Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on September 28, 2005, 09:39:11 AM
-
http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article315546.ece
According to Saudi's and Exxon. Also, oil reserves are double of what was previously reported. (shrugs)
-
If I didn't know better I would say that their announcment of having more oil is an attempt to overshadow that they are in fact running out of oil.
BUT,
From what I've read this planet is swimming in oil......the problem is getting it out of the ground.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
From what I've read this planet is swimming in oil......the problem is getting it out of the ground.
Or if we really should take it all out and use it ;)
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
....the problem is getting it out of the ground.
at a reasonable cost.
-
The good news is, after a few billion years..we will be the new oil!
-
The problem isn't the lack of oil, it is a lack of refineries. We can barely keep up with demand now. Kinda why prices are so high.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
The problem isn't the lack of oil, it is a lack of refineries. We can barely keep up with demand now. Kinda why prices are so high.
Why did we stop building refineries? Was this some sort of oil company conspiracy to control supply and demand?
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Why did we stop building refineries? Was this some sort of oil company conspiracy to control supply and demand?
cause refineries are dirty an stinky an pollute the earth an nobody want them in their back yard.
-
Originally posted by john9001
cause refineries are dirty an stinky an pollute the earth an nobody want them in their back yard.
and oil companys make less money when there is more capacity.
-
There was a report I read that was released this month. I forget which company released the report, but it was a major oil exploration company.
The report estimates that Colorado, Utah and another state alone ( I forget the 3rd state) have almost twice as much oil as Saudi Arabia.
-
Originally posted by Godzilla
There was a report I read that was released this month. I forget which company released the report, but it was a major oil exploration company.
The report estimates that Colorado, Utah and another state alone ( I forget the 3rd state) have almost twice as much oil as Saudi Arabia.
Was that "Oil Shale"? If so, there is a controversy whether or not its worth the energy to extract it...obviously with the prices as what they are today, that controversy might be over!
-
no, it was oil.
*edit* Rip, I don't remember now that I think about it, so it could have been shale. I remember report said that the US had more of it than any other country.
I'd bet we have plenty of oil though, we're just going to buy everyone elses while we can.
-
Originally posted by Godzilla
no, it was oil.
I read that Canada has the worlds 2nd largest oil fields untapped in the world. Lets invade Canada! :D
-
Unrelated to topic but related to oil.
What happens to the void that is created when all of this oil is drawn out of the ground? It is filled with water naturally or by man? It is just a hole in the earth? If so are there ever cave-ins?
Or is it so deep under the surface that it doesn't matter?
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Lets invade Canada! :D
If we invade Canada it will be to confiscate the beer, not oil.
We may have to go on horseback, but it will be for the beeeeeeeeer. Mmmmmmmmmmm :)
-
Originally posted by Mickey1992
Unrelated to topic but related to oil.
What happens to the void that is created when all of this oil is drawn out of the ground? It is filled with water naturally or by man? It is just a hole in the earth? If so are there ever cave-ins?
Or is it so deep under the surface that it doesn't matter?
(http://www.bwrestrooms.com/_images/unit.gif)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
I read that Canada has the worlds 2nd largest oil fields untapped in the world. Lets invade Canada! :D
heheh, are canadians allowed to have a guns?
:)
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
If we invade Canada it will be to confiscate the beer, not oil.
We may have to go on horseback, but it will be for the beeeeeeeeer. Mmmmmmmmmmm :)
I''ve heard all we have to do is cut the supply of key beer-making imports to their country, and have another hockey strike, that would cause them to capitulate immediately!
-
"Since these Opec countries [like Saudi Arabia] are closed, the only information available is available to themselves alone. So they can come up with a new reserves figure and the rest of the world will just have to take it."
Ah, it's probably bs...
-
Originally posted by soda72
heheh, are canadians allowed to have a guns?
:)
Not big guns like we have...actually, everything we have is bigger (nudge nudge, wink wink)
-
Originally posted by Mickey1992
Unrelated to topic but related to oil.
What happens to the void that is created when all of this oil is drawn out of the ground? It is filled with water naturally or by man? It is just a hole in the earth? If so are there ever cave-ins?
Or is it so deep under the surface that it doesn't matter?
