1. Why are we steaming oil out of sand in Alberta?
2. Why are we drilling miles beneath the ocean to extract oil?
3. We are we drilling thousands of holes in the ground - dropping in explosives to smash the rock - and sucking out the dregs? To date $300 billion has been burned up doing this
I have read the review and am aware of the theory of abiotic oil.
I do not buy into it -- I will consider reading the book though if someone can answer the 3 questions above.
One further question - can anyone point me to an annual report from an oil major that indicates their prospects are looking good because their oil fields are refilling at a faster rate than expected.
This is probably the best paper I have read on the energy situation. Tim Morgan was head of research at a global energy trading firm. He identified increasing oil production costs as the reason for the GFC.
He was instrumental in helping me understand why the banks nearly crashed the world by offering money to people they knew would not pay them back (Liar Loans of course)...
SEE PAGE 59 - THE PERFECT STORM : The economy is a surplus energy equation, not a monetary one, and growth in output (and in the global population) since the Industrial Revolution has resulted from the harnessing of ever-greater quantities of energy. But the critical relationship between energy production and the energy cost of extraction is now deteriorating so rapidly that the economy as we have known it for more than two centuries is beginning to unravel
They have thrown billions at trying to convince us that we will transition from fossil fuels to solar/wind. That is impossible (see below).
They tell us we will all be driving EVs in 10 years... that is both impossible and ignores the fact that most electricity is fossil fuel generated.
I suspect the abiotic story is just another of these con jobs.
They will (and should) do absolute everything to convince us oil is not a problem -- just think of how unsettling it would be to be made aware that we are on the precipice...
Replacement of oil by alternative sources
While oil has many other important uses (lubrication, plastics, roadways, roofing) this section considers only its use as an energy source. The CMO is a powerful means of understanding the difficulty of replacing oil energy by other sources. SRI International chemist Ripudaman Malhotra, working with Crane and colleague Ed Kinderman, used it to describe the looming energy crisis in sobering terms.[13] Malhotra illustrates the problem of producing one CMO energy that we currently derive from oil each year from five different alternative sources. Installing capacity to produce 1 CMO per year requires long and significant development.
Allowing fifty years to develop the requisite capacity, 1 CMO of energy per year could be produced by any one of these developments:
4 Three Gorges Dams,[14] developed each year for 50 years, or
52 nuclear power plants,[15] developed each year for 50 years, or
104 coal-fired power plants,[16] developed each year for 50 years, or
32,850 wind turbines,[17][18] developed each year for 50 years, or
91,250,000 rooftop solar photovoltaic panels[19] developed each year for 50 years
The world consumes approximately 3 CMO annually from all sources. The table [10] shows the small contribution from alternative energies in 2006.
тАЬTo provide most of our power through renewables would take hundreds of times the amount of rare earth metals that we are mining today,тАЭ according to Thomas Graedel at the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies. So renewable energy resources like windmills and solar PV can not ever replace fossil fuels, thereтАЩs not enough of many essential minerals to scale this technology up. http://energyskeptic.com/2014/high-tech-cannot-last-rare-earth-metals/
Renewable energy 'simply won't work': Top Google engineers
Two highly qualified Google engineers who have spent years studying and trying to improve renewable energy technology have stated quite bluntly that whatever the future holds, it is not a renewables-powered civilisation: such a thing is impossible.
Both men are Stanford PhDs, Ross Koningstein having trained in aerospace engineering and David Fork in applied physics. These aren't guys who fiddle about with websites or data analytics or "technology" of that sort: they are real engineers who understand difficult maths and physics, and top-bracket even among that distinguished company.
Even if one were to electrify all of transport, industry, heating and so on, so much renewable generation and balancing/storage equipment would be needed to power it that astronomical new requirements for steel, concrete, copper, glass, carbon fibre, neodymium, shipping and haulage etc etc would appear.
