Oil Reserves in the U.S. Upped

No need to use ad hominems. My spelling or terminology does not make my opinions wrong. You lack understand of how to construct a logical argument.

Really? that is not what you and your liberal friend say when I don't meet every point of spelling and sentence construction.

And I have never seen you take to task any of your loberal friends for calling name and using ad hominems.

Are you still in college?

It seems that you have no problem understanding the logic of my argument as you seem to have no problem responding with the party line of gloom and doom.

Look up "net energy" if you can't understand the concept.
It the reason why their is a fundamental limit to how much of an energy resource can be utilized.

I understand net energy, and if it isn't met in the oil industry, the find isn't commercialy viable, you have to have a net energy gain to make money from any find.

The free market now does not care about cities being under the ocean in 2-3 centuries, that is a indirect consequence that the free market of today could give a dam about. Explain why the free marked should look more then one generation down?

Again prove that theory, and that it will be because of human action, the shore lines of the continents have varied by hundreds of miles over the life of the earth.

The shore line of the east coast of the Americas was 150 miles east of their present location at one time.

Sea-level changes and the Pleistocene Ice Age
Sea-level has been close to its present level for the past 6000 years, before which it was lower and fluctuating, last achieving its present position about 120,000 years ago. About 15,000-16,000 years ago, sea-level was 130-140 m below its present position. For the past 500,000 years it has been lower than today about 90% of the time.

Forget global warming: Welcome to the new Ice Age
Feb 25, 2008 ... Snow cover over North America and much of Siberia, Mongolia and China is ... It's not ice melt but rather wind circulation that drives ocean ...
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=332289

We won't have a viable future in the near term if oil keeps going the way it is now. At which point alternatives will become economically viable as the price of petroleum exceeds the price of implementing and using alternatives, this is what you call free market.

But is there a alternative with the maturity and infrastructure that can be emplaced in the near future that can replace oil? as of right now, no matter what the price oil rises to.....

NO!
 
1. And again you just admit that it is a capacity problem not a lack of oil in the earth.

It never occured to you that it could be both? As the fact of peak oil goes, we are reaching the half of the recoverable CRUDE OIL in Earth as we speak. There are other form of oils in the ground, but they can not be produced fast enough and eventually we would run out of them too.

2. Now just prove that it cost 2 barrels to drill for one, what the hell are you smoking?

What, you never heard of energy return on investment? In several cases the oil WILL NOT be recovered because it takes more energy to get it than the energy what we get by using the produced oil.

Yes, mine oil, you don't't even know the proper terminology, you drill for oil, not mine it,

Excuse moi, but in the case of tar sand you do MINE oil. (tar sands, that is)
 
Really? that is not what you and your liberal friend say when I don't meet every point of spelling and sentence construction.

And I have never seen you take to task any of your liberal friends for calling name and using ad hominems.

Are you still in college?

It seems that you have no problem understanding the logic of my argument as you seem to have no problem responding with the party line of gloom and doom.

I understand net energy, and if it isn't met in the oil industry, the find isn't commercialy viable, you have to have a net energy gain to make money from any find.


Again prove that theory, and that it will be because of human action, the shore lines of the continents have varied by hundreds of miles over the life of the earth.

The shore line of the east coast of the Americas was 150 miles east of their present location at one time.

Forget global warming: Welcome to the new Ice Age
Feb 25, 2008 ... Snow cover over North America and much of Siberia, Mongolia and China is ... It's not ice melt but rather wind circulation that drives ocean ...
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=332289

But is there a alternative with the maturity and infrastructure that can be emplaced in the near future that can replace oil? as of right now, no matter what the price oil rises to.....

NO!

I don't know who is questioning your spelling and grammer, I haven't, and you should not falsely group me with them. Who I am is irrelevant, the quality of the messenger does not mean the message is wrong, stick to arguing about the topic not the topic speakers. You don't see me questioning who you are, because I know it is irrelevant to the issue.

I would not say I'm gloom and doom, not a smuch as you are, as you believe there are no alternatives that not matter of economic stress will not force upon us, by your account we are doomed, period, I disagree, I believe the alternatives can be implemented and will be when the price is right due to oil production crashing.
 
Buffalo my good man, do you have any idea in the theories how quickly abiotic oil is being produced? If its significantly slow enough then the point is rather moot.

