Largest Oil Scale Reserves BY FAR in the world!

[Modbert]

I would love to get paid for oil fracking near my house. I can buy water from somewhere else for a while with that money.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNGWn-aWn5g]YouTube - Lewis Black on Broadway (on water)[/ame]

 

[Modbert]

I don't get where some people in this thread are getting off complaining as if there is a lack of drilling going on in this country.

List of countries by oil production - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The U.S is third in Oil Production in the world, almost second.

However, we also consume double of what we produce:

Oil consumption (most recent) by country

So what happens? We have to go to foreign countries and get oil from them. Including from countries that hate us.

It's no different then someone who produces heroin they make and then goes to a dealer to get some more. The drug analogy has always fit in my opinion because just like a heroin needle, we keep injecting the drill looking for that next fix. The problem being the effects it has on the user and the fact that one day we will in fact run out of veins.

If you don't think it's the least bit insane, think about it for a moment. I'm trying to point out in this thread about why it's not a good idea to have large amounts of methane in our water supply.

 

[GHook93]

I saw the 60 minutes thing on it. The controversy is real and should be taken seriously, but Natural Gas has made small towns diamond mines. Not just for the tax revenue coming out of it. But the hotels are always filled. The restaurants have steady streams of people. The stores are packed with people that make a lot of money. Rental property is getting snatched up. It's been great for many small towns!

Not to mention many homeowner that are leasing their property for production are making a killing!

Too bad those small towns also become unlivable in the long run. It's appalling to trade the entire future away for some short-term benefits.

A lot of small towns start out this way with a boom that attracts people, investments and other business. Some go the way of the ghost towns, but some build on it and grow.

 

[Modbert]

A lot of small towns start out this way with a boom that attracts people, investments and other business. Some go the way of the ghost towns, but some build on it and grow.

Except those small towns have the added benefit of having an environment that's livable. Good luck trying to sell to a investment company that we should have our company in the long run in a place where we have to import water due to the local water supply being poisoned. I'm sure all the people will be itching to live there. All of this towns will go the way of ghost towns. As soon as the oil dries up, so do the dollars pouring into the town and they're on their way to the next small town to sucker.

 

[Toro]

We don't have the technology to pull oil shale out of the ground.

Sure we do. Not only have we already done it "back in the day", but some countries have been using oil shale to run power plants.

The problem is cost. It just costs too much to mine the stuff, or even use in-situ techniques. I've reviewed various technical schemes to get the stuff out, but nothing has really panned out yet.

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.

No it wasn't. Shale gas production started in New York back in about 1825, the Dunkirk Shale if memory serves. Shale gas fields discovered along the shores of Lake Erie between 1860 and 1880 were still in production in the mid-1990's when the Appalachian Basin gas atlas came out. In 1926 the largest known gas accumulation in the world was Devonian shale gas, on the Kentucky/West Virginia border (Ley, 1935). Hydraulic fracturing was pioneered on a commercial basis in the 1940's (Hubbert, 1956), and certainly I was doing hydraulic fracturing on shale wells back in the 80's, just not from a big horizontal lateral like the boys in Texas are doing nowadays.

Shale gas has been around forever. People only recently have noticed, is all, as the US transitions to unconventional sources of natural gas and oil.

I'm all for pulling oil out of the shale. I'm from Saskatchewan and have a lot of friends in Alberta. I want them to get rich and I want to pay less at the pump. I'm not an energy guy, but the guys in the Patch that I know tell me that it isn't feasible, at least not yet.

Unless something has happened over the past few years I am unaware of.

From the Rand Foundation

The largest known oil shale deposits in the world are in the Green River Formation, which covers portions of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming...For potentially recoverable oil shale resources, we roughly derive an upper bound of 1.1 trillion barrels of oil and a lower bound of about 500 billion barrels...the midpoint in our estimate range, 800 billion barrels, is more than triple the proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia. Present U.S. demand for petroleum products is about 20 million barrels per day. ...

at least 12 and possibly more years will elapse before oil shale development will reach the production growth phase. Under high growth assumptions, an oil shale production level of 1 million barrels per day is probably more than 20 years in the future, and 3 million barrels per day is probably more than 30 years into the future.

http://rand.org/pubs/monographs/2005/RAND_MG414.pdf

 

[KissMy]

The largest factor in whether oil gets extracted from shale is the Energy Returned On Energy Invested (EROEI). Some oil formations simply take a gallon of fuel to create a gallon of fuel, a 1:1 EROEI. That makes it useless until there is a major breakthrough in efficiency for oil extraction. Canada's oil sands are very low at a 3:1 EROEI. The Middle East EROEI is very high at over 40:1.