All these things are made using mammoth amounts of energy: far from achieving massive energy savings, which most plans for a renewables future rely on implicitly, we would wind up needing far more energy, which would mean even more vast renewables farms тАУ and even more materials and energy to make and maintain them and so on. The scale of the building would be like nothing ever attempted by the human race.
In reality, well before any such stage was reached, energy would become horrifyingly expensive тАУ which means that everything would become horrifyingly expensive (even the present well-under-one-per-cent renewables level in the UK has pushed up utility bills very considerably).
Cheap is a relative thing. There's plenty of stuff we can do without, it just requires setting new priorities, which is what the current crisis is all about, i.e. who gets to define them. The real issue with peak anything is when it takes more units of whatever it is to produce an equivalent unit. IOW, when you burn a barrel of oil to extract one, you're basically done. We're not there yet. Last I checked it was around 3 to 1, but the clock is definitely ticking. I'd say the race is on, but the only player that seems to have noticed is Russia, and they are way ahead of the competition, in fact there really is no competition. (see my post on ice breakers)
According to Rystad, the current resource replacement ratio for conventional resources is only 16 percent. Only 1 barrel out of every 6 consumed is being replaced with new resources
Doing without means degrowth - degrowth = recession = people lose their jobs --- if that is not reversed you end up collapsing the global economy.
Cheap is not relative -- when energy costs are high that drives inflation - notice how inflation is out of control right now? When people have to spend more on goods and services they purchase less goods and services... if that continues then companies lay off people/go bankrupt...
That means more job losses... people do not service their debts ... that collapses the financial system
Basically we are doomed. Enjoy what little time remains.
I realized this soon after the GFC and I bucket listed for over a decade -- nearly 60 countries... from Yemen to Uzbekistan ... Patagonia .. north pole ... it's been a massive run...
All cuz I connected the dots early -- most people still cannot even see the dots let alone connect them.
Can it be more obvious? We are on the downslope with energy:
Enough with the dreary existentialism. LetтАЩs talk about life in a one-bedroom apartment in London. The price of energy for heat has nearly doubled, seemingly overnight. Truly, it took months but it has felt like one day to the next. The energy bills will be approaching a substantial portion of the rent itself. And the forecast тАФ which one has to do because thatтАЩs how energy markets work on the consumer end тАФ is showing a doubling and doubling again.
Small businesses cannot function under these conditions. тАЬTom Kerridge, the celebrity chef, revealed that the annual energy bill at his pub has soared from ┬г60,000 to ┬г420,000 and warned that тАШludicrousтАЩ price rises left the hospitality sector facing a тАШterrifying landscapeтАЩ,тАЭ reports Telegraph.
Life in Britain right now owes more to their supreme stupidity in supporting the 2014 coup in Ukraine than any other factor, and that is also true for the EU. I wouldn't cite any of that as evidence of an externally driven cause of price inflation or energy shortage. It's entirely a self-goal.
The energy problem started many months before that war.
The was was orchestrated to provide an excuse for energy depletion ... better to blame spiralling energy costs on a war - cuz that's temporary. Sure it will be a tough winter but as soon as Putin (the villain) is sorted out - back to normal we go
This is working extremely well - most people have accepted this excuse - they don't like it .. but they do not believe depletion is the problem
I donтАЩt know how old you are Eddy, but IтАЩve seen this play before. I was a young guy during the stagflation 70тАЩs compounded by the Arab Oil Embargo. In some parts of the USA on odd numbered days you needed an odd numbered licence plate to even buy gas, and vice versa. Speed limits nationwide were lowered from 60 to 55 mph and unemployment was widespread. That situation continued until Paul Volcker raised interest rates and broke the financial bubble that was the underlying cause. Mortgage rates peaked in 1981 at 21%! Who the hell could afford a starter home at those rates? Marriage and kids? Out of the question.