Exactly. I made this point earlier too. Personally I don't care if oil is biotic or abiotic, all I know is that it is not produced naturally as fast as we are using it. End of story... Any discussion on the subject is meaningless unless abiotic supporters can show that oil could be made naturally in a relative short time and by short I mean a few decades...
 
It never occured to you that it could be both? As the fact of peak oil goes, we are reaching the half of the recoverable CRUDE OIL in Earth as we speak. There are other form of oils in the ground, but they can not be produced fast enough and eventually we would run out of them too.

Again prove that as over 80% of the world hasn't been explored for its resources, and again you have this mantra that we are running out, and how many time have you agreed that it is a capacity problem, or are you trying to ingratiate your self with me to try and get me to give validation to your ramblings.

Again, we are suffering from a shortage of capacity to recover and process oil resources.

Just because a vast group believe that something is true doesn't make it true, how about the old one of everybody believing that the earth was the center of the universe? or that the earth was flat? that there was nothing smaller than what the human eye could see? that nothing could move faster than the speed of sound? .........................

What, you never heard of energy return on investment? In several cases the oil WILL NOT be recovered because it takes more energy to get it than the energy what we get by using the produced oil.

Yes I have practice the fine art of reciving return on my investments, and that is one reason that I can identify 77 new economically viable oil finds since 2000, and know about the latest 62 from the E&P.

I plan to make money on that information.

Excuse moi, but in the case of tar sand you do MINE oil. (tar sands, that is)

Excuse me, I guess they have started to mine tar sands, but we have been talking about crude oil, for the term of this discussion, and you have shifted your point, as usual, but guess what? if it wasn't economically viable to mine the oil sand it wouldn't be happening.

The free market is absolute in that fact, if you can't produce a profit, you don't make it, and if it take 2 barrels of oil to produce one barrel from oil sands, it ain't going to happen, the market won't support it and I wouldn't invest in it, and neither would anyone else.
 
Last edited:
For educational purposes, oil MINING in Canada: (tar sands)

oil_sands_open_pit_mining.jpg
 
Again prove that as over 80% of the world hasn't been explored for its resources,

Look at history. We have much better technology than 2-3 decades ago, but oildiscoveries PEAKED 4 decades ago. And again, we might find more oil, but that will be under 2-3 miles of ocean or other hard to reach places and then economy kicks in.

The capacity issue is mostly with the oil SUBSTITUTES like tar sands and oilshale. There are a lot of those, but we can not produce them in large enough quantities so they would make a big impact in the overall pciture.

Again, you are repating this 77 number instead of giving us the recoverable (and how fast) oil quantity. Here I will crunch it for you:

If your 77 new fields gives 10 billion barrels 5 years from now that is all fine and dandy, but if we lost 2 billions due to aging fields and demand is bigger by 12 billions, then we have a net 4 billion barrels deficit. Since we can not consume more than what we produce, price will go up and balance the deficit...
 
I will use this thread for education, the beauty of tar sand mining:

tar-sands-collage.thumbnail.jpg


"The mining of the tar sands is also diverting streams and rivers and draining large amounts of water from the nearby Athabasca River, the primary source of the water used in the separation process. Tar sands mining operations withdraw 2 to 4.5 barrels of fresh water from the river for every barrel of oil produced, threatening the sustainability of local subsistence and commercial fisheries and the habitat of a wide variety of wildlife."
 
For educational purposes, oil MINING in Canada: (tar sands)

oil_sands_open_pit_mining.jpg


Excuse me, I guess they have started to mine tar sands, but we have been talking about crude oil, for the term of this discussion, and you have shifted your point, as usual, but guess what? if it wasn't economically viable to mine the oil sand it wouldn't be happening.

The free market is absolute in that fact, if you can't produce a profit, you don't make it, and if it take 2 barrels of oil to produce one barrel from oil sands, it ain't going to happen, the market won't support it and I wouldn't invest in it, and neither would anyone else.

Reference my post.
 
The other substitue, oil shale, which is actually not shale:

Bauert9633_PKivioliresized.JPG


"Oil shale is a fine-grained sedimentary rock, containing significant amounts of kerogen (a solid mixture of organic chemical compounds), from which liquid hydrocarbons can be manufactured. The name oil shale has been described as a promotional misnomer, since the rock is not necessarily a shale and its kerogen is not crude oil; it requires more processing than crude oil, which affects its economic viability as a crude oil substitute."
 