 

[JiggsCasey]

The largest factor in whether oil gets extracted from shale is the Energy Returned On Energy Invested (EROEI). Some oil formations simply take a gallon of fuel to create a gallon of fuel, a 1:1 EROEI. That makes it useless until there is a major breakthrough in efficiency for oil extraction. Canada's oil sands are very low at a 3:1 EROEI. The Middle East EROEI is very high at over 40:1.

Gosh, really?

According to self-asserted forum energy expert RGR, that EROEI stuff is a nonsensical measurement that no one uses, and is no factor in comparing different forms of energy.

It's funny watching denialists squawk until they're blue in the face, using long-debunked talking points over and over again, that there's "plenty" of energy. But, ultimately, you're all eventually forced to concede many of the main contentions brought to you. EROEI and proven reserve vs. estimated reserves being just a few key aspects.

So yes, that's right.... EROEI is THE fundamental aspect of assessing net energy. Anything less than 5:1 is NOT -- i repeat NOT -- maintaining the kind of growth the world economy requires. When people lie to themselves and insist that tar sands and shale oil formations will "save the day," they don't really have any idea what they're talking about. The technology has been around for decades, and they can not figure out a way to bring it to market efficiently. Nothing replaces sweet, delicious light crude. And they're not finding it anymore in any significant amounts.

Resources are not reserves. Satisfyingly, it appears that is something RGR and I can come to agreement about.

 

[KissMy]

The largest factor in whether oil gets extracted from shale is the Energy Returned On Energy Invested (EROEI). Some oil formations simply take a gallon of fuel to create a gallon of fuel, a 1:1 EROEI. That makes it useless until there is a major breakthrough in efficiency for oil extraction. Canada's oil sands are very low at a 3:1 EROEI. The Middle East EROEI is very high at over 40:1.

Gosh, really?

According to self-asserted forum energy expert RGR, that EROEI stuff is a nonsensical measurement that no one uses, and is no factor in comparing different forms of energy.

It's funny watching denialists squawk until they're blue in the face, using long-debunked talking points over and over again, that there's "plenty" of energy. But, ultimately, you're all eventually forced to concede many of the main contentions brought to you. EROEI and proven reserve vs. estimated reserves being just a few key aspects.

So yes, that's right.... EROEI is THE fundamental aspect of assessing net energy. Anything less than 5:1 is NOT -- i repeat NOT -- maintaining the kind of growth the world economy requires. When people lie to themselves and insist that tar sands and shale oil formations will "save the day," they don't really have any idea what they're talking about. The technology has been around for decades, and they can not figure out a way to bring it to market efficiently.

Resources are not reserves. Satisfyingly, it appears that is something RGR and I can come to agreement about.

The only way around Crude Oils low EROEI is to take the unreliable 18:1 EROEI of wind turbines & use that energy to extract & refine low EROEI crude oil when the wind blows.

 

[JiggsCasey]

The largest factor in whether oil gets extracted from shale is the Energy Returned On Energy Invested (EROEI). Some oil formations simply take a gallon of fuel to create a gallon of fuel, a 1:1 EROEI. That makes it useless until there is a major breakthrough in efficiency for oil extraction. Canada's oil sands are very low at a 3:1 EROEI. The Middle East EROEI is very high at over 40:1.

Gosh, really?

According to self-asserted forum energy expert RGR, that EROEI stuff is a nonsensical measurement that no one uses, and is no factor in comparing different forms of energy.

It's funny watching denialists squawk until they're blue in the face, using long-debunked talking points over and over again, that there's "plenty" of energy. But, ultimately, you're all eventually forced to concede many of the main contentions brought to you. EROEI and proven reserve vs. estimated reserves being just a few key aspects.

So yes, that's right.... EROEI is THE fundamental aspect of assessing net energy. Anything less than 5:1 is NOT -- i repeat NOT -- maintaining the kind of growth the world economy requires. When people lie to themselves and insist that tar sands and shale oil formations will "save the day," they don't really have any idea what they're talking about. The technology has been around for decades, and they can not figure out a way to bring it to market efficiently.