HereтАЩs how my friends and I, just out of high school in Ottawa, coped with that situation. My brother moved to Switzerland to work as a pattern maker. My BF Mike went to work as a cook on the DEW line in the high Arctic. My other friend Mike moved to Germany to sell software. I went to sea working on oil tankers in the North Atlantic. We all had to scrimp, make compromises and put up with less than we were accustomed to as kids growing up in the prosperous 60тАЩs, but we all made it through, and we all benefited from the experience in one way or another.
The difference between now and then is simple. Back then you only had newspapers and TV and most people were too busy making ends meet to read or watch them anyway. Now we have the internet 24/7 amplifying every little event into a major crisis, while people check their phones every 30 seconds to see how many liked the latest picture of their cat. ItтАЩs completely neurotic behaviour and will end very badly, but it wonтАЩt change the outcome as far as the material underpinnings of civilization are concerned. Some will suffer, of that thereтАЩs no doubt, but they brought it on themselves. They believed the lying bastards that created this artificial crisis they call the тАЬgreat resetтАЭ but not everyone drank the Koolaid. Serious people are right now working on solutions and are making serious progress. ItтАЩs our misfortune that weтАЩre not among them, but then why should they care about us? What have we ever done for them?
HG Wells said: тАЬCivilization is in a race between education and catastrophe. Let us learn the truth and spread it as far and wide as our circumstances allow. For the truth is the greatest weapon we have.тАЭ
Words to live by, even if it does seem hopeless, because frankly, we have no other choice.
We grew up at the same time, and experienced the late 70's and early 80's--"the preview of this coming attraction". Hopefully the younger generation will persevere as we did, doing what needed to be done to make ends meet. We all moved far from home to find jobs that paid well, had multiple roommates to afford rent and utilities, and grew into resilient adults in the process. All is not lost, we will survive again.
2. Why are they drilling miles beneath the sea for oil?
3. Why are they drilling thousands of holes in the ground - dropping explosives in and blasting the rock formations - to suck up the dregs? And losing 300B in the process
And yet you offer a CNBC article in support of your case?
"As we can see you do not want to the truth - you want fairy tale endings..."
Hard work and genuine effort at solving the problem is hardly a fairy tale ending, and who exactly is this "we" you presume to speak for?
I'm not interested in polemics, so I'll just make one final observation: If it's as hopeless as you seem to believe, then what's the point of even talking about it? Does it bother you that much that someone you've never met doesn't share your lack of hope? I made a point about people getting all wound up on the internet. Did you not notice that? Do you not think it applies to this conversation?
I offer the cnbc article because I know people in various part of Europe who have informed me that their electricity and heating bills have increased 3 to 4 time....
I have a good friend here in NZ who hails from Eastern Europe who told me - long before the Ukraine war - that he had to send money to his parents who are on a small pension and unable to pay their electricity bill.
The cnbc article is not accurate other than it confirms the prices went through the roof pre Ukraine war -- it does not explain why.
The reason why is along the lines of:
According to Rystad, the current resource replacement ratio for conventional resources is only 16 percent. Only 1 barrel out of every 6 consumed is being replaced with new resources
Can someone please answer my questions - I've posted them relentlessly:
If there is so much cheap and easy oil remaining, why are we steaming it out of sand in Alberta... why are we drilling miles beneath the sea for it... why are we drilling thousands of holes dropping in explosives to smash the rock formations and sucking out the dregs.... why are we hearing about attempts to drill for oil in the Arctic?
Nobody will answer for the same reason a CovIDIOT will not have a valid answer as to why he keeps injecting the boosters and refuse to acknowledge absolute evidence that they worse than useless.
They do not want the truth - they cannot handle the truth.
The energy situation elicits even deeper delusion -- the CovIDIOTS can stop injecting ... with energy ... you must believe the fairy tales the MSM feeds you --- because not to - would lead to utter despair.
