery all the way to gassing up the Humvee.

Meanwhile, collapse is starting now. What's the count now on banks that have gone belly up? What's the real unemployment figure? What's the trade deficit at?

I'm not sure how anyone would seperate EROI and economic viability to light crude drilling, and producing any other type of crude, but at any rate I'll accept that we limit the figure that matters to "proven" reserves (although, here again, there's the debate between what is "proven" and what is "unproven").

Anyway, according to The Energy Resource Conservation Board, The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, Oil and Gas Journal, and the United States Energy Information Administration there are as of 2007, 211 BILLION bbl PROVEN oil reserves in North America.

211 bbl, indeed... Not a whole lot, if we're thinking about our kids. ... And three-quarters of it is in Canada, and most of THAT is heavy bitumen in tar sands. Look at the map on page 4 of your link. Look how sprinkled the remaining conventional pools are, yet how solid the huge tar sands nightmare is.

It's a crisis. ...

I'll just say it plainly.... Peak oil > climate change. ...

Compared to the joke that climate change debate has become, no one really talks about oil depletion and what it means for our empire. It's pathetic, but I suspect big media has absorbed the corporate mandate loud and clear: "do no upset the markets with truth... ever!"

When one gets his head around the fact that energy is the No. 1 priority for our the 'growth' of our monetary system, everything else sort of explains itself as to the question of why our leaders do what they do.

Apparently, you've convinced yourself you have a relevant "worthwhile" thesis.

First you argue that unproven reserves don't count.

Then you argue PROVEN reserves don't count, and that they are in Canada, not the USA (as if that makes any difference).

Then you argue that its the wrong TYPE of Proven Reserves, despite the fact that the Canadians have developed technology on scales that make the recovery of crude from oil sands not just viable, but an ongoing and growing business.

Finally, Given 211 BILLION bbl and the 85 million bbl/day, The planet has about 7 years left, if it only depends on North American Crude. But the United States consumes the most at 19,650,000.00 bbl per day, a full 25% of the world's oil consumption.

So the USA, which will no doubt become more dependant on proven Canadian Reserves, will have 30 years before the PROVEN NORTH AMERICAN reserves are gone, assuming that the consumption rate doesn't decline as these reserves are depleted, and the scarcity of the resource doesn't drive the cost up to encourage substitutes (primarily natural gas).

Frankly, Chicken Little, the sky is NOT FALLING, m'k?

The EU and Japan are really the bellweathers here. If you want to discuss how the lack of domestic natural resources effect future societies and domestic economies, focus on these (especially EU). My guess is that whatever they are doing today, the US will be doing in 15 years.

 

[Samson]

This from a man claiming we are going to run out of oil sooooooon.

You have no credibility, you know. So it is Ironic that you accuse others of not having credibility for they deny the claims of your fantasy supporting claimants.

Well, we need some dogmatic raving lunatic wearing a cardboard box with "THE END IS NEAR," to walk through our midsts every once in a while. Not only does it keep us entertained, but it should also give us some unsettling pause to wonder:

1. Do they have any plausible arguement?
2. What may have caused them to go nuts?
3. Are the salvagable?

 

[JiggsCasey]

Apparently, you've convinced yourself you have a relevant "worthwhile" thesis.

U.S. domestic oil depletion is a fact. My thesis is that it's important element in acknowledging our import requirements.

First you argue that unproven reserves don't count.

This is about the only thing you got correct regarding what I've actually typed.

Then you argue PROVEN reserves don't count, and that they are in Canada, not the USA (as if that makes any difference).

No, I didn't. Liar. I never said they don't count. What I simply said was, tar sands are heavy oil, and make up the majority of your 211 billion barrel total. It was mere perspective when considering what's involved in that total. Try focusing on what I actually write, not what you hope I mean.

Then you argue that its the wrong TYPE of Proven Reserves, despite the fact that the Canadians have developed technology on scales that make the recovery of crude from oil sands not just viable, but an ongoing and growing business.

"Ongoing," anyway. Certainly not commercially viable nor growing. A 2:1 or 3:1 return on energy investment is not going to maintain the kind of 7% growth our economy is predicated upon. For every optimistic thread you can present suggesting tar sands or oil shale are 'growing," I can gladly counter with another that insists it's a technology that is decades away from being economically viable, if ever. Heavy oil is a desperate alternative, not a sustaining one.

