Originally posted by Cherubimsfire
I don't think this has been posted but forgive me if it has. According to this link, which I found browsing Fark.com lmao, the worlds largest oil reserve is under the U.S. Rocky Mtns.

Great info. One day it's peak oil, the next it's abundance. Up down, up down, who pays? So it's the largest untapped until another country claims it.. and then until..

Originally posted by StellarX
Not sure why he decided to talk about that report but I'm not one to believe the rand guys very often.

Actually, the report isn't bad. It's got some good information in it, but nothing to support any claim that oil shale can be extracted at a poitive energy return rate.

Actually the Saudi's can get a barrel of oil above ground for anywhere between 50 and 200 US cents depending on how conservative you want to be. The Russians spend as far as i know about 600 Us cents to manage the same and the cost go up to about 25 or 30 dollars in the North Sea as far as i know. With current Oil prices one might get a huge return if your cost is around 20 USD per barrel ( cheap distribution since it's local) but oil prices might very well slump back to 5-10 USD per barrel as they did in the late 90's. The REAL reason why so few companies want to invest ( investment in oil production does not get you immediate returns) is because they very well understand that oil prices might once again quickly fall to those levels.

Again, however, my point is that oil shale simply can't realisticly be called "competitve". The only time it's comercially viable is when oil prices have risen far above it's actual energy utility levels. At that point, we're much better off looking at alternate energy anyway. If you have to put 10 jules or electricity into extracting 1 jule of oil, the way to get ahead is to use that 10 jules of electricity instead of oil.

The point remains, this is in-efficent. The formula remains simple:
Energy used in production > Oil energy returned.

Define the 'energy' used in terms other than money while taking into account that money is a completely artificial thing devoid of proportionality to energy expenditure.

I'm talking raw energy. Jules. E=MC^2 stuff.
In this case, the actual form of energy to use in the extraction of oil is likely electricity derived from nuclear powerplants.
As I mentioned above, when it takes more energy to extract a resource than the resource can provide, you've got a problem. Why pump all that electicity into getting oil out when you could use it in... say... electric cars or feed it directly into the powergrid (which is currently mostly powered by buring fossil fuels)?

Yes, it could help as a band-aid solution when the big crunch comes down, but it's not a problem solver.

What big crunch?

THE big crunch. Peak Oil. The name of the forum.
:p
More specificly, when oil demand surpasses possible oil production.
I believe that peak oil is as inevitable as suffercation when locked in a sealed and airtight room. It might take awhile and there are things you can do to delay it, but basicly you're just screwed.

I'll spend some more time with this report, but I suggest you need to do the same

I suggest you spend time to become informed and dont waste your time on this report. Just find my posts on this forum and you will understand the nature and the extent of the peak oil lie better than most anyone.

Stellar

As promised, I did spend more time with the report, but I found nothing worth commenting on. It's a business doc based on finacial return, NOT energy magement.

I feel I have a fairly firm grasp of the peak oil issue and yes, much of my research did infact start right here on these forums.

Originally posted by BitRaiser
Actually, the report isn't bad. It's got some good information in it, but nothing to support any claim that oil shale can be extracted at a poitive energy return rate.

That's why i consider anything by Rand suspect unless i have checked out the issue. I have checked out this issue and there are at least a few methods by which you can now make a good/very good return on money if the oil prices stay above say 50 USD.

Again, however, my point is that oil shale simply can't realisticly be called "competitve". The only time it's comercially viable is when oil prices have risen far above it's actual energy utility levels.

When exactly does the cost rise of it's utility? Money has absolutely no inherent value so coupling the dollar price to some kind of 'utility' price is rather deceptive and ill advised imo. Until we have a substitute for oil ( we have but neither the oil industry or the motor industry can make a living- profit margins they consider 'essential'- from Electric cars) the cost to get it above ground is rather irrelevant unless your considering solar powered or wind powered cars. I have no love of the oil and energy industry ( check my posts on vacuum energy technologies) but even with the oil industry such as it is there is no reason for the US government ( why leave it for private industry; at least you will know what your tax money is doing other than raping large parts of the third world) or private industry not to exploit local sources.

At that point, we're much better off looking at alternate energy anyway. If you have to put 10 jules or electricity into extracting 1 jule of oil, the way to get ahead is to use that 10 jules of electricity instead of oil.

They say that they can get out twice the energy they put in and whatever the math they use it's rather irrelevant as they can apparently turn a profit. Money is created from thin air but thin air ( without something extracting that vacuum energy anyways. ) will never power your car so the energy exchange ratio is pretty damn irrelevant as you can not currently power your car with energy the coal power plant 'generates" ( which it really does not but that is another topic) and brings to your door.

I'm talking raw energy. Jules. E=MC^2 stuff.
In this case, the actual form of energy to use in the extraction of oil is likely electricity derived from nuclear powerplants.
As I mentioned above, when it takes more energy to extract a resource than the resource can provide, you've got a problem.