Notice how the renewable energy and EV fairy tales are more frequent the closer we get to the edge of collapse... that is not an accident
To (partly) answer that question, look at large scale mining operations. Ore deposits are not uniform. They consist of rich and poor regions. Typically these are blended to extend the life of the mine, and to standardize the extraction process which depends on a uniform grade.
IMO, the shale industry is a giant scam. Depletion rates are too high to justify long term investment. They are basically stock operations along the same lines as junior mining ventures.
If not for shale we'd all be dead now... unfortunately that chapter is now ending so....
Shale binge has spoiled US reserves, top investor warns Financial Times.
Preface. Conventional crude oil production may have already peaked in 2008 at 69.5 million barrels per day (mb/d) according to EuropeтАЩs International Energy Agency (IEA 2018 p45). The U.S. Energy Information Agency shows global peak crude oil production at a later date in 2018 at 82.9 mb/d (EIA 2020) because they included tight oil, oil sands, and deep-sea oil. Though it will take several years of lower oil production to be sure the peak occurred. Regardless, world production has been on a plateau since 2005.
WhatтАЩs saved the world from oil decline was unconventional tight тАЬfrackedтАЭ oil, which accounted for 63% of total U.S. crude oil production in 2019 and 83% of global oil growth from 2009 to 2019. So itтАЩs a big deal if weтАЩve reached the peak of fracked oil, because that is also the peak of both conventional and unconventional oil and the decline of all oil in the future.
I think one of the biggest tells that we're at peak, or soon will be, is Russian arctic navigation. Russia has over 30 icebreakers, 4 of them nuclear powered. Canada has 8, the US has only 4. In addition, as of 2019 they have a floating nuclear power station that can be towed, and are planning to build several more.
You don't build floating power stations if your only goal is to open an arctic shipping channel. They're looking for oil, and they'll find it. Next they'll develop submersible drilling rigs if they haven't already, plus the experience they gain is also applicable to the Antarctic.
Say what you like about Russia (and China) but at least they plan for the future. I don't see us doing that at all anymore.
Drilling for oil in the arctic is extremely expensive... this is not about running out -- it is about running out of energy that is economically viable.
I burn coal and wood in a Rayburn -- the price of coal when I purchase in March was 25% higher than the year before. The Ohai Coal mine - which has the best coal in NZ -- closed down last year -- they cited inability to make money due to skyrocketing costs --- so even a 25% bump in the price could not save them.
I do not think the peak oil theory is correct. Thomas Gold's deep hot biosphere gives a very detailed explanation of why.
If we have plenty of cheap oil remaining then:
1. Why are we steaming oil out of sand in Alberta?
2. Why are we drilling miles beneath the ocean to extract oil?
3. We are we drilling thousands of holes in the ground - dropping in explosives to smash the rock - and sucking out the dregs? To date $300 billion has been burned up doing this
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/22/shale-industry-will-be-rocked-by-300-billion-in-losses-and-a-wave-of-bankruptcies-deloitte-says.html
All I can say is read the book if you get the chance.
I have read the review and am aware of the theory of abiotic oil.
I do not buy into it -- I will consider reading the book though if someone can answer the 3 questions above.
One further question - can anyone point me to an annual report from an oil major that indicates their prospects are looking good because their oil fields are refilling at a faster rate than expected.
This is probably the best paper I have read on the energy situation. Tim Morgan was head of research at a global energy trading firm. He identified increasing oil production costs as the reason for the GFC.
He was instrumental in helping me understand why the banks nearly crashed the world by offering money to people they knew would not pay them back (Liar Loans of course)...
SEE PAGE 59 - THE PERFECT STORM : The economy is a surplus energy equation, not a monetary one, and growth in output (and in the global population) since the Industrial Revolution has resulted from the harnessing of ever-greater quantities of energy. But the critical relationship between energy production and the energy cost of extraction is now deteriorating so rapidly that the economy as we have known it for more than two centuries is beginning to unravel
https://ftalphaville-cdn.ft.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Perfect-Storm-LR.pdf
These guys are doing pretty good.
https://www.rosneft.com/upload/site2/document_file/a_report_2021_eng.pdf
One other thing to keep in mind... is that the PTB will go to extreme lengths to convince the masses that we will never run into a bottleneck.