Again, ultimately this isn't about suggesting we're going to flat run dry at the gas pump. This is about economic crash in advance of energy depletion.

Finally, Given 211 BILLION bbl and the 85 million bbl/day, The planet has about 7 years left, if it only depends on North American Crude. But the United States consumes the most at 19,650,000.00 bbl per day, a full 25% of the world's oil consumption.

So the USA, which will no doubt become more dependant on proven Canadian Reserves, will have 30 years before the PROVEN NORTH AMERICAN reserves are gone, assuming that the consumption rate doesn't decline as these reserves are depleted, and the scarcity of the resource doesn't drive the cost up to encourage substitutes (primarily natural gas).

First of all, the United States can not just horde North American oil for its own use alone. Global oil trade doesn't work that way. I would have thought a poster like yourself would understand this basic concept.

Second of all, you appear to have no grasp of the exponential function, and how it relates to growth consumption. If everything is fine, as you say, then that 20 million b/d becomes 21.4 million b/d next year, and 22.89 million in 2012, 24.49 million in 2013 and so on. ... The only way you have a decline in demand consumption is a recession, as we are witnessing today -- which really speaks to my entire point. That, or war.

Any "recovery" in our economy will be a mirage, because as soon as demand starts to return, prices will spike all over again (happening now). It's called the "bumpy plateau," and it's well-described by world-class geologists, physicists and economists far smarter than you or I. Google it.

Goes a bit like this:

1. Price shock (as the capacity limit is breached)
2. Economic recession cutting demand
3. Price collapse (the market overreacts to small imbalances between surplus and shortage)
4. Economic recovery [followed by increased demand]
5. Price shock (as the falling capacity limits are again breached)​

Frankly, Chicken Little, the sky is NOT FALLING, m'k?

For the purposes of our flawed monetary system, it sure is. But, did you just say "m'k?" That's only moderately pretentious, but whatever works for your posting style to help make your flawed argument seem stronger.

The EU and Japan are really the bellweathers here. If you want to discuss how the lack of domestic natural resources effect future societies and domestic economies, focus on these (especially EU). My guess is that whatever they are doing today, the US will be doing in 15 years.

This is a global problem, and the EU and Japan are in far worse shape than we are right now. The EU can't even heat homes very well this winter. Japan is an absolute mess.

Japan will issue fresh debt worth a record $485 billion, in line with an earlier estimate, he said. The new borrowing brings Japan’s public debt to about $9.4 trillion, or 181 percent of gross domestic product, at the end of March 2011, by far the highest in the industrialized world.​

If anything, the U.S. may be able to stall peak longer than most industrial nations due to what else? Iraqi oil...Which we largely control now, and new production from there hasn't even really come online yet.

Ah well. You can keep at it all you like. I'll be right here to remind you that exponential growth (populations, economies) can not sustain without abundant cheap energy.

Here's a college course for you, if you have a fundamental problem grasping the exponential function:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY"]Arithmetic, population and energy[/ame], by Dr. Alfred A. Bartlett

I look forward to your next straw man response, misrepresenting everything I just offered above. You're clearly excellent at it.

 

[Samson]

Apparently, you've convinced yourself you have a relevant "worthwhile" thesis.

U.S. domestic oil depletion is a fact. My thesis is that it's important element in acknowledging our import requirements.

Thank You Captain Obvious. I imagine you also may have a thesis that water will continue to be wet, and the earth will continue to be round. As a non renwable resourse, the depletion of oil has been a given since it was discovered, and anyone could assign its importance to our import requirements.

You should try a thesis that wasn't writ circa 1973.

First you argue that unproven reserves don't count.

This is about the only thing you got correct regarding what I've actually typed.



No, I didn't. Liar. I never said they don't count. What I simply said was, tar sands are heavy oil, and make up the majority of your 211 billion barrel total. It was mere perspective when considering what's involved in that total. Try focusing on what I actually write, not what you hope I mean.

What you said was:

211 bbl, indeed... Not a whole lot, ....It's a crisis. ...