Look at history. We have much better technology than 2-3 decades ago, but oildiscoveries PEAKED 4 decades ago. And again, we might find more oil, but that will be under 2-3 miles of ocean or other hard to reach places and then economy kicks in.

Sorry to disagree with you, the reason they peaked 4 decades ago was because the rules and regulations from the energy policies restricted the ability to explore and develope new sites.

Poor energy policy chocked of exploration.

The capacity issue is mostly with the oil SUBSTITUTES like tar sands and oilshale. There are a lot of those, but we can not produce them in large enough quantities so they would make a big impact in the overall pciture.

But again we are now opening new crude oil finds, here in North America and around the world, exploration is up, and the energy policy's are changing to allow for even more exploration.

You keep denying the new finds as economically viable, it is the only way that you can try to justify your point of view, if they weren't viable, they wouldn't be brought into production.

And you again discount the technology that continues to be advanced to make it cheaper and more efficient to recover oil sands.

Again, you are repating this 77 number instead of giving us the recoverable (and how fast) oil quantity. Here I will crunch it for you:

If your 77 new fields gives 10 billion barrels 5 years from now that is all fine and dandy, but if we lost 2 billions due to aging fields and demand is bigger by 12 billions, then we have a net 4 billion barrels deficit. Since we can not consume more than what we produce, price will go up and balance the deficit...

And in ten years there will be even more new finds, that will be economically viable, and recoverable, technology will advance, both on the crude oil front, and sustainable fuels, why do you insist in looking at this as a finite situation of everything stopping as of today, with no new finds, or technological advancement.

That is your above argument, you limit the oil produce to only these 77 new field, now how about the latest 62 listed from the latest E&P, and the site's on the E&P that are listed but haven't been explored and evaluated, and that isn't counting those leases that aren't on the E&P, which have been proved, or scheduled for exploration.

Those 77 oil finds aren't finite, there are more finds waiting to be discovered, add that to the advances in technology of sustainable fuels, we aren't short of fuels, we have a capacity problem, one of the things I am investing in today is the construction of new rigs to drill for oil, as there is a shortage of capacity for drilling.

That market has exploded from the demand, a good place to make money today.
 
Even if oil was abiotic we would have to be sure that the reserves were being replenished at least as quickly as they are being pumped out. If not, even abiotic oil will run dry, with no option but to sit around using alternatives until the reserves replenish themselves.

Buffalo my good man, do you have any idea in the theories how quickly abiotic oil is being produced? If its significantly slow enough then the point is rather moot.

Regards,
Destroyer

Geochemist Says Oil FieldsMay Be Refilled Naturally

By MALCOLM W. BROWNE
Published: September 26, 1995
COULD it be that many of the world's oil fields are refilling themselves at nearly the same rate they are being drained by an energy-hungry world?

A geochemist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts says she believes that hitherto undetected gas and oil reservoirs lying at very great depths within the earth's crust could stave off the inevitable oil depletion much longer than many experts have estimated.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A site in the gulf of particular interest to the Pennzoil Exploration and Production Company and several independent scientific teams, including Dr. Whelan's group, is Eugene Island Block 330, which is not an island but a patch of sea floor 700 feet beneath the water's surface. Discovered in 1972, an oil reservoir some 6,000 feet beneath Eugene Island 330 is one of the world's most productive oil sources; it has yielded more than one billion barrels, or 42 billion gallons, and is still going strong.

But Eugene Island 330 is remarkable for another reason: Its estimated reserves have declined much less than experts had predicted on the basis of its production rate.

Dr. Whelan's somewhat controversial hypothesis is a possible explanation.

Although the reservoir from which Pennzoil is pumping oil was formed at the time of the Pleistocene epoch less than two million years ago, oil now being recovered from the reservoir has a chemical signature characteristic of the Jurassic period, which ended more than 150 million years ago, Dr. Whelan said. The implication, she believes, is that highly pressurized oil from lower levels of "stacked" reservoirs is frequently breaking through geological barriers and "burping" upward, eventually reaching the reservoir from which oil is being pumped. The source of the pressurized gas Dr. Whelan believes to be powering the process is a bed of Jurassic period "source rocks," more than 30,000 feet deep, which are rich in very hot hydrocarbons.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oil created during the Jurassic period from the decayed bodies of plants and animals that lived during the age of dinosaurs would initially have been a liquid, but in some cases, geological processes are believed to have gradually dragged oil reservoirs downward to great depths, where pressures are enormous and temperatures are greater than 700 degrees Fahrenheit. Under these conditions, oil is "cooked," decomposing into hydrocarbon gases consisting mainly of methane.