For instance, they will inform us that a breakthrough with anything from fusion to ice crystals is right around the corner https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20181119-why-flammable-ice-could-be-the-future-of-energy
They have thrown billions at trying to convince us that we will transition from fossil fuels to solar/wind. That is impossible (see below).
They tell us we will all be driving EVs in 10 years... that is both impossible and ignores the fact that most electricity is fossil fuel generated.
I suspect the abiotic story is just another of these con jobs.
They will (and should) do absolute everything to convince us oil is not a problem -- just think of how unsettling it would be to be made aware that we are on the precipice...
Replacement of oil by alternative sources
While oil has many other important uses (lubrication, plastics, roadways, roofing) this section considers only its use as an energy source. The CMO is a powerful means of understanding the difficulty of replacing oil energy by other sources. SRI International chemist Ripudaman Malhotra, working with Crane and colleague Ed Kinderman, used it to describe the looming energy crisis in sobering terms.[13] Malhotra illustrates the problem of producing one CMO energy that we currently derive from oil each year from five different alternative sources. Installing capacity to produce 1 CMO per year requires long and significant development.
Allowing fifty years to develop the requisite capacity, 1 CMO of energy per year could be produced by any one of these developments:
4 Three Gorges Dams,[14] developed each year for 50 years, or
52 nuclear power plants,[15] developed each year for 50 years, or
104 coal-fired power plants,[16] developed each year for 50 years, or
32,850 wind turbines,[17][18] developed each year for 50 years, or
91,250,000 rooftop solar photovoltaic panels[19] developed each year for 50 years
The world consumes approximately 3 CMO annually from all sources. The table [10] shows the small contribution from alternative energies in 2006.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_mile_of_oil
тАЬTo provide most of our power through renewables would take hundreds of times the amount of rare earth metals that we are mining today,тАЭ according to Thomas Graedel at the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies. So renewable energy resources like windmills and solar PV can not ever replace fossil fuels, thereтАЩs not enough of many essential minerals to scale this technology up. http://energyskeptic.com/2014/high-tech-cannot-last-rare-earth-metals/
Renewable Penetration https://gailtheactuary.files.wordpress.com/2017/12/iea-primary-energy-suppy-1973-and-2015.png
Renewable EnergyтАЩs $2.5 Trillion Problem https://www.technologyreview.com/s/611683/the-25-trillion-reason-we-cant-rely-on-batteries-to-clean-up-the-grid/
Renewable energy 'simply won't work': Top Google engineers
Two highly qualified Google engineers who have spent years studying and trying to improve renewable energy technology have stated quite bluntly that whatever the future holds, it is not a renewables-powered civilisation: such a thing is impossible.
Both men are Stanford PhDs, Ross Koningstein having trained in aerospace engineering and David Fork in applied physics. These aren't guys who fiddle about with websites or data analytics or "technology" of that sort: they are real engineers who understand difficult maths and physics, and top-bracket even among that distinguished company.
Even if one were to electrify all of transport, industry, heating and so on, so much renewable generation and balancing/storage equipment would be needed to power it that astronomical new requirements for steel, concrete, copper, glass, carbon fibre, neodymium, shipping and haulage etc etc would appear.
All these things are made using mammoth amounts of energy: far from achieving massive energy savings, which most plans for a renewables future rely on implicitly, we would wind up needing far more energy, which would mean even more vast renewables farms тАУ and even more materials and energy to make and maintain them and so on. The scale of the building would be like nothing ever attempted by the human race.
