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: Jan 14, 2008 Posts: 321 Location: The Yukon
Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 5:57 am Post subject: Re: Shale oil
TheDude wrote:
Exports - Cherry on top! Sweet. Where do you propose to find the water for 19 mb/d of shale, Freddy?
(paragraph edit) Non-conventional liquids comprise 22-mbd of today's 86-mbd flow. The URR for each category of these non-conventionals within Scenario-2300 is the avg of recognized estimates by geologists and analysts based on their own due diligence for feasibility. Only Regular Conventional Oil's URR is determined by myself ... currently 1862-GB.
BTW, u will note that whereas your quote upthread says ...
Quote:
The federal Bureau of Land Management estimates the shale formation in western Colorado could yield as much as 1.8 trillion barrels of oil.
That's 1.8-Tb in Colorado alone ... however, my kerogen URR is 1.6-Tb "globally". Each new study seems to be a tad more conservative on this resource. _________________ www.TrendLines.ca/scenarios.htm Home of the Real Peak Date ... set by geologists (not pundits)
Last edited by FreddyH on Tue May 13, 2008 12:41 pm; edited 1 time in total
Joined: Apr 06, 2006 Posts: 2953 Location: 3 miles NW of Champoeg, Republic of Cascadia
Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 8:02 am Post subject: Re: Shale oil
Really. Laherrere quoted various studies that downsized hydrates drastically in the article he wrote for TOD. Seems like these mythical resources tend to get cut down to size after closer scrutiny.
Admittedly the huge water needs often quoted for shale processing are apparently taken from an OTA Study from 1980, according to the author of "Shale Oil Myths" anyway. His 1.3 barrels of water for each bo isn't much of an improvement though. Water issues in the SW are just going to become more and more volatile, I'd put my money on a drive towards expanding tar sands, where you have an easily tapped source of water, and the only citizens being shortchanged are up in the NT/Yukon, and who cares about them, eh? _________________ Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
I'm just gonna find a cash machine.
Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 9:46 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.
FreddyH, if it is a forgone conclusion that the people are stupid and that democracy will once again despoil its own nest, why bother to discuss this here at PO? I wouldn't consider this an investment-grade discussion. Would you? _________________ ree rah rip ram. sunofabitch godamn. hidey didey christ almighty. rah rah crap
All times are GMT - 6 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2, 3
Page 3 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 
