Ever wonder why the Tea Party hates building green?

[mhaze]

Supporting arguments might have helped to make those statements more persuasive. That you chose to omit them has rather the opposite effect, I'd say.

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for civility.

Was there "supporting evidence" in the claim I responded to?

Nope.

 

[Dymanic]

Was there "supporting evidence" in the claim I responded to?

Actually, all I asked for was supporting "arguments". Had you provided those, I might then have asked for evidence to support the arguments, but you just dropped your statements on the page and left them standing there, stark naked.

You need evidence supporting the validity of the EROEI concept? How about "diminishing returns"? Is it these basic concepts that you feel require the support of evidence? Because I'd be happy to provide that, but before taking that trouble I'd first like to ask: Do you dispute them?

Do you find my analogy to have been too much of a stretch? Because it's actually less of an analogy than a literal description of the difference in obtaining oil from those two sources. Shale consists primarily of clay that has been hardened over time by compression. Hydrofracking literally involves applying high degrees of pressure in order to extract the oil from the shale. Modern conventional oil wells don't use buckets, and the reservoirs typically are not lakes, strictly speaking, but rather areas of permiable rock saturated with oil -- though in the early days, oil literally was harvested by dipping buckets into pools of oil that had bubbled up to the surface.

Tell me what part of any of that that you dispute, and I'll bury you in evidence.

If "EROEI" or "diminishing returns" are misconceptions, or not relevant to oil extraction, can you explain why? Are they misconceptions only when applied to oil extraction?

If all you're saying is that changes in the "everyday availability and price of gasoline or natural gas" are often driven by factors having little to do directly with what's happening in the oilfields on that particular day, then I certainly agree with that, but that's really not what we're talking about here. We're talking about building here, and about how policy decisions made now will determine what type of energy infrastructure gets built over the next few economic cycles, and how that will impact our future energy economy (just as our present energy economy is greatly affected by policy decisions made many decades ago).

 

[WildCat]

We do? It is?

Yes, or do you know of any nuclear power plants unable to sell the cheap electricity they're generating?

 

[mhaze]

Actually, all I asked for was supporting "arguments". Had you provided those, I might then have asked for evidence to support the arguments, but you just dropped your statements on the page and left them standing there, stark naked......

Right. You made an assertion, found a response that was an assertion, and then you asked for arguments/evidence to support it. And that's my point.

You never considered that your own position needed support, which was why a response countered it so easily.

Or to put it in your words...

You dropped your statements on the page and left them standing there, stark nake....

And then someone responded by dropping statements on the page stark neeked....

But it's so easy to answer your several paragraphs of Stuff. Here's how. That Stuff isn't relevant. What is relevant is the cost per barrel of oil in one process of retrieval or another. And you don't have or don't choose to include those numbers in your argument.

Odd....deja vu...you didn't want to reduce the question of subsidies to a numerical comparison per kw hour, either. But both of these issues may be due to your sources not accurately describing the problems in the fashion in which I am addressing them.

Anyway, we've got highly profitable operations in both oil and gas shale production. What does that tell you?

 

[Trakar]

Right. You made an assertion, found a response that was an assertion, and then you asked for arguments/evidence to support it. And that's my point.

Then your point seems to miss the mark. Two errors do not nullify each other. Rather than responding to a perceived assertion with an assertion, the appropriate response would have been to ask for support for that first assertion. It is not manditory that individuals always marry assertion and support in the same post, but if and when assertions are challenged, it is incumbent upon those who make them to provide their supporting evidences for those assertions, or leave them as unsupported and thus largely disregarded and self-discounted, assertions.

 

[mhaze]

Then your point seems to miss the mark. Two errors do not nullify each other. Rather than responding to a perceived assertion with an assertion, the appropriate response would have been to ask for support for that first assertion. It is not manditory that individuals always marry assertion and support in the same post, but if and when assertions are challenged, it is incumbent upon those who make them to provide their supporting evidences for those assertions, or leave them as unsupported and thus largely disregarded and self-discounted, assertions.