In reality, well before any such stage was reached, energy would become horrifyingly expensive тАУ which means that everything would become horrifyingly expensive (even the present well-under-one-per-cent renewables level in the UK has pushed up utility bills very considerably).
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/21/renewable_energy_simply_wont_work_google_renewables_engineers/
http://techcrunch.com/2011/11/23/google-gives-up-on-green-tech-investment-initiative-rec/
My vote is for thorium nuclear reactors and hydrogen based fuels.
Keeping in mind that the Ministry of Truth are offering a wide range of hopium flavours to mask the bitter taste of fossil fuel depletion...
Thorium will be 'read to roll in 50 years'... then in another 50 years and so on...
A technology that does work and that many are suggesting be expanded has the same problem as oil gas and coal... we've used up the cheap stuff:
The End of Cheap Uranium (Cornell University Research) https://arxiv.org/abs/1106.3617
Cheap is a relative thing. There's plenty of stuff we can do without, it just requires setting new priorities, which is what the current crisis is all about, i.e. who gets to define them. The real issue with peak anything is when it takes more units of whatever it is to produce an equivalent unit. IOW, when you burn a barrel of oil to extract one, you're basically done. We're not there yet. Last I checked it was around 3 to 1, but the clock is definitely ticking. I'd say the race is on, but the only player that seems to have noticed is Russia, and they are way ahead of the competition, in fact there really is no competition. (see my post on ice breakers)
According to Rystad, the current resource replacement ratio for conventional resources is only 16 percent. Only 1 barrel out of every 6 consumed is being replaced with new resources
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/The-Biggest-Oil-Gas-Discoveries-Of-2019.html
Doing without means degrowth - degrowth = recession = people lose their jobs --- if that is not reversed you end up collapsing the global economy.
Cheap is not relative -- when energy costs are high that drives inflation - notice how inflation is out of control right now? When people have to spend more on goods and services they purchase less goods and services... if that continues then companies lay off people/go bankrupt...
That means more job losses... people do not service their debts ... that collapses the financial system
Basically we are doomed. Enjoy what little time remains.
I realized this soon after the GFC and I bucket listed for over a decade -- nearly 60 countries... from Yemen to Uzbekistan ... Patagonia .. north pole ... it's been a massive run...
All cuz I connected the dots early -- most people still cannot even see the dots let alone connect them.
Can it be more obvious? We are on the downslope with energy:
Enough with the dreary existentialism. LetтАЩs talk about life in a one-bedroom apartment in London. The price of energy for heat has nearly doubled, seemingly overnight. Truly, it took months but it has felt like one day to the next. The energy bills will be approaching a substantial portion of the rent itself. And the forecast тАФ which one has to do because thatтАЩs how energy markets work on the consumer end тАФ is showing a doubling and doubling again.
Small businesses cannot function under these conditions. тАЬTom Kerridge, the celebrity chef, revealed that the annual energy bill at his pub has soared from ┬г60,000 to ┬г420,000 and warned that тАШludicrousтАЩ price rises left the hospitality sector facing a тАШterrifying landscapeтАЩ,тАЭ reports Telegraph.
https://brownstone.org/articles/a-world-on-fire/
There is still time to jam in some kinda bucket list... they look to be ready to release Devil Covid ... so I'd recommend moving quickly...
Life in Britain right now owes more to their supreme stupidity in supporting the 2014 coup in Ukraine than any other factor, and that is also true for the EU. I wouldn't cite any of that as evidence of an externally driven cause of price inflation or energy shortage. It's entirely a self-goal.
The energy problem started many months before that war.