When, in fact, This is PROVEN reserves, just across the boarder, in Canada: NOT a "CRISIS."

Hormonal Much?

Ongoing," anyway. Certainly not commercially viable nor growing. A 2:1 or 3:1 return on energy investment is not going to maintain the kind of 7% growth our economy is predicated upon. For every optimistic thread you can present suggesting tar sands or oil shale are 'growing," I can gladly counter with another that insists it's a technology that is decades away from being economically viable, if ever. Heavy oil is a desperate alternative, not a sustaining one.

Yet, oddly, you present nothing as evidence suggesting that production of oil sands is not growing? Why am I walking into refineries where they use "synthetic oil" (derived from Alberta's oil sands)? Petro-Canada owns and operates the MacKay River in situ facility, where steam separates sand from oil underground.

Again, ultimately this isn't about suggesting we're going to flat run dry at the gas pump. This is about economic crash in advance of energy depletion.

To fulfill you apocolyptical scenario of "The Falling Sky," you like throwing babies out with the bathwater: I'll readily admit that there obviously is no SUSTAINABLE Oil source; but I disagree with your assumption that heavy oil is only a "desperate alternative."

You're drama will sell to anyone that would rather not give your thesis much thought.

First of all, the United States can not just horde North American oil for its own use alone. Global oil trade doesn't work that way. I would have thought a poster like yourself would understand this basic concept.

Maybe I should add my own drama: "Liar, Liar, Pants-on-Fire!!"

Did I say the USA would hoard all 211 BILION bbl of PROVEN North American Reserves for its own use? No.

But given the fact that both the reserves and the 20 million bbl/d consumer are adjacent to one another, I think its safe to say the USA will buy most of it.

Second of all, you appear to have no grasp of the exponential function, and how it relates to growth consumption. If everything is fine, as you say, then that 20 million b/d becomes 21.4 million b/d next year, and 22.89 million in 2012, 24.49 million in 2013 and so on. ... The only way you have a decline in demand consumption is a recession, as we are witnessing today -- which really speaks to my entire point. That, or war.

Your grasp of Algebra I is impressive, and I commend you for what appears to have been an excellent 9th grade year. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that you've learned much since then, and that there are many economic models that don't follow an exponential curve until reaching inflection, which could easily last for decades while alternative energy sources are substituted for oil.

Of course, since this doesn't fit the "Falling Sky" thesis, we must use our imagination, and consider anything but catastrophe a "mirage;"

Any "recovery" in our economy will be a mirage, because as soon as demand starts to return, prices will spike all over again (happening now). It's called the "bumpy plateau," and it's well-described by world-class geologists, physicists and economists far smarter than you or I. Google it.

Goes a bit like this:

1. Price shock (as the capacity limit is breached)
2. Economic recession cutting demand
3. Price collapse (the market overreacts to small imbalances between surplus and shortage)
4. Economic recovery [followed by increased demand]
5. Price shock (as the falling capacity limits are again breached)​

Frankly, Chicken Little, the sky is NOT FALLING, m'k?

For the purposes of our flawed monetary system, it sure is. But, did you just say "m'k?" That's only moderately pretentious, but whatever works for your posting style to help make your flawed argument seem stronger.

The only thing more pretentious is your dogmatism: scholorship is based on seeing BOTH sides of an issue. Your Thesis Has A Blind Side.

Since you mentioned straw men: "Flawed Monetary System?" I'll readily admit its flawed, but have no idea how this is relevant to this thread. Why don't you conjure up something from your fevered imagination to explain how this fits into the "Falling Sky" thesis and Oil.

The EU and Japan are really the bellweathers here. If you want to discuss how the lack of domestic natural resources effect future societies and domestic economies, focus on these (especially EU). My guess is that whatever they are doing today, the US will be doing in 15 years.

This is a global problem, and the EU and Japan are in far worse shape than we are right now. The EU can't even heat homes very well this winter. Japan is an absolute mess.

Like I said, expect the USA to be there in 15 years, unless they adapt, which, since EU and Japan provide excellent bell-weathers, we should be able to do given the location of proven oil reserves and the current technology used to produce its crude.

And we ignore other sources of domestic resources (coal, natural gas) that simply don't exist in Japan, and few of which are in EU.

