For a minute there I thought I had to get off my couch, when all the while the fact is we don't have to do anything much but keep things afloat for just a few decades more! In fact, we'd best shut up about PO, because if our offspring finds out we knew about it all along, they'll turn and wring our necks come 2036!
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 1972 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 3:10 am Post subject: Re: Shale oil
vampyregirl wrote:
I bet Pstarr crap his pants recently when the first large scale BTL plant opened in Germany.
If you mean the new Choren plant, it hasn't opened yet and commissioning will take another 8-12 months, according to The Oil Drum report.
vampyregirl wrote:
I bet he said that was impossible to.
If it's the Choren plant, we don't yet know if it's impossible, though it seems likely to produce something.
vampyregirl wrote:
The doomers will never get there wish. There will never be an oil crash because we are a step ahead of it and always will be
Now, if that is not cornucopian, I don't know what is. There is already an oil crash in the making, and "we" are not one step ahead of it; oil consumption has exceeded production in 16 of the last 18 months, according to the EIA. Oil and fuel are at an all time high (not surprising, considering the supply/demand situation) and economic growth is virtually flat in many countries.
The federal Bureau of Land Management estimates the shale formation in western Colorado could yield as much as 1.8 trillion barrels of oil.
Getting that oil, however, could require three times as much water to operate power plants, according to some estimates.
"The volumes are pretty enormous," said Bart Miller, water-program director for the conservation group Western Resource Advocates.
"The net water requirements ... were something in the neighborhood of 200,000 to 300,000 acre-feet annually," Miller said. "To put that in context, that's the consumption of about 2.5 million people."
Shell have admitted themselves they don't know what the ultimate water requirements will be - and a project of any size will take at least half a decade to get going. Why not funnel more money into Alberta if we're going to depend on mining gunk? Or open up ANWR/offshore projects? Or CTL? Shale's the bottom of the barrel, to choose the aptest pun. Like the Bakken this is economical from an investor's standpoint, but isn't a solution to peak oil, unless you think they're going to build that Great Lakes canal which was proposed in all seriousness in the 70s. To which I say, hey, let's save 125 billion and just build a space elevator!
Congress will have hearings this week on shale, too. _________________ Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
I'm just gonna find a cash machine.
Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 4:55 am Post subject: Re: Shale oil
It will take Choren 8 to 12 months to reach optimal output of 18 million litres. There BTL fuel has already been succesfully tested by German automakers. the pilot plant was a success, now the first large scale BTL plant is complete.
In addition Shell, Iogen and Volkswagon have signed a letter of intent for cellulostic ethanol production in Germany.
www.iogen.ca
Iogens pilot plant in Ottawa has been a success. They have produced fuel for GAM race cars. www.greenalternative motorsports.com and Shell has succesfully used there fuel in Europe blended with conventional fuel.
Iogen and Choren products don't compete with food production because they come from non crop sources.
A whole new generation of power is coming. Just like 100 years ago when the ICE engine and the electric generator ushered in a new era of power
Last edited by vampyregirl on Tue May 13, 2008 10:38 pm; edited 2 times in total
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 1972 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 5:02 am Post subject: Re: Shale oil
vampyregirl wrote:
It will take Choren 8 to 12 months to reach optimal output of 18 million litres. There BTL fuel has already been succesfully tested by German automakers. the pilot plant was a success, now the first large scale BTL plant is complete.
Can you give a link? The Oil Drum article I pointed to said the plant is still being built and that the commissioning of its various systems will take 8-12 months. You appear to be saying that it is already operating and is ramping up, which is at odds with the recent TOD article.
Joined: Jan 02, 2008 Posts: 403 Location: out dispatching ronan...
Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 5:02 am Post subject: Re: Shale oil
pstarr wrote:
That is all you can say? Are you a mute? Do you have writer's block or tunnel carpal syndrome. Lose you keyboard? Somebody is a bit unhinged around here
There is no known earthly technology that will convert this black gunk into liquid fuel. Thhe American Suburban Drive-By lifestyle is ending and you and everyone else needs to accept that before we terminally crap up our planetary nest.
It really blows to be shale oil. It has a negative energy return.
Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 5:37 am Post subject: Re: Shale oil
I can't say I have a specialist's insight, but living in Sweden across from Estonia, I occasionally have read about their extensive shale industry. I gather it has been burnt for electricity generation (Estonia is a very flat country with no hydro opportunity), and it has proved to be very polluting way of producing electric current.
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 1972 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 6:11 am Post subject: Re: Shale oil
vampyregirl wrote:
http://media.cleantech.com/search/node/choren
So, basically, you're wrong. That link says the following:
Quote:
Choren said the 3.9 million gallon biomass to liquid, or BTL, facility, which will make biodiesel from forest residue and waste wood, will now go into a commissioning phase over the next 8 to 12 months.
Which means that it is not yet in production, as its systems need to be commissioned over the next year.