Well. I have been chastised now by my intellectual superiors, not doubt, by the erudite and progressive seers of the left. Deeply I stand disgraced, by daring to question an assertion without foundation, compounded was my mistake by questioning that THEY should show a solid foundation.

I must provide evidence, and THEY should be taken on faith.

But has it occurred to you that I might just be amused by these antics, and these attitudes? Then again, Dynamic can at his leisure answer the simple assertion I posed - that we have highly profitable fracking operations, and this has implications for his presented argument, that I should not need to elaborate on.

But, yes, to a degree, I'm manipulating the dialogue, as a response to others doing so, and just for amusement. If it's annoying, don't have an attitude...then you won't have an attitude mirrored back.

 

[Dymanic]

What is relevant is the cost per barrel of oil in one process of retrieval or another.

I don't disagree that cost is relevant. Read this again from my post #277:

"And the reason they were left over is that extracting the second 30% (say) of the oil from a well requires not only a greater input of money, but a greater input of energy -- the very thing you're attempting to harvest -- than the first 30% did."

Now, it might be fairly argued that what oil companies are really trying to harvest is money, and they're doing that at record levels even as more of our conventional wells fall below the "marginal" threshold. But there are two economies in play here, hence the second part of that bolded portion. A point which you have consistently either failed to grasp or refused to acknowledge (which no doubt makes it easier for you to answer my paragraphs with short sentences) is that extraction from non-conventional sources incurs higher energy costs as well as greater monetary costs. But the global market doesn't care how hard you had to work to get your oil out of the ground. If somebody else can afford to sell it cheaper -- say, somebody who still has a significant production capacity from conventional sources and can therefore not only produce a lot more than you can but can do it at less cost -- then it's going to be them setting the price; not you. See how that works? These seem to me to be relatively simple and straightforward concepts, but if there's any part of that that you feel requires support by evidence, please point it out.

Now here is a statement:

I say that what is and always has been most relevant is the rate of extraction.

And here are my supporting arguments:

...because that is what determines what portion of our twenty-million-barrel-plus per day oil habit we are able to service through domestic production, as well as how much impact our production can have on global oil prices. The 1970 peak of US production refers to a peak in the rate of production. As previously noted, we're now producing just over half of what we were then, and though there have always been minor variations in production trends, the overall trend has been a steady decline ever since that year. I've already provided evidence for these arguments.

You have attempted to make a case for the peak of US production being a myth, and when challenged to provide evidence for that claim in the form of expert opinion, the closest you could come was a link to an article quoting a newspaper story as saying that a report from an investment firm had made an astonishingly optimistic prediction about US oil production, and neither you nor I could find even the newspaper story, let alone the report. What does that tell you?

Anyway, we've got highly profitable operations in both oil and gas shale production. What does that tell you?

That because our energy economy and our entire infrastructure (down to the locations of buildings) was designed entirely around oil and remains so, demand will remain highly inelastic, with people, businesses, and industries having little choice but to pay whatever price the industry decides it needs to charge in order to remain the world's most profitable industry.

But, yes, to a degree, I'm manipulating the dialogue, as a response to others doing so, and just for amusement.

Hey, we're all having fun here. Otherwise, what would be the point?

 

[Trakar]

Well. I have been chastised now by my intellectual superiors, not doubt, by the erudite and progressive seers of the left. Deeply I stand disgraced, by daring to question an assertion without foundation, compounded was my mistake by questioning that THEY should show a solid foundation.

I must provide evidence, and THEY should be taken on faith...

please indicate where I have made such a claim, or if that is not what you are implying, how this is relevent to my post.

 

[mhaze]

....

Exactly. It's a wrestling match.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcnynHtOhyA&feature=related

I don't disagree that cost is relevant. Read this again from my post #277:

"And the reason they were left over is that extracting the second 30% (say) of the oil from a well requires not only a greater input of money, but a greater input of energy -- the very thing you're attempting to harvest -- than the first 30% did."

