That is a byproduct of oil refining.
The world is awash in oil. The problem is extracting it in non-kleptocratic, undemocratic countries. That is about to be solved by latest advances in clean shale oil extraction. We don't need a replacement.
It's a big deal in the Dakotas, and there is big goings-on near San Antonio. Google "Eagle Ford oil field Texas." I lived in the West Texas panhandle, land of oil and cotton all the way to the flatland horizon, and was a drilling rig roughneck in my younger days.
On 2nd thought, this might be different than the shale extraction FrankWW is referring to. Nonetheless...
My dad was one of Gulf Canada's top engineers. I remember when i was a kid, he talked about the HUGE reserves of petrol in the shale, all too expensive to harvest. Back then an imperial gallon of gas was <25 cents. Technology & oil prices have conspired to make it feasible to extract.
Estimated U.S. oil shale reserves total an astonishing 1.5 trillion barrels of oil – or more than five times the
stated reserves of Saudi Arabia
Estimated U.S. oil shale reserves total an astonishing 1.5 trillion barrels of oil – or more than five times the
stated reserves of Saudi Arabia
There is also shale in places like Australia & Sweden...
dave
Estimated U.S. oil shale reserves total an astonishing 1.5 trillion barrels of oil – or more than five times the
stated reserves of Saudi Arabia
Estimated U.S. oil shale reserves total an astonishing 1.5 trillion barrels of oil – or more than five times the
stated reserves of Saudi Arabia
There is also shale in places like Australia & Sweden...
dave
Hydraulic fracturing is probably one of the biggest "can-o-worms" right now in the oil industry.
jeff
It's all relative of course, but this comes pretty close.
Oil from a stone - Oct. 31, 2007
The problem with shale is making sure your process doesn't create overburden and doesn't negatively effect water supplies. Shell seems to have put together a technique for dealing with these problems. The article is three pages - couldn't find a collapse it to one page version.
The upside to what Shell has been developing is that the "crude" that comes from the process is very, very light. The actual "refining" would require a much more modest plant than what's needed for the heavy crudes.
Oil from a stone - Oct. 31, 2007
The problem with shale is making sure your process doesn't create overburden and doesn't negatively effect water supplies. Shell seems to have put together a technique for dealing with these problems. The article is three pages - couldn't find a collapse it to one page version.
The upside to what Shell has been developing is that the "crude" that comes from the process is very, very light. The actual "refining" would require a much more modest plant than what's needed for the heavy crudes.
Last edited:
Probably not. You can have accidents like the blowout preventer failure like the recent Gulf Coast spill, they're rare, but tbh I tend to put those things in the same group as hotel fires and highway fatalities. __ happens. A large chunk of Joplin MO reduced to rubble. IMHO one should care for the affected, not cry in the dark.
I am reasonably confident in the mature industry. Some of it I've seen up close. Fracking isn't a new technology at all, but there is something new about the way they do it (that I haven't bothered to research and find out what exactly).
And this is Texas, Pardner. Oil is like beef and blue jeans!
I am reasonably confident in the mature industry. Some of it I've seen up close. Fracking isn't a new technology at all, but there is something new about the way they do it (that I haven't bothered to research and find out what exactly).
And this is Texas, Pardner. Oil is like beef and blue jeans!
With oil, the main question is how quickly it can be extracted, not the size of the reserves per se. On average the rate of global extraction must increase over time to maintain economic growth and prevent collapse (not my idea of how it should work, but that's how it is).
When we say shale oil is "expensive" we mean that it takes a lot of energy to extract it. Can it be extracted quickly enough to compensate for declining supplies elsewhere?
When we say shale oil is "expensive" we mean that it takes a lot of energy to extract it. Can it be extracted quickly enough to compensate for declining supplies elsewhere?
Not sure how that conclusion was reached. I don't agree.
I take it that the "on average" is superfluous to the point being made? I agree then. Up to the "and prevent collapse" part.
Don't include me in "we." The cost is about more than energy usage. It's lease royalties, taxes, equipment and insurance costs, labor, etc. The daily cost to have a rig running is measured in much more than just gallons of diesel.