Only if you assume that money is directly coupled to a specific energy resource. Remember that the Germans produced gasoline from Coal in the Second world war and that South Africa still does on the order of 150 000 barrels a day. If the South African economy can sustain this and the industry itself prosper why on Earth does anyone need the damn Saudis? When you need gas to drive your someone to the hospital i don't think you would really care about the efficiency of the process of the company doing it still somehow keeps it stock holders happy....

Why pump all that electicity into getting oil out when you could use it in... say... electric cars or feed it directly into the powergrid (which is currently mostly powered by buring fossil fuels)?

I am in complete and total agreement but our agreeing will sadly not change reality. California had electric cars in the mid 90's but GM soon realized that they lasted too long and were too damn cheap to maintain. What they did then was withdraw them from the market and send them all the breakers while hyping the Hummer as they could make money there.

THE big crunch. Peak Oil. The name of the forum.
:p
More specificly, when oil demand surpasses possible oil production.

I would very much like to get the named changed as people tend to assume by looking at it that it's actually connected to some kind of short term reality. Peak oil of any way shape or natural form ( the market can create shortages whatever the reality of the resource availability is) is not likely within either of our expected lifetimes so stop worrying about it.

[quoteI believe that peak oil is as inevitable as suffercation when locked in a sealed and airtight room. It might take awhile and there are things you can do to delay it, but basicly you're just screwed.


And most of those who control the world will do their best to reinforce this view as they desperately want us to willing give up our relatively high ( far too high in their view) living standards so they can control us even better.

I feel I have a fairly firm grasp of the peak oil issue and yes, much of my research did infact start right here on these forums.

Then your reading all the wrong parts as far as i am concerned. Sorry i was a bit rude earlier but i sometimes get people's motives wrong. What 'facts' do you base your peak oil conclusions on as i am pretty sure i have done a decent job of addressing most of lies/ignorance/misinformation of the peak freaks. If you could focus me attention on the remaining issues you have i think i can help you not feel guilty about expecting a decent standard of living.

Conclusion: This planet can likely support tens of billions of humans on a basic agrarian level with industry adapted to make use of current scientific knowledge but with very simple tools and local industry to produce it. It could also sustain hundreds of billions with as much technology as they may find useful based on 100 year old scientific knowledge. We really could turn this world into a paradise that will make the garden of Eden type myths seem rather unimaginative and dull.It's all possible but for that to happen we must first wrestle back control of the worlds destiny from those who have hijacked it for their own ends. The world is in the state it's in not because there are no alternatives but because the alternatives do not suit those who benefit by the current energy and societal paradigms.

Stellar

[edit on 21-9-2006 by StellarX]

Stellar, I'm not sure where the miscommunication crept in, but there seems to be a couple going on.

First off, when I'm talking about oil shale in terms of viability, I'm not talking about in commercial terms. I thought I had explained that reasonably clearly.
The simple bottom line is that it takes more Energy to extract oil from oil shale than you get out of burning the recovered oil. There is a net loss of energy. You gain nothing except the convinance of being able to put that oil energy into the existing oil ecconomy. Under the proper circumstances (high oil prices, cheap electricity) this results in a return on money, but as you say, the money artifical and ultimatly meaningless in terms of utility or value.

The fact that anyone would take interest in oil shale supports the notion that we're in trouble in terms of supply. It's more costly, it's in-effcent, it's messy, and generally just undesirable. If there were any other options, would it not make good business sence to turn to them first?

Remember, Peak Oil isn't about running out of oil, it's about the end of cheap oil. It's about no-longer being able to maintain current consumption without impacting your way of life.

I find it hard to believe that anyone who has done any serious looking into the subject can believe that Oil isn't a finite resource. We know oil is rather rare in terms of biomass coversion. We know there's only a limited amount of geological time that biomass has been around that could form oil. We know there's a limited depth that we can drill to without expending more energy to extract than is recovered. Those are all hard and fast limits.

Those limits are being used by the industry in search of new oil supplies. Since we know what depths we are likely to find usable oil, that's where people have been looking. They've been looking hard, but new discoveries have been falling off despite increasing knowlage of where to look and much improved technology. The bottom line is that there are fewer finds being made even though we know how to look for it way better than ever before.

Before you fall back to the stance that big business is doing this on-purpose in order to artificially inflate oil prices, recall that much of the business of oil prospecting is done by wildcats who are fully independent. They start with little money and search as hard as they can before they run out hoping to find a major deposit before they go broke. There is MAJOR incentive for them to find oil... yet they are coming up dry more often than not.

Apply some good 'ol fashioned logic to this information.
What are the facts telling you?

Originally posted by Cherubimsfire
I thought the war on "terror" was mainly about my damned Zionist government getting their hands on middle eastern oil and protecting Israel from being destroyed by everyone over there.

The US having craploads of oil and going to Iraq and other Middle Eastern nations for oil aren't mutualy exclusive. Pulling your conclussion is something your really don't want to do if you want to have any kind of credibility.

They aren't as much going for the oil itself, but for strategic control over the oil.

Control over the oil from the middle east gives you a level of control over China, Russia and Europe.

Read the PNAC documents to understand what the plan is.

