The Oil Drum | This Week in Petroleum (5-30-2007)

66 comments on This Week in Petroleum (5-30-2007)

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

Robert Rapier on May 31, 2007 - 3:55pm

First of all, it's E3 Biofuels. Second, here is what one of his engineers told me: "Langley isn't a technical guy, and that 40-1 was way off the mark. He probably believed what he was saying, but that isn't close to being correct." Of course, if you thought about it for 5 seconds, you would understand why. That is a far better energy return than sticking a straw in the ground and sucking oil - already processed by nature - out of the ground. You really need to know when to apply a bit of skepticism, and stop believing claims simply because you want to.

Third, the claim by Langley was made before the plant even started up. Remember what I asked for? Somebody who has demonstrated it? I presume you can't supply that information?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

RBM on May 31, 2007 - 5:28pm

Langley isn't a technical
guy

Is that why he uses the ambiguous term 'energy
units' ?

I've gotten friendly with a new neighbor who is a grad student at UNL and mentioned his work as a ruminant technician put him in contact with folks at the
Mead plant.

In ensuing conversation about energy issues he gave me this URL, that might me useful to you
http://beef.unl.edu/

I did a search a few weeks ago on Mead at the
site, but nothing caught my attention then.

Where IS that 'Theory of Everything' ?
Here
it is !

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

BenjaminCole on May 31, 2007 - 10:45pm

Sorry for the typo on EP3.

40 to 1 does sound high, that's why I ran it by you. But this plant, from what I read on renewable and ag websites and forums, is becoming the new norm in planning stages... Perhaps existing plants will be retrofitted. Time to go long on cow poop!

Yes, I cannot document energy returns until the plants are up and running for a couple years. It sounds like a terrific idea, one that will radically reduce energy inputs from fossil sources. I gather that burning the methane is better for all concerned too, as it does not go into atmosphere.

Another important aspect of this: It was not anticipated a few years ago. What else is cooking that we do not anticipate? With fossil crude at more than $60, what other remarkably useful techniques and inventions are on the way? I am sure many in this forum will say none worthy of mention, but I am not so sure.

If it is not 40 to 1 at the E3 plant, what did your engineer buddy hint at? 10 to 1 would be great. Even three to one would be nice. Of course, we have to measure fossil inputs. I understand the methane is an energy input, but it is "free" so to speak. The left over mash is used to feed the cows. I am sorry to eat the cows, but even sorrier when I eat pork, and how long till we see pig-and-potato plants?

As for skepticism, sheesh. Have you read these forums? Hook, line and sinker it is taken as faith that a mathematical model developed on light oil deposit extraction only in the Lower 48, in a period of cheap oil worldwide, will perfectly predict oil output globally in a period of higher oil prices, despite the reality of massive deposits of heavy oil and tar sands (which dwarf light oil), and despite the fact that Hubbert's Peak has not even predicted crude output in North America, let alone the world.

North American fossil crude output should move to new all-time records in coming years, thanks to Canadian tar sands ramping up to 4mbd, and the big Chevron strike starting up. That will mark roughly four decades on a rough plateau. Biofuels are ramping up sharply too, but remain too small to really talk about yet. In 10 years? Could be enough to seriously damage the fossil boys.

One man's skeptic is another man's cynic, and another man's dupe. Having been duped a lot, I hope I am moving to the skeptic range, but never into the land of cynics?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

mr f on May 31, 2007 - 11:42pm

The question is have *you* read "these forums"? It seems not. You're as much faith and straw man as I have seen in awhile here. You've been here for two months, and you've got everything pegged. Who is the faithful dupe here?

You write,

"Having been duped a lot, I hope I am moving to the skeptic range, but never into the land of cynics?"

I rip roared a good guffaw out of that one. Yeah, it just isn't appropriately conservative to be cynical about the world, is it? Everything is just so wonderful and exuberant, evidence everywhere! God surely loves his little children. Another funny one, are you a stand-up comedian in your spare time? At least you have the "honesty" to use the unfriendly term "tar sands", the wholly "unbiased skeptical optimist" that you *surely* are...

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

tstreet on June 1, 2007 - 10:16am

Yes, biofuels are ramping up, with minimal impact on liquid fuels supplies. And, oh boy, we should really be excited about ruining the environment and the planetary climate with the likes of tar sands and oil shale.

This is not good news you are providing here; the news should be that we are doing everything in our power to live within and below our existing oil supplies, not discovering new ways to screw up the planet even worse.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

R W Reactionary on June 1, 2007 - 10:19pm

I asked you some questions on May 10th designed to see if you were serious and or merely trying to instigate a circle jerk. The answer was not forthcoming which I have preliminarily equated with you trying to intitate the aforementioned circle jerk. Reference:

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2529#comment-188487

Others have done the same sort of thing with a similar lack of substantive response.

Please don't suck up every poorly written under researched bit of nonsense that gets published. Do a little critical research. There are some very positive things that likely to occur in time IMO. I am not doomer. With some googling and a little critical review you can find them. Try not to give optomism a bad name.

A little prefunctory bebunking: The net energy gain on 4 million bbls per day of Canadian tar sands is nothing like even the return on ultra heavy crudes

... and

If by the "big Chevron strike" you are referring to the Jack #2 Discovery it will be a long time if ever before production begins and it will hardly be the cure for what you believe is expensive [$60] oil. It might be the sort of thing that keeps oil from doubling from here if there are enough of these high risk high investment prospects ... and enough ultra deep water rigs to explore them.

The facts on Jack II IIRC:
1.) A mulitfeature string of possible traps --
2.) at about 22,000 feet subsea -- 15,000 feet of rock in 7,000 feet of water --
3.) A hundred and fifty miles from existing infrastructure--
4.) With the published multi billion barrel projection of reserves based on a couple of wells both of which are either temporarily or permanently abandoned.

Jack II may turn out to be a big find a decade or so from now. For now, the publicity it receieved is not comensurate with its apparent economics.

These are the facts as we know them. Research Benjamin research.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

AlanfromBigEasy on June 2, 2007 - 9:31am

North American fossil crude output should move to new all-time records in coming years, thanks to Canadian tar sands ramping up to 4mbd, and the big Chevron strike starting up

Hardly !

One third to one half of the net# new tar sands production will go to replace conventional Canadian production, whch is in steep decline (royalties to Alberta Gov't are taking a hit despite the boom).

Chevron (50% owner of Jack #2) wanted to influence US public opinion and did.

One 25% owner of Jack #2 is Statoil, 5/8s owned by the Kingdom of Norway, which could care less about US public opinion (and has a cultural thing about honesty). According to the 25% owner of Jack #2, more wells are needed before a decision to produce will be made.

Still, by the time tar sands get to 4 million b/day and Jack has produced it's first barrel, Prudhoe Bay oil production will be so low it will not be worth keeping the pipeline open. US Lower 48 production will be down some more (2+ million b/day on a long term trend of -200k b/d each year).

Best Hopes for Reality Based Planning,

Alan

# In the year of Peak Coal in the UK (1913) 13% of the coal produced was used to mine coal (stat from memory).

A lot of natural gas and a far amount of oil products are used to produce and upgrade the tar sands. So producing an extra XX barrels/day of tar sands takes a lot of energy up front to build and even more to produce. One should net that. So, for me, 4 million b/day of tar sands = 3 million b/day of new oil supply (+ GHG & environmental degradation). I value NG like oil since they can substitute for each other in some markets.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.