This is one of the contributing factors as to why New Orleans and the entire north gulf coast has been sinking for years.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
I read that Canada has the worlds 2nd largest oil fields untapped in the world. Lets invade Canada! :D
Most of Canada's oil in is oil sands. Not as hard to extract as oil shale but still more costly than traditional deposits.
-
As each individual cell in our body has a finite existance, so too do we. As do we, our planet also has a finite existance, as does the sun, the solar system, the galaxy and the universe.
Lets keep in good shape and live as long as is practicable. For our children and our childrens children. Pass the torch of life to the next generation.
Burning fossil fuel for the planet is like smoking cigarettes for ourselves. It accellerates natural death.
-
Canaduhs forward Defense Forces would be wearing flannel shirts.
Ever been Biyatched slapped with a beaver by a Lesbian?
Not just painful but also humiliating.
:huh
-
ah, play nice now, or we'll cut off your oil supply.
then you'd all be over in the middle-east somewhere, guarding a corporate well, with tobbaccy stains in your shorts.
-
HA! All joking aside, the country that has the largest oil reserves is China.
And the friggin brilliant thing is that they won't touch those reserves until EVERYONE ELSE has none at all.
-
Originally posted by Clifra Jones
Most of Canada's oil in is oil sands. Not as hard to extract as oil shale but still more costly than traditional deposits.
Costs only 13 bucks a barrel to produce.
-
Schweitzer wants to convert Otter Creek coal into liquid fuel (http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?id=1&display=rednews/2005/08/02/build/state/25-coal-fuel.inc)
August 2, 2005....Montana has 120 billion tons of state and federal coal reserves under its surface, mostly in Eastern Montana. Schweitzer said 115 billion tons of that coal is recoverable. He said using the Fischer-Tropsch method, one ton of coal would produce 1.5 barrels of diesel fuel. A barrel is 42 gallons.
"It would cost less that a $1 per gallon to make that diesel," he said......
...And it is the cost that heretofore has kept the process in the experimental/pilot project stages. For F-T, the break even point comes when crude oil is more than $35 a barrel. Friday crude oil futures settled at $60.57 a barrel....
Conversion of Coal-Derived Syngas into Ultra-Clean Liquid Fuels and Chemical Feedstocks (http://www.htigrp.com/data/upfiles/pdf/Fischer-Tropsch%20Gas-to-Liquids.pdf)
Fischer-Tropsch projects based on coal are currently under
development in Illinois and Wyoming. In Illinois, Rentech has
completed a study to convert an existing natural-gas based
ammonia plant into an integrated ammonia, FT fuels, and
electric power plant utilizing high-sulfur Illinois coal as its
feedstock. The plant to be acquired by Rentech, will continue
to operate during the three-year conversion period and after
conversion to coal will produce 1,800 bpd of FT liquids, 900
tpd of ammonia and derivatives, and 17 megawatts of surplus
power.
Wyoming has over 66 billion tons of recoverable coal
reserves. Powder River Basin coal typically sells for $5-7 per
ton ($0.30-0.42 per million BTU) FOB mine. A preliminary
economic analysis prepared by Rentech for the Wyoming
Business Council indicates that a 10,000 bpd FT plant based
on Powder River Basin coal can achieve an attractive internal
rate of return after tax at the current price of diesel fuel.
~200 billion tons of coal in Wyoming & Montana @ 1.5 barrels diesel per ton = 300 billion barrels of diesel.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Costs only 13 bucks a barrel to produce.
Now is the time to look at coal to ease gas crisis (http://www.thedesertsun.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050901/COLUMNS03/509010309/1081/business)
At this time, the various tar sands projects in Northern Alberta are producing 1.5 million barrels of oil daily through a sophisticated process of liquefaction. To put it simply, this is a means of extracting oil from high grade coal. In the last few years, this process has advanced to the point of being profitable at $30 per barrel.
-
Y'all read about Shell's new method for oil shale. It's called "in situ conversion". Essentially you drill a shaft, drop heaters down it, and cook the rock until hydrocarbons boil off. It gives 1/3 natural gas, 2/3 light crude. With this approach there's supposed to be something like a billion barrels per square mile. The Green River Basin's oil shale formations are over 1000 sq miles, so that'd make it the largest fossil fuel deposit known to man. Supposed to have 10x better yield than cooking it on the surface.
They build an ice wall around the pumping site, freezing it out from the ground water to prevent contamination. Pretty clever stuff.