Well, isn't this "Peak" your entire thesis? You think that exponential curves all continue to a peak, then reach a maximum, then invert, declining in some neat inverse exponential that will fit your catastrophic economic model: Why are you even discussing a "Stall?"

We all know why:

Because even you realise that the castostrophic model is the least likely scenario given the realities

 

[JiggsCasey]

Well, I predicted you'd be back misrepresenting my argument. You didn't disappoint, even truncating my prose to mean something else altogether.

Thank You Captain Obvious. I imagine you also may have a thesis that water will continue to be wet, and the earth will continue to be round. As a non renwable resourse, the depletion of oil has been a given since it was discovered, and anyone could assign its importance to our import requirements.

You should try a thesis that wasn't writ circa 1973.

Wow, you don't seem to know whether you feel my thesis is "worthwhile" or "obvious." But again, you seem to have very selective reading comprehension issues. What I said was it was important to acknowledge U.S. oil depletion (a fact your pal in this thread denies) when considering our ever-increasing IMPORT requirements. Regardless, as you understood it, If US depletion was so "obvious," why then do so many people deny it's true and/or try and inject heavy oil into the equation?

What you said was:

When, in fact, This is PROVEN reserves, just across the boarder, in Canada: NOT a "CRISIS."

Hormonal Much?

Being smarmy like you are here since you began addressing me .... is that what earned you all those reputation points?

If you feel that our 211 billion barrel contribution (most of it bitumen and kerogen) to a global consumption rate of 85 million b/d (and growing) is significant enough to stave off shock, you officially don't know what you're talking about. But then, I was convinced of that fact after your last post.

Yet, oddly, you present nothing as evidence suggesting that production of oil sands is not growing?

And you did, showing the opposite? Reputable links sway an argument. Your alleged personal experience below convinces me of very little. Considering how much of a jerk you've revealed yourself to be in an otherwise civil discussion, forgive me for not trusting you.

Why am I walking into refineries where they use "synthetic oil" (derived from Alberta's oil sands)? Petro-Canada owns and operates the MacKay River in situ facility, where steam separates sand from oil underground.

To fulfill you apocolyptical scenario of "The Falling Sky," you like throwing babies out with the bathwater: I'll readily admit that there obviously is no SUSTAINABLE Oil source; but I disagree with your assumption that heavy oil is only a "desperate alternative."

Very well... Here's some examples of why I believe heavy oil will never sustain our 7% annual growth paradigm:

Tar sands are another example of a process with a very low EROEI. Tar sands are typically mined which requires a large amount of energy to start the process. The tar sands are then heated with hot water or steam to extract the bitumen, which is very heavy viscous oil. The energy to create the hot water or steam usually comes from natural gas. The bitumen then has to be upgraded so that it can be refined. This can be done by adding methane or hydrogen from more natural gas to the bitumen to create lighter oil. The EROEI on this process is about 5. Tar sands are not as energy efficient as drilling for oil, but more energy efficient than oil shale.

A lower EROEI has a direct relationship to the amount of carbon dioxide released by the fuel as it impacts global warming. You have to add in all of the carbon dioxide released by the production process to gauge the total impact a fuel source has on global warming.​

By most every estimate, the EROEI for tar sands hovers around 3:1

On top of extraction and refining cost, is environmental costs:

Both mining and in situ operations use large volumes of water for their extraction process, between 2 and 4.5 volume units of water is used for the extraction of one volume unit bitumen (National Energy Board 2006). Currently the mining operations are licensed to divert 370 million cubic meters (equivalent to 2.3 million barrels) of fresh water per year from the Athabasca river. The planned mining projects will push the cumulative diversion with 529 million cubic meter (3.3 million barrels) per year (Alberta Environment 2006). Almost all process water ends up in tailing ponds.