Quote:
"In parallel we are working on a concept for the first BTL plant on an industrial scale, with an annual output of 270 million liters of biosynthetic fuel, to be built in Schwedt, in Brandenburg," said Blades.
Which means that the beta plant is not yet operational, but the company is confident enough to start preliminary work on a full scale plant.
Quote:
Once the Beta plant has proven its viability, and provided the final decision on investment for Schwedt is made in 2009, production could commence in 2012-2013.
Which means that the beta plant has not yet proven itself and the full scale plant won't be ready for another 4 or 5 years.
So all pretty much the opposite of what you've said. However, it's good that you've provided evidence of your errors. That's an unusual trait here.
Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 12:52 pm Post subject: Re: Shale oil
Haven't you heard? Shale sludge will be profitable if oil ever hits $30 barrel. Almost time to break open the penny jar, huh vampiregirl? _________________ ree rah rip ram. sunofabitch godamn. hidey didey christ almighty. rah rah crap
Joined: Jan 14, 2008 Posts: 321 Location: The Yukon
Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 10:40 pm Post subject: Re: Shale oil
The "i don't want it to happen" rhetoric is meaningless in the face of preparations under way. With the geopolitical realities, energy security makes this scenario (1600-Gb) a fait accompli:
Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 10:58 pm Post subject: Re: Shale oil
www.choren.com/en has the info on the history of Choren and there BTL fuel.
The beta plant with its 18 million liter capacity is the first large scale BTL plant. The pilot plant was built in Frieburg several years ago and the BTL has been succesfully tested by German automakers.
Also check out www.iogen.ca for info on cellulosic ethanol and there proposed large scale cellulostic ethanol plant
Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 11:06 pm Post subject: Re: Shale oil
$30 per barrel is the estimated cost of extraction. In order for any producer to make a profit they would have to sell it for more than that.
Why unlock shale reserves? Why not unlock reserves of more than a trillion barrels?
In North America we have already unlocked difficult hydrocarbons including oil sands and tight gas. Time for one more
Joined: Jan 14, 2008 Posts: 321 Location: The Yukon
Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 11:17 pm Post subject: Re: Shale oil
vampyregirl wrote:
Why unlock shale reserves?
In the update of Scenario-2300 later this month, i will be addressing some of the realities of a higher underlying decline rate (3.3%) and a 400-Gb downward revision of URR. The cumulative effect of these factors will be that the estimate for 2075 All Liquids flow (absent of kerogen) is reduced from 32-mbd to 20-mbd.
The political reprecussions of the recent brown/blackouts in California have taught legislators that environmental extremism must take a back seat to VOTES and responsibilities of providing the necessities of life. The pressure to augment USA supply with kerogen in the waning days of fossil fuels will be insurmountable for policy makers.
Add to the fray the bonuses of being the lead producer of petroleum based liquids in the latter half of the century and ... _________________ www.TrendLines.ca/scenarios.htm Home of the Real Peak Date ... set by geologists (not pundits)
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 1972 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 2:31 am Post subject: Re: Shale oil
vampyregirl wrote:
www.choren.com/en has the info on the history of Choren and there BTL fuel.
The beta plant with its 18 million liter capacity is the first large scale BTL plant. The pilot plant was built in Frieburg several years ago and the BTL has been succesfully tested by German automakers.
Also check out www.iogen.ca for info on cellulosic ethanol and there proposed large scale cellulostic ethanol plant
So there is no full scale plant even started yet and the beta plant won't be producing for up to a year.
Edit: Post changed, as it didn't address vampyregirl's post directly. Sorry about that.
Last edited by TonyPrep on Tue May 13, 2008 5:03 am; edited 1 time in total
Joined: Apr 06, 2006 Posts: 2954 Location: 3 miles NW of Champoeg, Republic of Cascadia
Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 3:18 am Post subject: Re: Shale oil
FreddyH wrote:
The political reprecussions of the recent brown/blackouts in California have taught legislators that environmental extremism must take a back seat to VOTES and responsibilities of providing the necessities of life. The pressure to augment USA supply with kerogen in the waning days of fossil fuels will be insurmountable for policy makers.
By the same token the population of the US SW will consider an 8 1/2% drawdown of the Colorado River by no means acceptable, which is the figure I've seen for large scale ex situ extraction. Even if in situ can reduce this to a tenth the impact of decades of additional GHGs spewn into the atmosphere will dry up snow packs until you're faced with an irreversible continuous drought. If shale extraction projects of massive scale begin to be seriously proposed for federal funding they should be opposed. MT, EVs and renewables/nuke buildup are far more sensible/feasible over long time scales.
Quote:
Add to the fray the bonuses of being the lead producer of petroleum based liquids in the latter half of the century and ...
Exports - Cherry on top! Sweet. Where do you propose to find the water for 19 mb/d of shale, Freddy? _________________ Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
I'm just gonna find a cash machine.
All times are GMT - 6 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2, 3Next
Page 2 of 3
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
ree rah rip ram. sunofabitch godamn. hidey didey christ almighty. rah rah crap 