Now, it might be fairly argued that what oil companies are really trying to harvest is money, and they're doing that at record levels even as more of our conventional wells fall below the "marginal" threshold. But there are two economies in play here, hence the second part of that bolded portion. A point which you have consistently either failed to grasp or refused to acknowledge (which no doubt makes it easier for you to answer my paragraphs with short sentences) is that extraction from non-conventional sources incurs higher energy costs as well as greater monetary costs. But the global market doesn't care how hard you had to work to get your oil out of the ground. If somebody else can afford to sell it cheaper -- say, somebody who still has a significant production capacity from conventional sources and can therefore not only produce a lot more than you can but can do it at less cost -- then it's going to be them setting the price; not you. See how that works? These seem to me to be relatively simple and straightforward concepts, but if there's any part of that that you feel requires support by evidence, please point it out.

Now here is a statement:

I say that what is and always has been most relevant is the rate of extraction.

And here are my supporting arguments:

...because that is what determines what portion of our twenty-million-barrel-plus per day oil habit we are able to service through domestic production, as well as how much impact our production can have on global oil prices. The 1970 peak of US production refers to a peak in the rate of production. As previously noted, we're now producing just over half of what we were then, and though there have always been minor variations in production trends, the overall trend has been a steady decline ever since that year. I've already provided evidence for these arguments.

You have attempted to make a case for the peak of US production being a myth, and when challenged to provide evidence for that claim in the form of expert opinion, the closest you could come was a link to an article quoting a newspaper story as saying that a report from an investment firm had made an astonishingly optimistic prediction about US oil production, and neither you nor I could find even the newspaper story, let alone the report. What does that tell you?


That because our energy economy and our entire infrastructure (down to the locations of buildings) was designed entirely around oil and remains so, demand will remain highly inelastic, with people, businesses, and industries having little choice but to pay whatever price the industry decides it needs to charge in order to remain the world's most profitable industry.

Nonsense. Here's some facts on fracking which may help. All that matters is that oil from fracking is viewed as profitable to bring to market. Which it is, and it will become more so.

More over, the US can become energy independent quite easily, though not through the flawed green model.

In 2005, Royal Dutch Shell announced that its in situ extraction technology in Colorado could become competitive at prices over $30 per barrel ($190/m3).[9] However, Shell reported in 2007 that the cost of creating an underground freeze wall to contain groundwater contamination had significantly escalated.[10]

At full-scale production, the production costs for one barrel of light crude oil of the Australia's Stuart plant were projected to be in the range of US$11.3 to $12.4 per barrel, including capital costs and operation costs over a projected 30-year lifetime. However, the project has been suspended due to environmental concerns.[6][11]

The project of a new Alberta Taciuk Processor, planned by VKG Oil, is estimated to achieve break-even financial feasibility operating at 30% capacity, assuming a crude oil price of US$21 per barrel or higher. At 50% utilization, the project is economic at a price of US$18 per barrel, while at full capacity, it could be economic at a price of US$13 per barrel.​

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale_economics

 

[Dymanic]

All that matters is that oil from fracking is viewed as profitable to bring to market.

Continuing to completely ignore the one thing that actually matters most: the rate of production. Is it deliberate, or are you really that obtuse? Did you take a look at the EROEI comparisons in the wiki article you just linked?

 

[mhaze]

Continuing to completely ignore the one thing that actually matters most: the rate of production. Is it deliberate, or are you really that obtuse? Did you take a look at the EROEI comparisons in the wiki article you just linked?

You mean, did I look at something that was and is not relevant to the issue? Yes I've looked at it. Do you understand that in the production cost of a barrel of oil is embedded the energy cost of that production? At least to the extent that outside energy is brought in - there's a lot of free energy around wellheads, as I'm sure you know (but seem to choose to ignore).