-
Waste-to-Oil Company Selling Oil Commercially (http://pesn.com/2005/09/22/9600173_Turkey_Waste_to_Oil/) \
CARTHAGE, MISSOURI, USA – Renewable Environmental Solutions LLC (RES) announced in May that its first commercial plant is selling an equivalent of crude oil No. 4, produced from agricultural waste products. The Carthage, Missouri, plant is currently producing 100-200 barrels of oil per day utilizing by-products from an adjacent turkey processing facility....
...At peak capacity, expected to be achieved by the end of this year, the first-out plant will produce 500 barrels of oil per day, as well as natural gas, liquid and solid fertilizer, and solid carbon.
Then there is still nuke power; seems to work for the French and Japanese.
-
The US has so many resources and potential fuel supplies, it isn't even a slight concern of mine.
We are just buying the oil from the stupid countries until thiers is all gone.
-
Originally posted by Godzilla
The US has so many resources and potential fuel supplies, it isn't even a slight concern of mine.
We are just buying the oil from the stupid countries until thiers is all gone.
Works for me.
-
Shell Oil Shale Extraction Technology Economically Viable? (http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002981.html)
That is pretty kewl tech.
They don't need subsidies; the process should be commercially feasible with world oil prices at $30 a barrel. The energy balance is favorable; under a conservative life-cycle analysis, it should yield 3.5 units of energy for every 1 unit used in production. The process recovers about 10 times as much oil as mining the rock and crushing and cooking it at the surface, and it's a more desirable grade. Reclamation is easier because the only thing that comes to the surface is the oil you want.
They speculate it could supply the entire world demand for 22 years at the projected rate of increased demand.
-
Actually, our environmental wackos are keeping us from using ours.
-
I heard that I was supposed to blame tree hugging hippies for not allowing us to build more refineries, then again Rip's idea makes sense:)
If anything comes out of this conversation, we need to find a scapegoat, and thus I start by saying NOT IT!
On the other side of things, where in the fudge is this oil here in Colorado? I've never heard of such things, however we have some prime radioactive material at Rocky Flats if you can sneak in.
-
Originally posted by Mickey1992
Unrelated to topic but related to oil.
What happens to the void that is created when all of this oil is drawn out of the ground? It is filled with water naturally or by man? It is just a hole in the earth? If so are there ever cave-ins?
Or is it so deep under the surface that it doesn't matter?
Oil is held in resevoir rocks like sandstone or limestone.
Picture a bucket full of sand. Pour water into the bucket until it is full to the top. Now stick a straw down to the bottom of the bucket and start to pump the water out. When all the water is gone does the sand collaspe? No of course not. That is how an oil reservor works.
Except oil floats on water so they extract from the top of the reservoir zone usually and the water underneith the oil rises up as the oil is taken out. There is never any type of void or cave left in the earth.
Yes there always water under the oil. That is why to find oil you not only have to find layers of sandstone or limestone to drill into, you also need some sort of trap (like a concave shape in the layer) to trap the oil. Otherwise the oil keeps floating up on the water below and eventually migrates to the surface or a trap.
-
Originally posted by Godzilla
no, it was oil.
I'd bet we have plenty of oil though, we're just going to buy everyone elses while we can.
That would be the smart move ;)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
I read that Canada has the worlds 2nd largest oil fields untapped in the world. Lets invade Canada! :D
All in due time :D
-
Here in Alberta alone, there's enough oil to meet the current world consumption for over a century. I'm not worried about it. And no, Toad, it doesn't take 30 bucks a barrel to produce. It's half that. Even if it were $30, it'd still be profitable.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Here in Alberta alone, there's enough oil to meet the current world consumption for over a century.
The US has by some accounts 500 to 1000 years of energy in the form of coal. some 25% of world coal reserves. A few years ago, the FT method is estimated to be profitable at to $45 per bbl.
38 states has significant coal reserves. there is a FT pilot project in the Powder River basin (WY) which refined 28,000 bbl of diesel last year.
Sasol in South Africa uses the FT method in that counrty, and Sasol and American Companies have built pilot plants in China. China also has huge coal reserves.
-
Originally posted by Nash
And no, Toad, it doesn't take 30 bucks a barrel to produce. It's half that. Even if it were $30, it'd still be profitable.
