Peak Oil Hoax

Forums: 

Whiskey & Gunpowder
By Byron King
August 24, 2009
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.
Update on Canada?s Oil Sands ? Part I
Recently, I had the unique opportunity to tour two different oil sands operations near Fort McMurray, in northern Alberta. I saw a massive open-pit oil sands mine, and the associated reclamation effort, operated by Syncrude Canada Ltd. I also visited an in situ oil sands recovery project called Surmont, operated by ConocoPhillips.
The trip was sponsored by the American Petroleum Institute (API), which paid for the airfare and accommodations. Managers at both Syncrude and ConocoPhillips granted me access to any parts of their operations I wanted to see (within allowances for safety). And everyone answered any and all questions I asked.
Post-trip, I have complete editorial freedom to write about what I saw and learned. And I learned a lot. So this is Part I of a two-part series. Watch for Part II.
~~~~~~~~~~~~Special~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Four Major Threats to Your Retirement!
Your ability to ac***ulate a nice, healthy nest egg can make or break your retirement dreams. A series of looming threats are getting brushed aside - they will most certainly affect us all - and in many ways they're being made worse by all of our country's other problems.
Fortunately, there are steps you can take RIGHT NOW to help you secure and maintain the rich comfortable retirement you deserve.
Click here to learn how to protect and grow your nest egg...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Past and Future of Oil and Oil Sands
The first thing that struck me about visiting the oil sands of Alberta was how much geological and social similarity there is to the oil patch of Pennsylvania.
Geologic similarity? Yes, because the reason that the hydrocarbons are so near the surface in both areas ? Pennsylvania and Alberta ? is that the Pleistocene glaciers scraped off much of the overlying rock. When the glaciers retreated about 10,000 years ago, they left hydrocarbon-bearing rock formations exposed near the surface, or buried not too deep. This led to oil seeps, which led to people being curious about the black, gooey stuff.
To be sure, the hydrocarbon resource is quite different between the two places. That is, in Pennsylvania, you have light, sweet crude oil that flows easily and is soft and smooth to the touch. Indeed, Pennsylvania crude feels like hand lotion. (It?s the origin of Vaseline, for example. And some people use it as the basis for a shampoo.)
While in Alberta, the ?bitumen? from the oil sands is as thick as cold molasses, and very sticky. It?s got some sulfur in it as well.
On a warm day in August, oil sands have the consistency of really stiff, dry oatmeal. Bitumen is a far cry from hand lotion.
And as for social similarities? Well, the Indians of old used to skim the oil from streams near Titusville, Pa. So did people of the ?First Nations? of Alberta, who used to recover the tarry bitumen from the rocks along the Athabaska River of northern Alberta. Thus both oil and oil sands have been around for a long, long time.
Early white explorers in both Pennsylvania and Alberta noted the oil seeps. They wrote in journals and logs that eventually somebody could do something with the substance.
Eventually, both Pennsylvania and Alberta had their oil booms. In fact, we?re soon coming up on the 150th anniversary of Col. Drake?s oil discovery at Titusville, Pa, on Aug. 27, 1859. Pennsylvania?s oil boom is colorful history at this point (although Marcellus Shale development will soon change that).
Whereas Alberta is still in the midst of its oil sands boom. It?s a boom that?s going to last for quite some time, I believe.
?Easy? Oil Versus Heavy Oil and Bitumen
There?s a reason Col. Drake started an oil boom in Pennsylvania more than a century before Alberta enjoyed the same thing. Col. Drake found some of that so-called ?easy? oil. No, it?s not easy to find. It?s that Col. Drake?s oil flows easily from a well.
That is, for all the oil that mankind has pumped out of the ground in the past 15 decades, almost all of it has been the light, sweet stuff that flows easily. Generally, when people looked for oil they bypassed the heavy oil and bitumen. Until lately, of course.
When we think about the concept of ?Peak Oil? today, we need to keep in mind what we?re talking about. The curves show oil output peaking in so many parts of the world. This phenomenon is quite real, as long as you understand that it?s the ?old fashioned? kind of oil deposit that Col. Drake was drilling. The light, sweet, easy-flowing oil is getting harder and harder to find, certainly in significant quantity.
But there are a lot of other hydrocarbon molecules out there. Most of those molecules are not light, sweet crude oil. Indeed, most of the hydrocarbon molecules that the world will use in the future will be ?heavy,? with lots of carbon atoms and not so many hydrogen atoms.