Besides the fresh water diversions, the mining operations have a direct effect on the ground water level. Mining pits are excavated up till 70-80m below ground level, which is often below natural ground water levels as well. To prevent water flowing into the mining pit, the groundwater has to be controlled by pumping it up. As a result, the groundwater level of the surroundings is lowered, and the flows are disturbed.
​

Even British Petroleum's own definition of proven reserves does not include tar sands:

Bitumen is not suitable as feedstock for oil refineries because it is too low in hydrogen. Condensates from the same local stranded natural gas are available to add to the bitumen to increase the hydrogen content. The result is called syncrude and it is a suitable feedstock for oil refineries. The entire process is energy intensive. The energy costs of producing syncrude may exceed the energy in the syncrude. Large quantities of contaminated water, sulfur, asphalt, and bitumen contaminated sand are byproducts of syncrude production. The resulting environmental mess must be counted as an expense. There is also air pollution and carbon dioxide emission. The availability of low cost stranded gas may be necessary to make tar sand economic. Canada does not have large gas reserves, although Canada is a net gas exporter. It seems likely that Canada will be using most of its gas for domestic heating and little for syncrude production in a few years. Canadian tar sand may not be a useful fossil fuel without natural gas.

According to BP, Canada's Proven Reserves are second only to Saudi Arabia, but only if you count tar sand. Tar sand certainly does not fit BP's own definition of a Proven Reserve.
​

Then there's the natural gas limitation issue, a component for heating the sands, which presents a whole other hurdle. From that "liberal" bastion, Wikipedia:

... since natural gas production in Alberta peaked in 2001 and has been static ever since, it is likely oil sands requirements will be met by cutting back natural gas exports to the U.S.
​

More on the natural gas shortfall:

Production growth at the tar sands slowed considerably in 2007. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that natural gas availability at the tar sands is a disaster waiting to happen. Investment continues to pour in, but it seems that few analysts or reporters have taken a hard look at future tar sands production in light of declining natural gas production in the WCBS. Alternative energy sources such a nuclear or bitumen gasification are a long way off. Look for this emerging story to appear in press accounts within the next few years. Production of synthetic crude at the tar sands is not likely to provide the much longed for salvation that will keep American drivers on the road.
​

You're drama will sell to anyone that would rather not give your thesis much thought.

Now there's some irony.

How long have you been shovelling the "everything will be well" mantra based on the assumption of technology and dirty oil? Did anyone counter your prose, or did "m'k?" slam it shut for you before now?

Did I say the USA would hoard all 211 BILION bbl of PROVEN North American Reserves for its own use? No.

Then why did you offer the math that suggested it represented a 30 year supply for us?

But given the fact that both the reserves and the 20 million bbl/d consumer are adjacent to one another, I think its safe to say the USA will buy most of it.

So, you're not SAYING it's all ours. Just most of it.

Your grasp of Algebra I is impressive, and I commend you for what appears to have been an excellent 9th grade year. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that you've learned much since then, and that there are many economic models that don't follow an exponential curve until reaching inflection, which could easily last for decades while alternative energy sources are substituted for oil.

Oh, good... So, a civilization dependent upon 5-7% annual growth has something lined up and ready to go to seamlessly maintain stasis? This despite facing a 7-9% annual decline in the very commodity they've attained their system of growth upon for decades? What alternative source is this, exactly? And, why hasn't it kicked into gear while U.S. states and foreign governments grow insolvent with each passing week? This global meltdown is only temporary then, right?

Of course, since this doesn't fit the "Falling Sky" thesis, we must use our imagination, and consider anything but catastrophe a "mirage;"

Open your eyes. Do you think 15-20% unemployment and decaying infrastructure all around us is just the result of shady banking practices and fiat currency?

The only thing more pretentious is your dogmatism: scholorship is based on seeing BOTH sides of an issue. Your Thesis Has A Blind Side.

Wrong again. My thesis has considered ALL sides, including the same tired arguments trotted out by "everything is fine" pundits much like yourself. "Yeah but, you're overlooking (x)" arguments that don't tread water under any semblance of critical analysis.

Since you mentioned straw men: "Flawed Monetary System?" I'll readily admit its flawed, but have no idea how this is relevant to this thread. Why don't you conjure up something from your fevered imagination to explain how this fits into the "Falling Sky" thesis and Oil.

It's very simple, actually. Energy IS the economy. And the economy IS energy. Printing up money, and creating astronomical amounts of consumer debt based on the assumption of infinite growth (limitless energy) later is a fundamentally flawed monetary system. In fact, I would say our system has been flawed since 1914, but certainly since the early 70s when Nixon scrapped the Gold Standard.