Its not about going anywhere to obtain something, its all about going to specific places for their geostrategic importance. The geostratigic importance being locations that give you control over resources other nations need and strategic military positions (the US is slowly surrounding Iran and creating bases all over the ex-USSR nations, which also have masive amounts of untapped oil.)

Actually me family has land in kansas with oil. My uncle can only pump 1 barrel a day from each well pump. He is capable of pumpin 100 barrel a day for 75 years. I called him anyway to see whats up and he said that these are government restrictions. How ever my step sisters are involved in the oil from balli island off texas. they too are restricted on how much domestic oil is pumped. just thought id help contribute to the threads topic.

Originally posted by preBowAsG
Actually me family has land in kansas with oil. My uncle can only pump 1 barrel a day from each well pump. He is capable of pumpin 100 barrel a day for 75 years. I called him anyway to see whats up and he said that these are government restrictions.

So residential/small holding owners are restricted in how much they can pump?

How ever my step sisters are involved in the oil from balli island off texas. they too are restricted on how much domestic oil is pumped. just thought id help contribute to the threads topic.

So in this case even commercial operations are restricted in what they may pump? I would appreciate if a great deal if you could ask them what regulations are normally cited in defense in these restrictions. I did not consider the possibility that they would be quite as open about it but now that you mention this i will certainly go study this on my own.

Thanks for the contribution!

Stellar

actually not to sound harsh but its kinda common knowledge in domestic oil. The whole midwest is full of fossil fuels ans so is the gulf and alaska as well as texas and new mexico. but its economics you see. Our economy can afford to buy oil from others while the demand is meduim and supply is high. when we have the limited supply with increased or stable demand then we can actually sell back oil at a higher cost, inflation included.

"If the South African economy can sustain this and the industry itself prosper why on Earth does anyone need the damn Saudis?"

South africa: 0.15 million barrels per day from coal.

World consumptions: 85 million barrels per day.

US consumption: 20-25 million barrels per day.



1) Coal to liquids (south africa) is a very dirty process which is significnatly worse for the atmosphere and global warming than using fossil petroleum.

2) "oil" shale is not oil, not even remotely. It is a continuous source of baloney and pumper propaganda, but imagining that it is feasably extracted oil is a dangerous delusion. Remember, oil sands, in Canada, is feasible as a fuel source, but it is very expensive and difficult to extract, and causes more greenhouse emissions.

Oil shale is much much worse than oil sands.

Give up the delusion, now.

We need wind, solar and nuclear, and electrification of transportation, via trains and electric plug-in hybrids.

hey all this talk about oil prices texas is known for oil if bush has mineral rights to his ranch in crawford tx and has oil wells this war could cut all ties to middle eastren oil supply and make bush a major oil provider hence making him into a instanst millionare

Originally posted by mbkennel
South africa: 0.15 million barrels per day from coal.

World consumptions: 85 million barrels per day.

US consumption: 20-25 million barrels per day.

What is the point of this comparison? Are you trying to suggest that scale has much anything to do with how likely or unlikely something will be when a nation decides to do it?

1) Coal to liquids (south africa) is a very dirty process which is significnatly worse for the atmosphere and global warming than using fossil petroleum.

The atmosphere could not care more or less as humans are having a remarkably small affect ( at worse) on global atmospheric temperatures. With sufficient investment and state backing pollution need not be a serious impediment as you can clean it as much as you decide to.

2) "oil" shale is not oil, not even remotely. It is a continuous source of baloney and pumper propaganda, but imagining that it is feasably extracted oil is a dangerous delusion.

So you keep saying with not so much evidence and even less reason why it being relatively hard to do makes it somehow impossible.

Remember, oil sands, in Canada, is feasible as a fuel source, but it is very expensive and difficult to extract, and causes more greenhouse emissions.

I think having wars over oil is more dangerous to our civilization than pollution from industry or 'greenhouse' emissions.

Oil shale is much much worse than oil sands.

It's just relatively more expensive but since money is not backed by anything and printed for free there is no reason why we can not mine as much as we want with sufficient encouragement.

Give up the delusion, now.

Your probably one of those that would have us de-industrialize pretense that that would somehow 'save the world'.

We need wind, solar and nuclear, and electrification of transportation, via trains and electric plug-in hybrids.

What we need to do is to exploit cold fusion and zero point technologies that can both extract energy for nearly free ( beside the small initial cost to create the disequilibrium with the active vacuum) forever.

I don't want a oil based economy any more than you do but i wont make up or believe lies to try alter things.

Stellar

It is time we broke free from dependence on Arab Oil sources...thanks for an informative article...we should start drilling our own resources today and not become blinded by being so "green"...thanks again.

This 'Shale Oil' thing has been going around for a very long time. I learned about 'Shale Oil' in my 4th grade science class back in the 1950's. So, does that tell you anything about how soon to expect anyone getting oil from other than the current, universal extraction methods?? Until you get ALL people to 'go for it' (not just the politicians), it just AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN!.
The ONLY thing that man can agree on is that man will NOT agree on everything.