What several articles say is that the Alberta tar sand operation is profitable when oil prices are at or above $30 per barrel, a figure that "rises along with the price of the natural gas used in the extraction and upgrading process."
In any event, it's obvious that there's a BUNCH of it and it's now worth producing despite the difficulties.
-
they are now investing some 10 billion dollars into the sand fields, i've always said i rather have alberta produce alot more oil if it keeps american foreign policy from meddling in the middle-east.
even if it cost a buck or two more at the pumps, in the long run it's cheaper and young americans don't have to needlessly sacrifice their lives for corporate interests in a desert somewhere.
-
You'll really be pissed when we have our Israeli drones attack Iran then.
Plans for the military takeover of the Canadian oilfields had to be put on hold because of the hurricanes.
After that though, it'll be straight world domination, small countries first.
Once that's done, we'll be able to run Dr. Evil openly as the Republican Presidential candidate. No more hiding in the secret underground headquarters near the shark tank.
-
Originally posted by Toad
~200 billion tons of coal in Wyoming & Montana @ 1.5 barrels diesel per ton = 300 billion barrels of diesel.
How many barrels does it take to even mine the ton of coal and convert it? Doesn't sound too efficient on the long run.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article315546.ece
According to Saudi's and Exxon. Also, oil reserves are double of what was previously reported. (shrugs)
Or www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/ (http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/)
-
Originally posted by mora
How many barrels does it take to even mine the ton of coal and convert it? Doesn't sound too efficient on the long run.
I don't know the cost to mine the coal but one article said:
Powder River Basin coal typically sells for $5-7 per
ton ($0.30-0.42 per million BTU) FOB mine.
A ton is supposed to make 1.5 barrels of top quality low sulfur diesel.
August 2, 2005
... For F-T, the break even point comes when crude oil is more than $35 a barrel. Friday crude oil futures settled at $60.57 a barrel....
Note that the process Shell is developing doesn't require mining the coal. It's "in situ" extraction from the ground.
-
You Gents to realize that Canada is the NUMBER 1 supplier of crude oil to the United States, with a YTD average of 1,608,000 barrels per day.
The second largest supplier YTD is Mexico, at 1,558,000 barrels per day.
Saudi is in third place, followed by Venzuela and Nigeria. Irag takes the honor of 6th place at just over a 3rd of what Canada supplies. :huh
SOURCE (http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html)
-
Powder River Basin coal typically sells for $5-7 per ton ($0.30-0.42 per million BTU) FOB mine.
If we start mass converting coal into liquid fuel the coal prices are bound to skyrocket. Also the cost of digging and converting it will go up as the cost of oil goes up. All the manufacturing facilities run on oil, and so does the production of machinery. The return from converting coal into liquid fuel is quite small.
Any type of fossil fuel will be extremely expensive in the future, and that will affect all prices as everything runs on oil. I hope it will not be as bad as predicted here. (http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/)
-
The positive side is that the peak oil might take care of the global warming. Just burn away while you still can.
-
And as the price of a barrel of oil goes up, the "break even" cost will adjust as well.
It would be profitable right now; it will remain a profitable option until the price of oil drops below ~ $30 barrel.
In other words, it's going to be profitable from now on.
-
"What About Synthetic Oil From Coal?" Coal can be used to make synthetic oil via a process known as gasification. Unfortunately, synthetic oil will be unable to do all that much to soften the coming energy crash for the following reasons: I. Insufficiency of Supply/"Peak Coal": The coal supply is not as great as many assume. According to a July 2004 article published by the American Institute of Physics: If demand remains frozen at the current rate of consumption, the coal reserve will indeed last roughly 250 years. That prediction assumes equal use of all grades of coal, from anthracite to lignite. Population growth alone reduces the calculated lifetime to some 90−120 years. Any new uses of coal would further reduce the supply. . . .The use of coal for conversion to other fuels would quickly reduce the lifetime of the US coal base to less than a human lifespan. Even a 50-75 year supply of coal is not as much as it sounds because coal production, like oil production, will peak long before the total supply is exhausted. Were we to liquefy a large portion of our coal endowment in order to produce synthetic oil, coal production would likely peak within 2 decades. II. Falling "Energy Profit Ratio": As John Gever explains in his book, Beyond Oil: The Threat to Food and Fuel in Coming Decades, the production of coal will be in energy-loser within a few decades: . . . the energy profit ratio for coal slips to 20 in 1977, comparable to that of domestic petroleum. While an energy profit ratio of 20 means that only 5 percent of coal's gross energy is needed to obtain it, the sharp decline since 1967 is alarming. If it continues to drop at this rate, the energy profit ratio of coal will slide to 0.5 by 2040. In other words, with an EPR of .5, it will take twice as much energy to produce the coal than the coal actually contains. It will thus be of no use to us as an energy source.