Well, isn't this "Peak" your entire thesis? You think that exponential curves all continue to a peak, then reach a maximum, then invert, declining in some neat inverse exponential that will fit your catastrophic economic model: Why are you even discussing a "Stall?"

When did I say that? Of course there are blips here and there, like when Alaskan oil came online in the late 70s and offered a very brief upturn in U.S. production. Didn't result in much; We still have plummeted ever since.

Iraq's largely untapped 11% of the world's remaining crude will yield the same. A short-lived flat-line or upturn, followed by the return of global decline. We knew it was there, it wasn't a new discovery.

We all know why:

Your pap has been put in perspective on this topic at each turn. You really shouldn't attempt to speak for the forum at this point. It's hubris.

If you just represented my argument accurately, and spoke to me with some measure of respect, we wouldn't be here.

Because even you realise that the castostrophic model is the least likely scenario given the realities

I said nothing of catastrophic. My point is that times will get much much tougher due to the (undeniable) global energy crisis, and there is no recovery to come any time soon. Not before a profound change in the current paradigm. I said nothing of die-off, or war.

Speculating on "end times" or any such ramifications of peak oil is not my interest. I focus on the arithmetic, the physics, the geology, and the doublespeak that tries desperately to deny all of it.

 

[hvactec]

we need to get of oil as fast as possible.
solar power and wind, natural gas

 

[namvet]

well your not gonna get it. Pelosi and craps and enviro wacks say we can't drill our way out of this problem. they have a better solution

House passes bill to sue OPEC over oil prices

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved legislation on Tuesday allowing the Justice Department to sue OPEC members for limiting oil supplies and working together to set crude prices, but the White House threatened to veto the measure.

[URL="http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSWAT00953020080520"]source[/URL]

and the Saudi's reply????

 

[Mr. H.]

Where was the house of reps in '99 when oil was $10/bbl and OPEC was dumping crude on U.S. markets at below cost? Fuck them. We lost hundreds of thousands of jobs in the petroleum industry and no one gave a shit.

 

[Samson]

Production growth at the tar sands slowed considerably in 2007. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that natural gas availability at the tar sands is a disaster waiting to happen. Investment continues to pour in, but it seems that few analysts or reporters have taken a hard look at future tar sands production in light of declining natural gas production in the WCBS. Alternative energy sources such a nuclear or bitumen gasification are a long way off. Look for this emerging story to appear in press accounts within the next few years. Production of synthetic crude at the tar sands is not likely to provide the much longed for salvation that will keep American drivers on the road.
​

Speculating on "end times" or any such ramifications of peak oil is not my interest. I focus on the arithmetic, the physics, the geology, and the doublespeak that tries desperately to deny all of it.

Great example of Double-Speak!!!

I have no doubt what your interest is: Crying "The Sky is Falling" and supporting this ridiculously skewed worldview with sources like the one above from:

Energy Bulletin is a program of Post Carbon Institute, a nonprofit organization dedicated to helping the world transition away from fossil fuels and build sustainable, resilient communities.

Certainly not the most objective of opinionated blogs.

Well, I wish I had time to cut and paste the opposing arguements from equally bias sources, but I'm afraid you'll just have to run around alone in your hysterical little circles.

I've already followed you through your "only Proven Reserves Count," and then your "only Proven Reserves in the USA Count," and now your "only proven reserves that are not in oil sands count" arguements.

I expect your next point will witlessly be "only proven reserves that are Not On Planet Earth Count"

Perhaps someone else will be so charitable to give this absurd thesis the attention poor Jiggs believes it deserves: We will run out of oil, despite all proven reserves, creating an economic catastrophe of biblical proportions. Base the thesis on the obvious fact that oil is a non-renewable resource, and then dramatically extrapolate the fact into the economic science fiction where markets cannot adjust to changes.

Pretty simple recipe for all science fiction, but hardly worthy of serious discussion.

Time for me to move on to another topic.