The was was orchestrated to provide an excuse for energy depletion ... better to blame spiralling energy costs on a war - cuz that's temporary. Sure it will be a tough winter but as soon as Putin (the villain) is sorted out - back to normal we go
This is working extremely well - most people have accepted this excuse - they don't like it .. but they do not believe depletion is the problem
I donтАЩt know how old you are Eddy, but IтАЩve seen this play before. I was a young guy during the stagflation 70тАЩs compounded by the Arab Oil Embargo. In some parts of the USA on odd numbered days you needed an odd numbered licence plate to even buy gas, and vice versa. Speed limits nationwide were lowered from 60 to 55 mph and unemployment was widespread. That situation continued until Paul Volcker raised interest rates and broke the financial bubble that was the underlying cause. Mortgage rates peaked in 1981 at 21%! Who the hell could afford a starter home at those rates? Marriage and kids? Out of the question.
HereтАЩs how my friends and I, just out of high school in Ottawa, coped with that situation. My brother moved to Switzerland to work as a pattern maker. My BF Mike went to work as a cook on the DEW line in the high Arctic. My other friend Mike moved to Germany to sell software. I went to sea working on oil tankers in the North Atlantic. We all had to scrimp, make compromises and put up with less than we were accustomed to as kids growing up in the prosperous 60тАЩs, but we all made it through, and we all benefited from the experience in one way or another.
The difference between now and then is simple. Back then you only had newspapers and TV and most people were too busy making ends meet to read or watch them anyway. Now we have the internet 24/7 amplifying every little event into a major crisis, while people check their phones every 30 seconds to see how many liked the latest picture of their cat. ItтАЩs completely neurotic behaviour and will end very badly, but it wonтАЩt change the outcome as far as the material underpinnings of civilization are concerned. Some will suffer, of that thereтАЩs no doubt, but they brought it on themselves. They believed the lying bastards that created this artificial crisis they call the тАЬgreat resetтАЭ but not everyone drank the Koolaid. Serious people are right now working on solutions and are making serious progress. ItтАЩs our misfortune that weтАЩre not among them, but then why should they care about us? What have we ever done for them?
HG Wells said: тАЬCivilization is in a race between education and catastrophe. Let us learn the truth and spread it as far and wide as our circumstances allow. For the truth is the greatest weapon we have.тАЭ
Words to live by, even if it does seem hopeless, because frankly, we have no other choice.
Posts like these make me wish I had a cat with an instagram account.
We grew up at the same time, and experienced the late 70's and early 80's--"the preview of this coming attraction". Hopefully the younger generation will persevere as we did, doing what needed to be done to make ends meet. We all moved far from home to find jobs that paid well, had multiple roommates to afford rent and utilities, and grew into resilient adults in the process. All is not lost, we will survive again.
If there is so much easy oil left... then :
1. Why are they steaming oil out of sand?
2. Why are they drilling miles beneath the sea for oil?
3. Why are they drilling thousands of holes in the ground - dropping explosives in and blasting the rock formations - to suck up the dregs? And losing 300B in the process
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/22/shale-industry-will-be-rocked-by-300-billion-in-losses-and-a-wave-of-bankruptcies-deloitte-says.html
Did you expect CNN to inform you that we're on the downslope and we are f789ed?
Since when does the MSM provide the truth?
As we can see you do not want to the truth - you want fairy tale endings...
They are offering that -- we are transitioning to renewable energy and EVs... see the headlines.
"Since when does the MSM provide the truth?"
And yet you offer a CNBC article in support of your case?
"As we can see you do not want to the truth - you want fairy tale endings..."
Hard work and genuine effort at solving the problem is hardly a fairy tale ending, and who exactly is this "we" you presume to speak for?
I'm not interested in polemics, so I'll just make one final observation: If it's as hopeless as you seem to believe, then what's the point of even talking about it? Does it bother you that much that someone you've never met doesn't share your lack of hope? I made a point about people getting all wound up on the internet. Did you not notice that? Do you not think it applies to this conversation?
I'm out. Last word is yours.
I offer the cnbc article because I know people in various part of Europe who have informed me that their electricity and heating bills have increased 3 to 4 time....
I have a good friend here in NZ who hails from Eastern Europe who told me - long before the Ukraine war - that he had to send money to his parents who are on a small pension and unable to pay their electricity bill.