Resources are not reserves. Satisfyingly, it appears that is something RGR and I can come to agreement about.

The only way around Crude Oils low EROEI is to take the unreliable 18:1 EROEI of wind turbines & use that energy to extract & refine low EROEI crude oil when the wind blows.

LOL!!! You are so backwards, it's hysterical.

Crude oil does NOT have "low" EROEI. It's the highest, that's why it's the most coveted.

Also, who on Earth claims wind is at 18:1?

 

[Big Fitz]

I saw the 60 minutes thing on it. The controversy is real and should be taken seriously, but Natural Gas has made small towns diamond mines. Not just for the tax revenue coming out of it. But the hotels are always filled. The restaurants have steady streams of people. The stores are packed with people that make a lot of money. Rental property is getting snatched up. It's been great for many small towns!

Not to mention many homeowner that are leasing their property for production are making a killing!

Too bad those small towns also become unlivable in the long run. It's appalling to trade the entire future away for some short-term benefits.

So... Western Pennsylvania is a dead zone then? I mean, we've been drilling and pumping oil from that area for over 100 years.

 

[Big Fitz]

The largest factor in whether oil gets extracted from shale is the Energy Returned On Energy Invested (EROEI). Some oil formations simply take a gallon of fuel to create a gallon of fuel, a 1:1 EROEI. That makes it useless until there is a major breakthrough in efficiency for oil extraction. Canada's oil sands are very low at a 3:1 EROEI. The Middle East EROEI is very high at over 40:1.

Still better than Ethanol which is at best 1 to 1.5 at all times.

I love how the chicken littles are stuck thinking oil technology does not advance, improve or become more cost effective let alone enable more and more oil to be accessed that was previously unaccessable due to economics or physical challenges.

 

[KissMy]

Gosh, really?

According to self-asserted forum energy expert RGR, that EROEI stuff is a nonsensical measurement that no one uses, and is no factor in comparing different forms of energy.

It's funny watching denialists squawk until they're blue in the face, using long-debunked talking points over and over again, that there's "plenty" of energy. But, ultimately, you're all eventually forced to concede many of the main contentions brought to you. EROEI and proven reserve vs. estimated reserves being just a few key aspects.

So yes, that's right.... EROEI is THE fundamental aspect of assessing net energy. Anything less than 5:1 is NOT -- i repeat NOT -- maintaining the kind of growth the world economy requires. When people lie to themselves and insist that tar sands and shale oil formations will "save the day," they don't really have any idea what they're talking about. The technology has been around for decades, and they can not figure out a way to bring it to market efficiently.

Resources are not reserves. Satisfyingly, it appears that is something RGR and I can come to agreement about.

The only way around Crude Oils low EROEI is to take the unreliable 18:1 EROEI of wind turbines & use that energy to extract & refine low EROEI crude oil when the wind blows.

LOL!!! You are so backwards, it's hysterical.

Crude oil does NOT have "low" EROEI. It's the highest, that's why it's the most coveted.

Also, who on Earth claims wind is at 18:1?

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.

 

[KissMy]

The largest factor in whether oil gets extracted from shale is the Energy Returned On Energy Invested (EROEI). Some oil formations simply take a gallon of fuel to create a gallon of fuel, a 1:1 EROEI. That makes it useless until there is a major breakthrough in efficiency for oil extraction. Canada's oil sands are very low at a 3:1 EROEI. The Middle East EROEI is very high at over 40:1.

Still better than Ethanol which is at best 1 to 1.5 at all times.

I love how the chicken littles are stuck thinking oil technology does not advance, improve or become more cost effective let alone enable more and more oil to be accessed that was previously unaccessable due to economics or physical challenges.

Not when you factor in the feed value of the DDGs that adds 1:1 to that 1.5:1. Also add in No-Till Farming & Poet's low energy extraction methods & it takes Corn Ethanol to over 3:1.

 

[Big Fitz]

The largest factor in whether oil gets extracted from shale is the Energy Returned On Energy Invested (EROEI). Some oil formations simply take a gallon of fuel to create a gallon of fuel, a 1:1 EROEI. That makes it useless until there is a major breakthrough in efficiency for oil extraction. Canada's oil sands are very low at a 3:1 EROEI. The Middle East EROEI is very high at over 40:1.

