A) IRR is not EROEI. I recommend google for learning the difference.
Where did I indicate is was the same? You're trying to steer the discussion in a different direction, and ignore my point. Who gives a ****? I didn't say a word about IRR.
EROEI is quite relevant when we're comparing different sources of energy. Don't lie to the forum again.
B) Shale (gas) began production in 1825. Which even in a peakers world qualifies as "years ago".
Great. And what kind of progress have they made? Barely much of any. You've just underscored my point. If it was a desirable and efficient source of energy, it would have become a vastly expanded industry a very long time ago. Not just in Texas.
I love when you point to a mole hill, and pretend it's a mountain. It's what you do. Adorable.
C) Light sweet crude is also produced from these shales, dating back into the 19th century.
But requiring ENORMOUS inputs to extract and refine to that grade, which is really the entire point you prefer to willfully ignore in this entire debate.
Learn some history already. Put down your Bible, and pick up a BOOK already.
LOL. Such a dick. You think you've enlightened me somehow, yet you're too retarded to acknowledge basic input vs. output ratio. But it IS amusingly ironic that you'd mention the Bible and books, considering your entire platform is based on HOPE, not data.
"It's where it's ALWAYS been!"
Read what I wrote about the Hirsch report. Refute ANY of it. I dare you.
Are you talking about this post, pumpkin?
http://www.usmessageboard.com/3201600-post117.html
The one where you pretended Hirsch was wrong, overall, based on the shale gas "boom?"
The one where you made two retarded assertions without any link to back them up?
1) that "Natural gas supplies from shale gas exploded" (as if supply estimates somehow means actual production capability)
and
2) that Hirsch "ignores the geology"... (rich irony there)
You were challenged to show how much annual shale gas production actually occurs in this country, and you ignored it. That's because speculation based on claims of "technically recoverable" gas shale deposits is not actual production of those resources. If it were cost effective to contaminate our water supply and get that shale gas, we would have "exploded" the industry (to use your unfortunate term).
Like I said, anyone can CLAIM there a trillions of cubic meters of gas from rock. Getting to it in any abundance at affordable cost is all that matters.
You didn't show that Hirsch was ultimately wrong. You asserted he was wrong for YOUR apples to oranges criteria. Gas from shale is not the same as easily accessible pools of LNG. That includes the new, disgusting fracktacular procedure I bet you're all aflutter over, huh great advocate of fossil fuel gluttony?
The market will realize that most shale wells will be a total train-wreck in ANY flat-price environment. To drill for shale gas is to bet on a price spike. Once the price has spiked however, it cannot just go flat for the Johnie-come-latelys to profit. Why? Due to "Receding Horizons". The cost to drill rises 10 to often 20 times faster than the increase in NG prices during a spike. You can walk to the horizon, but you will NEVER get there with a low EROEI play like shale gas.
Shale-Gas Drilling in U.S. May Stall as Below-Production Prices Erode Cash
Shale-gas drilling slowdown predicted - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
By Edward Klump - Apr 23, 2010
Drilling in U.S. shale-gas formations may tumble as companies run short of cash after prices for the fuel languished below the cost of production for more than a year.
Natural-gas explorers will realize the need to cut drilling in the next few months, said Murry Gerber, chairman of EQT Corp., the largest producer in the Appalachian Basin. “I think the rig count is going to come down, and then you’ll see the production follow,” he said in a telephone interview.
“Investors have expressed, some of them at least, their concern about what appears to be an irrational resolve to continue drilling,” said Arthur Berman, director of Labyrinth Consulting Services near Houston. “I expect that that sentiment will perhaps become stronger.”
James Halloran, a consultant at Financial America Securities in Cleveland, said that under some contracts with landowners, producers risk losing leases if they don’t drill. Gas prices will remain low “until somebody wakes up in this whole thing and says, ‘I haven’t got any money, I can’t do this anymore,’” he said.
After continuing to drill at money-losing prices to show investors gains in reserves and output, many producers won’t have enough cash to fund new wells at their recent pace, said Berman of Labyrinth Consulting.
“The current gas-pricing fundamentals don’t seem to support the degree of dry gas activity which is under way at the moment,” Tim Probert, president of global business lines at Houston-based Halliburton, told investors on an April 19 conference call. “We certainly see that weakening.”
Petrohawk Energy Corp. said April 13 that it will cut its number of rigs in the Haynesville Shale of Louisiana and Texas by 20 percent and increase drilling for more lucrative gas liquids in South Texas. Houston-based Petrohawk also agreed to sell a stake in its Haynesville pipelines for $875 million and cut its capital budget by $100 million.
Joan Dunlap, vice president of investor relations at Petrohawk, declined to say at what gas price the company’s wells can break even.
Shale joint ventures signed with major oil companies by such producers as Chesapeake Energy Corp. and Atlas Energy Inc., as well as the sale of XTO to Exxon Mobil Corp., may help slow drilling, said Haag Sherman, chief investment officer at Salient Partners in Houston.
I refuse. It is not my job to remember where you sprinkled ridiculously ignorant claims in these threads, only that you did, and what they were. After you did it, you tucked tail and ran. Smartest thing you've done since I showed up here. And was completely predictable.
LOL. You keep telling yourself that, smarm king. What you did was distort my point, and turn an exchange about EROEI and the global economy into a dumb hypothetical about a CEO's personal profit margin.
But let's get something clear right up front: I don't tuck tail and run from "nothing to see here" zealots. Especially those who enter the forum conceding oil is a finite resource. I may be away for a few days, but nothing you have yet presented has me concerned in the least, and I never avoid bloviating, arrogant instigators like you. I enjoy them.
Keep at it. And perhaps you can continue your pretentious, ineffectual narrative of what "peakers think", their psychological motives (LOL), and how increased reliance on dirty oils can maintain a seamless transition for complex societies. It's done wonders for you so far (LOL squared).
Irony.
You requested a specific rebuttal of the Hirsch report. I gave it to you. So far, you haven't responded to the specific quotes and information I used from within that report to show why it is wrong. Refute what I wrote. Refute what Hirsch wrote. I dare you.
Actually, yes I did. Covered at the time, and above.
You pretended gas shale discoveries trump Hirsch's liquid fuels outlook overall. Yet, when asked to summarize total annual shale gas production, so as to put shale gas into perspective, you "tucked tail and ran," which is the best decision you've made since you joined the forum.
See you next week, for your latest round of spin on heavy oil/gas reserves. Perhaps a new claim of low grade uranium deposits as well! Or maybe you'll just punt to "peaker psychology" pseudo-intellectual trolling. That's what your personal cheerleader below really gets excited about.