The cnbc article is not accurate other than it confirms the prices went through the roof pre Ukraine war -- it does not explain why.
The reason why is along the lines of:
According to Rystad, the current resource replacement ratio for conventional resources is only 16 percent. Only 1 barrel out of every 6 consumed is being replaced with new resources
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/The-Biggest-Oil-Gas-Discoveries-Of-2019.html
We've burned up all the cheap stuff.
Can someone please answer my questions - I've posted them relentlessly:
If there is so much cheap and easy oil remaining, why are we steaming it out of sand in Alberta... why are we drilling miles beneath the sea for it... why are we drilling thousands of holes dropping in explosives to smash the rock formations and sucking out the dregs.... why are we hearing about attempts to drill for oil in the Arctic?
Nobody will answer for the same reason a CovIDIOT will not have a valid answer as to why he keeps injecting the boosters and refuse to acknowledge absolute evidence that they worse than useless.
They do not want the truth - they cannot handle the truth.
The energy situation elicits even deeper delusion -- the CovIDIOTS can stop injecting ... with energy ... you must believe the fairy tales the MSM feeds you --- because not to - would lead to utter despair.
Notice how the renewable energy and EV fairy tales are more frequent the closer we get to the edge of collapse... that is not an accident
We have flying cars now, so there's that.
To (partly) answer that question, look at large scale mining operations. Ore deposits are not uniform. They consist of rich and poor regions. Typically these are blended to extend the life of the mine, and to standardize the extraction process which depends on a uniform grade.
IMO, the shale industry is a giant scam. Depletion rates are too high to justify long term investment. They are basically stock operations along the same lines as junior mining ventures.
If not for shale we'd all be dead now... unfortunately that chapter is now ending so....
Shale binge has spoiled US reserves, top investor warns Financial Times.
Preface. Conventional crude oil production may have already peaked in 2008 at 69.5 million barrels per day (mb/d) according to EuropeтАЩs International Energy Agency (IEA 2018 p45). The U.S. Energy Information Agency shows global peak crude oil production at a later date in 2018 at 82.9 mb/d (EIA 2020) because they included tight oil, oil sands, and deep-sea oil. Though it will take several years of lower oil production to be sure the peak occurred. Regardless, world production has been on a plateau since 2005.
WhatтАЩs saved the world from oil decline was unconventional tight тАЬfrackedтАЭ oil, which accounted for 63% of total U.S. crude oil production in 2019 and 83% of global oil growth from 2009 to 2019. So itтАЩs a big deal if weтАЩve reached the peak of fracked oil, because that is also the peak of both conventional and unconventional oil and the decline of all oil in the future.
Some key points from this Financial Times article: https://energyskeptic.com/2021/the-end-of-fracked-shale-oil/
Shale boss says US has passed peak oil | Financial Times https://archive.ph/tjl6J
I think one of the biggest tells that we're at peak, or soon will be, is Russian arctic navigation. Russia has over 30 icebreakers, 4 of them nuclear powered. Canada has 8, the US has only 4. In addition, as of 2019 they have a floating nuclear power station that can be towed, and are planning to build several more.
You don't build floating power stations if your only goal is to open an arctic shipping channel. They're looking for oil, and they'll find it. Next they'll develop submersible drilling rigs if they haven't already, plus the experience they gain is also applicable to the Antarctic.
Say what you like about Russia (and China) but at least they plan for the future. I don't see us doing that at all anymore.
Drilling for oil in the arctic is extremely expensive... this is not about running out -- it is about running out of energy that is economically viable.
I burn coal and wood in a Rayburn -- the price of coal when I purchase in March was 25% higher than the year before. The Ohai Coal mine - which has the best coal in NZ -- closed down last year -- they cited inability to make money due to skyrocketing costs --- so even a 25% bump in the price could not save them.