The methane, however, cannot exist in its normal gaseous form at such pressures and temperatures, but is transformed into a "supercritical fluid" -- neither a gas nor a liquid but something in between. Large amounts of oil can be dissolved in supercritical methane, and the oil-and-methane mixture is probably capable of flowing upward from deep reservoirs through faults, cracks and geological "plumbing" to higher reservoirs. At the higher levels where temperatures and pressures are lower, methane can no longer remain in its supercritical state, and the mixture of gas and oil separates into its respective components.

"It could be," Dr. Whelan said, "that at some sites, particularly where there is a lot of faulting in the rock, a reservoir from which oil is being pumped might be a steady-state system -- one that is replenished by deeper reserves as fast as oil is pumped out." Extensive fault systems like those along the California coast might offer such a geological environment, she said.

The discovery that oil seepage is continuous and extensive from many ocean vents lying above fault zones has convinced many scientists that oil is making its way up through the faults from much deeper deposits. Faulting associated with such seepage is common along the Pacific Coast, in parts of the North Sea, and the Gulf of Mexico, among other areas, Dr. Whelan said
 
Last edited:
This is abiotic oil? Well thats interesting, if true. Theres a lot of 'may be's in that article, have they actually proved it? I mean hypotheses like this are ten a penny on the good ole internet.

Regards,
Destroyer

Yes. they are 10 a penny on the internet but this is from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, and some very qualified PH.D's, I would think you would give some credence to such a prestigious institution and people, and their opinion.
 
Sorry to disagree with you, the reason they peaked 4 decades ago was because the rules and regulations from the energy policies restricted the ability to explore and develope new sites.

In America maybe, but all over the world??? What I said was valid for the whole world.

But again we are now opening new crude oil finds, here in North America and around the world, exploration is up,

Again, compared to what? And as I said earlier, even if we discover a giant field 3 liles underwater if it can only give 50K barrel a day that won't help too much globally...

You keep denying the new finds as economically viable,

Oh I can deny them on 2 more grounds:

1. Enviromental disaesters, thus locals won't allow it.
2. Luck of water, like in the case of Bakken. There is just not enough water to run up production in any meaningful way.

And you again discount the technology that continues to be advanced to make it cheaper and more efficient to recover oil sands.

hey, see is believing as you would say. When I see those technologys working, I will adjust my numbers.

And in ten years there will be even more new finds,

not neccessery so. If we agree that the Earth has a limited surface and we keep discovering more and more after a while we should cover the whole surface, thus discoveries are going to be less eventually.

that will be economically viable, and recoverable, technology will advance,

Now here somes the big question: why waste time, money and energy on a MAYBE, when we could waste those resources on alternative and clean energies???
 
Geochemist Says Oil FieldsMay Be Refilled Naturally

OK I will give you a very simple explanation for it:

Oil is underground in a let's call it huge cave. There is another cave next to it unconnected. Once the first cave's pressure has decreased after a few years of pumping out oil, the wall between the caves breaks through and oila! we have a replenishing oilwell!!!

The caves can exist vertically compared to each other, not just horizontally and they can contain different type of oil...
 
Well, let's see what OPEC thinks of peak oil:

"OPEC states that there were oil reserves of 1.1 trillion barrels in 2006, of which they control over three quarters. They predict that current stocks will last 81 years if consumption remained at 2006 levels -- 76 million barrels per day (mb/d)."

So although their numbers are different they also agree that we would run out of it, except ther time is twice my estimates.

Let's see what the US government thinks:

"the US Department of Defense has categorized "peak oil" as a serious threat to the nation. "

Damn, they think of a theory as a serious threat??

How about the oilcompanies?:

"Even the oil majors such as Exxon-Mobil are having trouble finding more oil, and they admit it. A new report published by Exxon-Mobil, entitled The Outlook For Energy: A 2030 View, predicts a plateau in non-OPEC oil production in the next five years."
 
Last edited:
On the other hand there is a chance that in January the world actually produced more oil than back in 2005 May, the old record, so we might have a new peak!! You know how much more??

0.2%!!!

That's it! Prices tripled in the last 3 years and the world was only be able to make a new record by 1/500th. You know what is it called? A plateau....
 
Back
Top