 

[Dymanic]

You mean, did I look at something that was and is not relevant to the issue? Yes I've looked at it. Do you understand that in the production cost of a barrel of oil is embedded the energy cost of that production? At least to the extent that outside energy is brought in - there's a lot of free energy around wellheads, as I'm sure you know (but seem to choose to ignore).

Free energy? Cool!

 

[mhaze]

Free energy? Cool!

I agree completely. Of course, for those who are basically worried not about energy indepedence for the US, but carbon dioxide emissions, they would include this energy's "cost" in their ratios of energy in and out. That makes things look "bad" that are actually "good".

And I think you now "get it", this curious circuituous way I've got of presenting conclusions that obviously demand proof or facts, then trickling out those predecessor factoids. It drives people crazy that take things altogether too seriously, of course. For example, the bolded above is phrased to be provocative to the serious Warmer Wacko, while in reality being only silly.

 

[Dymanic]

I agree completely.

Who wouldn't? I mean, you've got all that free energy just hanging around the wellheads, it would be stupid not to make use of it. It's not like you have to haul a bunch of equipment out into the boondocks in order to get at all that free energy, or drill any holes in the ground, or...

...wait. How's that work again?

 

[mhaze]

Who wouldn't? I mean, you've got all that free energy just hanging around the wellheads, it would be stupid not to make use of it. It's not like you have to haul a bunch of equipment out into the boondocks in order to get at all that free energy, or drill any holes in the ground, or...

...wait. How's that work again?

Absolutely. I'm glad we agree. All that wasted natural gas being vented or burned off at wellheads. Among other available energy sources in the oil fields.

 

[mhaze]

....the US can become energy independent quite easily, though not through the flawed green model.....

Darn. I was betting five to one this provocative statement would result in a shower of indignant objections, requests for evidence, and all the other things that need to be knocked back down...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Lvv7TX2Gyc

 

[Dymanic]

Absolutely. I'm glad we agree. All that wasted natural gas being vented or burned off at wellheads.

So what you're saying is that hydrolic fracturing offers unique opportunities for capturing that gas and utilizing it for the purpose of meeting the energy requirements incurred in the process of extracting oil from a well (not the least of which is the pumping of massive amounts of water into the well, bringing it to very high pressures, pumping it back out, and then disposing of what is now contaminated wastewater) -- and that utilizing all that "free" gas for those purposes is in fact the standard (or planned) practice. That IS exciting! I'm picturing LPG-powered pumps and fleets of LPG-powered tanker trucks hauling away the brine...

It's also surprising that no one's thought of it before in the century or so since fracking was first used. Back then, fracking was just used as a way of flushing a little more oil out of a depleted well, and the reason it was never a highly favored approach is precisely because it's so much more expensive than was the process involved in depleting the well in the first place. The favored approach always was to simply move on (like I said before). With these shales, the whole process begins where those guys left off. If only they had known how easy it would be to just capture some of that gas and use the "free energy" it represents to power their operations, today's oil industry would surely look a lot different, eh?

 

[mhaze]

So what you're saying is that hydrolic fracturing offers unique opportunities for capturing that gas and utilizing it for the purpose of meeting the energy requirements incurred in the process of extracting oil from a well (not the least of which is the pumping of massive amounts of water into the well, bringing it to very high pressures, pumping it back out, and then disposing of what is now contaminated wastewater) -- and that utilizing all that "free" gas for those purposes is in fact the standard (or planned) practice. That IS exciting! I'm picturing LPG-powered pumps and fleets of LPG-powered tanker trucks hauling away the brine...

It's also surprising that no one's thought of it before in the century or so since fracking was first used. Back then, fracking was just used as a way of flushing a little more oil out of a depleted well, and the reason it was never a highly favored approach is precisely because it's so much more expensive than was the process involved in depleting the well in the first place. The favored approach always was to simply move on (like I said before). With these shales, the whole process begins where those guys left off. If only they had known how easy it would be to just capture some of that gas and use the "free energy" it represents to power their operations, today's oil industry would surely look a lot different, eh?