 

[Big Fitz]

well your not gonna get it. Pelosi and craps and enviro wacks say we can't drill our way out of this problem. they have a better solution

House passes bill to sue OPEC over oil prices

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved legislation on Tuesday allowing the Justice Department to sue OPEC members for limiting oil supplies and working together to set crude prices, but the White House threatened to veto the measure.

[URL="http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSWAT00953020080520"]source[/URL]

and the Saudi's reply????

I predict Pelosi, Reid and many other greens will not be in office in 2011.

Also, in regards to dumping cheap crude to break domestic oil? Use a Tariff. Take the money and pay down debt with it, don't do more subsidies, but rather cut maybe the gas tax equal to the Tariff's gain.

 

[JiggsCasey]

Great example of Double-Speak!!!

I have no doubt what your interest is: Crying "The Sky is Falling" and supporting this ridiculously skewed worldview with sources like the one above from:

Energy Bulletin is a program of Post Carbon Institute, a nonprofit organization dedicated to helping the world transition away from fossil fuels and build sustainable, resilient communities.

Certainly not the most objective of opinionated blogs.

Well, I wish I had time to cut and paste the opposing arguements from equally bias sources, but I'm afraid you'll just have to run around alone in your hysterical little circles.

I've already followed you through your "only Proven Reserves Count," and then your "only Proven Reserves in the USA Count," and now your "only proven reserves that are not in oil sands count" arguements.

I expect your next point will witlessly be "only proven reserves that are Not On Planet Earth Count"

Perhaps someone else will be so charitable to give this absurd thesis the attention poor Jiggs believes it deserves: We will run out of oil, despite all proven reserves, creating an economic catastrophe of biblical proportions. Base the thesis on the obvious fact that oil is a non-renewable resource, and then dramatically extrapolate the fact into the economic science fiction where markets cannot adjust to changes.

Pretty simple recipe for all science fiction, but hardly worthy of serious discussion. :somesmarmyemote:

Time for me to move on to another topic.

Very well, run along then.

Your limited arsenal was exposed after your last post, so it's best you just declare victory and withdraw. Not quite used to getting faced around here, are you, know-it-all?

I knew you wouldn't man-up and acknowledge the realities of dirty oil, even though you complained that I didn't source it at first. Suddenly, after I put it in proper perspective, you're not interested in that aspect of the energy crisis. Probably a good idea, considering you rested your entire smarmy claim on the wonders of bitumen.

It got so bad for you, you punted to messenger smearing, pretending energybulletin.net is some liberally biased source of research. A debate is officially over when one side can't counter the material, and relies solely on connotation of alleged bias. You didn't even source how/why they have an alleged bias, just insisted it somehow must be. Oh? ok.

Regardless, they're hardly a "blog." I could have sourced any number of energy analysis sites, but here's their mission statement, tool:

EnergyBulletin.net is a clearinghouse for information regarding the peak in global energy supply. We publish news, research and analysis concerning:

* energy production statistics, models, projections and analysis
* articles which provide insight into the implications of peak oil across broad areas including geopolitics, climate change, ecology, population, finance, urban design, health, and even religious and gender issues.
* a range of information to help people prepare for peak energy, such as:
o renewable energy information
o alternative financial systems
o low energy agriculture
o relocalization
* any other subjects that could lead to better understanding the implications of an energy production peak

We welcome original content, and we especially invite industry insiders, independent researchers, journalists, specialists and activists to submit their insights relevant to these issues.

We attempt to be at all times both accurate and current. The opinions, inferences or calculations within individual news items are the responsibility of the author alone, and the editors of EnergyBulletin.net do not necessarily support them. ​

It's hardly surprising that you'd travel the the smarmy route of surface denial and baseless silver-bullet hope. It's the default response of countless posters before you who can't get their heads around just what is happening in the world today despite a glacier's worth of evidence smacking them right in the face. You'll be telling us "the market will fix everything" and "technology will save us" all the way, even through war and civil disorder, no doubt. Sorta like this guy:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSjK2Oqrgic[/ame]

I just thought you'd last a little longer than most do before effectively waiving the white flag and tucking tail. There are comprehensive sites out there, "debunking" peak oil. I was ready for more.

So yeah, run along. Move on to the "next topic," hopefully one you have some honest and working knowledge of next time. You certainly weren't "worthy of serious discussion" on this effort.