Some of the stuff I've read about the local field is that they drill a new well to frac, but then existing surrounding wells are affected, eg a well pumping 100 bbl/day today may pump 1200 bbl/day after the fracking. That's part of the reason for the boom.
On a related personal note, one of my favorite things about my job there was that unlike a corporate bureaucracy's glacial pace, when something was needed or needed done, it happened muy pronto.
It depends on how dependent you think the global economy is on oil. If you believe that without oil, each person's economic output would shrivel to virtually nothing, then to a certain approximation money = oil. When oil becomes "expensive" it means that we need to swap more and more economic activity based on oil to pay for oil!
If you believe that there are substitutes just around the corner, or that there are no limits to the rate of extraction then that's fine; we have no problems, and Adam Smith will see us all right.
However, the timing has to be right, because our economic system depends on continual growth and expansion - a gentle decline into continuous 'negative growth' that most people imagine, is not an option. If the oil supply simply levels off, never mind declines, the economic system collapses within a few years anyway - unless we can seamlessly segue into a substitute system of economic activity that doesn't need oil.
The economic system is currently collapsing anyway! But as things stand, if there ever were a 'recovery' it would be dead in the water if the oil supply couldn't ramp up to match it.
It's not a swap. It's creating wealth. Oil a mile down is worthless practically speaking. Bring it up and it's worth ~$100/bbl today. "Without oil" is not a reasonable scenario of this current events discussion. We're talking about oil there right now that could be energy used to create even more wealth.
There are substitutes; always have been and more & better are being developed. There's limits to the rate of extraction of course. More than one even.
.
Oh I love a good pun!
Safety first always, so the investigations are an "as it should be" to me. The first "more of the story" link says, "According to seismologists, the UK experiences about 20 earthquakes a year of a similar magnitude, the majority of which occur along the west coast." Two such have been correlated to oil operations. I'm therefore not ready to pronounce doom and gloom causation on fracking, though I remain quite willing to be wrong.
i agree.
i'ts being crushed .
as for crude oil,
this might depend on how/where the stuff Really comes from -
The 'Abiotic Oil' Controversy
Oil Is NOT A Fossil Fuel - It Is Abiotic
abiotic oil - Google Search
Last edited:
I think you're both saying the same thing.
There's been a trend during modern times to do more with less input of energy and material.
Buildings, bridges, vehicles, - even hifi gear - all weigh less. Newer machinery, generally uses less energy than its predecessor.
This creates more value for given inputs. It also means greater wealth creation. This allows producers the freedom to develop more products which create more demand. This is how we "swap economic activity".
This is probably the reason why despite the increase in energy prices, some countries like China, India, Brazil, have seen a great increase in prosperity the last twenty years: Local manufacturers, service people, and others are creating all sorts of new products which did not exist before, some of which are attractive to locals who are inspired to create their own products....
About the the oil shale connection I posted,
Oil from a stone - Oct. 31, 2007
that process is not hydraulic fracking and from what I see, allows for greater control over the extent of some undesirable side effects.
Last edited:
It is interesting. I hadn't heard of any seismic issues either. Earthquakes around here are rare though they do happen. We have the Edwards Aquifer so that is the main concern of most, but Eagle Ford shale is apparently sufficiently south and east of the water supply. I very much appreciate the "take pictures, leave footprints" Earth stewardship but I have to keep it in perspective else all I'm left with is photos and dirty feet. Those who hold the position that wells cannot be drilled cleanly, I have to wonder what is so unclean about it.
As for the Gold theory, I remember first reading about it in Scientific American back in the 80s. I've since heard that it has been refuted. So I'm not certain that anyone truly knows the reality.
This assumes there is no feedback, that there is only growth and no accompanying recycling of dead inputs and abandonment of obsolete practise. This latter is very important: For instance, the survival of many people in sub-Saharan Africa is very dependent on resource development or they will eventually destroy their environment cutting down trees just to cook and keep themselves warm - they need modern fuels in the worst way.
(We don't have to look far back in Western history to see how new economic growth saved the countrysides of Europe and America).
Only true if there are limited resources. Human potential & ingenuity are boundless, and once we get out of the gravity well, raw resources are, for all intents & purposes, as well.
dave
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.