Why, I'm glad that you are excited. I am too. It's so easy to see the future as a positive thing once a person gets off the despair driven Green and Peak Oil rollercoasters.

It's new approaches to drilling and recovery that has spurred the current growth in fracking. Some of that, you know, tech stuff. It's also easy to get excited about the new "in situ" fracking recovery methods that don't have any waste water streams.

It's nice to know the future is promising, isn't it?

But I know from reading various articles on "Peak Oil" that various things like fracking are often portrayed in a negative light - in no sense can any method, procedure or innovation denigrate the Peak Oil Theory.

All Hail Peak Oil! Peak Oil is Dead, Long Live Peak Oil!

So if you simply back up to what I mentioned, about why energy in/out doesn't matter, why the price and the profit of the process is all that really matters is that that industry segment is profitable. And that's why the Eagle Ford development will be hiring about another 43,000 people in the next couple years. Wait....do PeakOilHeads know better?

 

[Dymanic]

It's new approaches to drilling and recovery that has spurred the current growth in fracking. Some of that, you know, tech stuff.

Yes, that "tech stuff" is the very thing I'd like to hear more about. Please tell me exactly how all of the "free energy" you have mentioned is utilized in powering hydrolic fracturing operations. Obviously, that discussion is going to be limited to hydrolic fracturing operations dedicated to production of oil, and not natural gas, right? I mean, if you've hired a bunch of people and put a bunch of infrastructure in place for the purpose of extracting gas, then every bit of the gas you're able to capture absorbs some of those costs. Right?

...energy in/out doesn't matter

Well, it clearly doesn't matter to you, but then, you can't very well continue to cling to your ideologically-driven viewpoint on this while at the same time allowing that to matter. I'm actually rather impressed at your ability to maintain a degree of cognitive dissonance that allows you to observe that "in the production cost of a barrel of oil is embedded the energy cost of that production" and then -- when it is pointed out (for the umpteenth time) that the very problem with these unconventional sources is that they have greater costs in embedded energy -- turn right around and say, "energy in/out doesn't matter".

You even have to ignore a portion of an article you yourself linked (in 289), which states:

"A measure of the viability of oil shale as a fuel source is the ratio of the energy produced to the energy used converting it (Energy Returned on Energy Invested - EROEI)."

Can you quote an oil industry analyst (petroleum engineer, or any other person with expertise in the field) saying that energy in/energy out doesn't matter?

 

[mhaze]

Yes, that "tech stuff" is the very thing I'd like to hear more about. Please tell me exactly how all of the "free energy" you have mentioned is utilized in powering hydrolic fracturing operations. Obviously, that discussion is going to be limited to hydrolic fracturing operations dedicated to production of oil, and not natural gas, right? I mean, if you've hired a bunch of people and put a bunch of infrastructure in place for the purpose of extracting gas, then every bit of the gas you're able to capture absorbs some of those costs. Right?
....

Huh? Gas output isn't discretely separable between "oil wells and gas wells". In a practical sense for Eagle Ford about half are oil and half are gas.

.....it clearly doesn't matter to you, but then, you can't very well continue to cling to your ideologically-driven viewpoint on this while at the same time allowing that to matter. I'm actually rather impressed at your ability to maintain a degree of cognitive dissonance that allows you to observe that "in the production cost of a barrel of oil is embedded the energy cost of that production" and then -- when it is pointed out (for the umpteenth time) that the very problem with these unconventional sources is that they have greater costs in embedded energy -- turn right around and say, "energy in/out doesn't matter".

You even have to ignore a portion of an article you yourself linked (in 289), which states:

"A measure of the viability of oil shale as a fuel source is the ratio of the energy produced to the energy used converting it (Energy Returned on Energy Invested - EROEI)."

Can you quote an oil industry analyst (petroleum engineer, or any other person with expertise in the field) saying that energy in/energy out doesn't matter?

That's like saying for a cookie factory, that energy costs are extremely important. Someone else says no, it's the ability to produce cookies at a net profit over costs that matters. The statements are not mutually exclusive.