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/
-
From your reference:
This means any attempt to replace conventional oil with oil shale will actually make our situation worse as the project will consume more energy than it will produce, regardless of how high the price goes.
As Nash pointed out cost of production for Alberta "tar sand" oil is about $13 a barrel, with a barrel worth ~$65.
For the F-T process, coal to syn oil, the breakeven is $35 a barrel.
It would appear that it does not consume more energy than it produces from these two cases.
In the case of Shell's "in situ" project,
should yield 3.5 units of energy for every 1 unit used in production
So someone is wrong. Can't have it both ways.
-
Originally posted by Clifra Jones
This is one of the contributing factors as to why New Orleans and the entire north gulf coast has been sinking for years.
Clifra, that's an interesting theory. Got any links to support that? I wasn't aware that the entire north gulf coast has been sinking for years. I do know that there're some localized subsidance problems, due to the unregulated pumping out of ground water for the last 75 years, or so, before they finally began using some common sense. And along the outer edges of the continental shelf in the Gulf of Mexico there occurs the slumping of the sediments as sediment load builds up. But subsidance of an entire geographic region due solely to the withdrawal of oil seems improbable, to me.
-
finland has no oil or coal, but they do have raindeer
-
Yeah.
Double the oil for double the price:)
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
HA! All joking aside, the country that has the largest oil reserves is China.
Yes, we are here for all the oil, and an order of egg rolls....TO GO!
-
Originally posted by Toad
So someone is wrong. Can't have it both ways.
And we'll never know who....Those who support it will write volumes on how good it can be, and those opposed will write volumes on how it won't work. The problem is we won't know until we try on a large scale, and no one has the balls to do it. With Tar sands, Coal, or oil shale.
Then there's the environmental lobby that has been pretty good at killing off any project that might have a slight impact on our environment.
-
Huh Astac? "Tar" sands (it's called "oil sands" now) produces over a million barrels a day here. Someone obviously had the balls to do it.
It aint coal or shale.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Huh Astac? "Tar" sands (it's called "oil sands" now) produces over a million barrels a day here. Someone obviously had the balls to do it.
It aint coal or shale.
Sorry, Forgot about that, I'm still thinking of a few years ago as far as the "sands" (tar or oil i've heard them called both) go.
-
A few years ago? This goes back to like, the early sixties. Even a decade ago, production was a half million bpd.
-
Originally posted by Nash
A few years ago? This goes back to like, the early sixties. Even a decade ago, production was a half million bpd.
A few years ago, the only thing I read on that particular oil source, was that it wasn't profitable...maybe it was an old article I don't know..forget I mentioned your Canadian Sand.
Point is we are DECADES from a viable alternative to oil that will give us the same performance. Until then we need to do all we can to improve the situation with oil. And impoverishing people in order to force a change isn't the answer.
-
Originally posted by Toad
You'll really be pissed when we have our Israeli drones attack Iran then.
Plans for the military takeover of the Canadian oilfields had to be put on hold because of the hurricanes.
After that though, it'll be straight world domination, small countries first.
Once that's done, we'll be able to run Dr. Evil openly as the Republican Presidential candidate. No more hiding in the secret underground headquarters near the shark tank.
your light hearted jesting on the matter reeks of selfishness.
-
Better get your sniffer checked out then.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Why did we stop building refineries? Was this some sort of oil company conspiracy to control supply and demand?
Ya think? The oil companies want 2 things right now. They want pollution controls reduced dramatically, and they want to drill in alaska. They are going to get what they want.
I look for New Orleans to be a possible sight for a major refinery city
-
Here in IL we will never have any thing to do with the high sulfur "Illinois Coal." There was supposed to be a coal plant built about 30 miles from here, but all the sissy tree higgers and that idiot obama rejected it. It would of put hundreds of jobs in this area, but the sissys didnt want it cause it is dirty.