Still better than Ethanol which is at best 1 to 1.5 at all times.

I love how the chicken littles are stuck thinking oil technology does not advance, improve or become more cost effective let alone enable more and more oil to be accessed that was previously unaccessable due to economics or physical challenges.

Not when you factor in the feed value of the DDGs that adds 1:1 to that 1.5:1. Also add in No-Till Farming & Poet's low energy extraction methods & it takes Corn Ethanol to over 3:1.

Huh... My irony alarm went off. You're bitching about oil sands and at BEST Ethanol can barely... BARELY equal that only if you include all the derivatives from the process while including none of the same consideration with Tar Sands?

I'm sorry but this smacks of dis-ingenuity or Big Ag shilling on your part.

 

[KissMy]

Still better than Ethanol which is at best 1 to 1.5 at all times.

I love how the chicken littles are stuck thinking oil technology does not advance, improve or become more cost effective let alone enable more and more oil to be accessed that was previously unaccessable due to economics or physical challenges.

Not when you factor in the feed value of the DDGs that adds 1:1 to that 1.5:1. Also add in No-Till Farming & Poet's low energy extraction methods & it takes Corn Ethanol to over 3:1.

Huh... My irony alarm went off. You're bitching about oil sands and at BEST Ethanol can barely... BARELY equal that only if you include all the derivatives from the process while including none of the same consideration with Tar Sands?

I'm sorry but this smacks of dis-ingenuity or Big Ag shilling on your part.

Did I say we should not extract Oil from Tar Sands or Oil Shale??? Hell No I did not. You are the one saying we should not make Ethanol. Liquid Fuel Rules. You can't run cars very far on batteries.

 

[Big Fitz]

Not when you factor in the feed value of the DDGs that adds 1:1 to that 1.5:1. Also add in No-Till Farming & Poet's low energy extraction methods & it takes Corn Ethanol to over 3:1.

Huh... My irony alarm went off. You're bitching about oil sands and at BEST Ethanol can barely... BARELY equal that only if you include all the derivatives from the process while including none of the same consideration with Tar Sands?

I'm sorry but this smacks of dis-ingenuity or Big Ag shilling on your part.

Did I say we should not extract Oil from Tar Sands or Oil Shale??? Hell No I did not. You are the one saying we should not make Ethanol. Liquid Fuel Rules. You can't run cars very far on batteries.

So instead of focusing more resources and monies on finding better ways to extract and refine oil till a REAL solution comes along, you want to play with pinwheels, mirrors and moonshine still.

Gotcha. A bad solution for a non-crisis is still the plan.

 

[RGR]

The largest factor in whether oil gets extracted from shale is the Energy Returned On Energy Invested (EROEI).

No one gives a crap or uses EROEI for anything. IRR is the consideration which determines the project validity, not EROEI.

 

[RGR]

According to self-asserted forum energy expert RGR, that EROEI stuff is a nonsensical measurement that no one uses, and is no factor in comparing different forms of energy.

Pretty close, but if you were even a semi-competent parrot you would have done better. No oil company in the history of the world has ever used EROEI as a determining factor to explore for, find, develop, produce or distribute oil and natural gas.

And most of the time, it isn't used to compare different forms of energy, it is used to compare energy invested in a particular process to harvest energy out the far end of said process.

Unlike the make believe land of Doomer/Peakers, when you talk about energy, it is easy to compare forms. A BTU is a BTU is a BTU.

EROEI and proven reserve vs. estimated reserves being just a few key aspects.

Proven reserves are by definition estimated reserves parrot. Probabilistic estimates are now pretty much industry standard. Wipe the egg off your face and try again.

Nothing replaces sweet, delicious light crude. And they're not finding it anymore in any significant amounts.

Sure they are. Finding oil all over the place. Twice as much of it as we have consumed over the past decade and a half. Thats the beauty of reserve growth, we just keep getting more of the same type of oil out of them, and there be lots of light sweet crude already found.

Resources are not reserves. Satisfyingly, it appears that is something RGR and I can come to agreement about.

The difference is, I know why. So now you are parroting me.

 

[RGR]

You can't run cars very far on batteries.

Far enough to keep 75% of American commuters happy. Heck, I could use an EV for 3 or 4 days before needing to plug it in. Might not work for a visit to Grandma's house, but certainly works in suburbia.

 

[rdean]

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".