Here?s a graph from oil services giant Schlumberger that estimates the world?s heavy oil and bitumen resources. Canada?s 400 billion cubic meters of bitumen translates into something like 1.4 trillion barrels of oil equivalent. How much is that? Well, it?s about SEVEN times the total oil reserves of Saudi Arabia.
It just so happens that most of that Canadian bitumen is located in Alberta (with some is in Saskatchewan). And Fort McMurray, about 250 miles north of Edmonton, is the heart of the development process.
~~~~~~~~~~~~Special~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The Bailout Loophole!"
How Congressional Mandate HR-3221 Could Pay You Up To $17,500 This Year
Missed by millions of Americans, this little-known LEGAL "loophole" could easily pay you up to $17,500 in income this year and every year...
For as long as it takes this market and the US economy to recover!
Get all the details here.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oil Sands ? Surface Mining
Large-scale oil sands development began in the 1970s. It took gigantic levels of capital investment, like tens of billions of dollars. That's not pocket change. So a group of lease-owners got together and pooled their capital to form privately held Syncrude Canada, a joint venture. First mining started in 1978.
The way Syncrude operates, it's not really ?mining.? It's landscape architecture. Under Alberta law, Syncrude could not turn over its first shovel of rock without a master plan for remediation and restoration at the end of the cycle. It?s quite a farsighted model for long-range resource development.
Thus for much of the 1970s, Syncrude performed baseline environmental studies and data gathering. It started digging in 1978. At first, the pit looked like a moonscape of open-pit mining. See the photo below. It looks like a mess, right? Well, there?s more to the story.
The mining process is fairly straightforward. Big shovels (really big) scoop large volumes (really large) of oil-laden sand (API number 8, the "bitumen") into gigantic loaders (and I mean gigantic.)
The loaders haul the rock to a crusher. The crushed rock goes to a washing bin, kind of like your washing machine at home except it's the size of a high-rise office building. The Syncrude operation washes the bitumen off the sand using naphtha. Then it separates the bitumen, recovers the naphtha for reuse and takes the clean sand (and it's clean) and replaces it in a previously mined pit.
The process uses a lot of water, but not as much as the horror stories you might hear about "draining the rivers" of northern Canada. Each barrel of water is recycled about 18 times.
The process uses a large amount of natural gas, but not as much as you may have heard (like "all the natural gas of northern Canada"). Pretty much everything about the operation is built with cogeneration in mind, so the company continuously recovers the heat at each stage. That natural gas goes a long way, from what I saw.
If it takes, say, five years to dig a pit, and then it may take five or more years to fill it back up with sand during the restoration process. Syncrude's goal is to handle the rock as little as possible.
Eventually, Syncrude returns the land to original grade, although the company has some artistic license with the contours. It covers the land with the original topsoil, which has been in cold storage (northern Alberta? it's cold up here for 10 months of the year). Then it replants trees, and that's saying something, because the growing season is under two months. It takes 80 years for your basic spruce tree to reach maturity.
There's even a new water table, despite the disturbance of the land.
~~~~~~~~~~~~Special~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gain exposure to currencies of emerging BRIC countries-and don?t lose a dime on market risk.
Don?t let market risk get in the way of potentially rewarding exposure to the BRIC currencies. Our three-year MarketSafe® BRIC CD shields you from any market risk and provides 100% principal protection on deposits held until maturity.
* Four BRIC currencies: Brazilian real, Russian ruble, Indian rupee, Chinese renminbi
* High upside potential
* No market risk to deposited principal
* Low $1,500 minimum deposit
Some experts believe these four countries may become economic powerhouses in coming years. Now could be the right time to add these currencies to your portfolio. And you can do so ? safely ? with the U.S. denominated MarketSafe BRIC CD.
Don?t miss this unique opportunity. Deadline to buy the BRIC MarketSafe CD is September 18, 2009. Apply today or learn more here.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Where Things Now Stand
So at this stage, after 30 years or so of mining (with about 80 years to go, at current rates of extraction), Syncrude has come to a point of delivering 350,000 barrels of synthetic crude oil per day. It takes the 8-API bitumen and upgrades it to oil that's competitive with West Texas Light. Then it delivers it to the JV members, for whatever use the owners want to make of it.
Along the way, the Syncrude process removes the sulfur, so it's sulfur free (refiners like that). In fact, there's a mass of sulfur up at Syncrude that's about the size of the step pyramid at Saqqara, Egypt. And along the way, Syncrude sells the sulfur to the chemical industry.
The former Syncrude mine that I visited is about 3.5 miles square, and formerly about 200 feet deep. Now it's restored to grade, with trees growing and a herd of 300 wood bison grazing.
For the cynics out there, I'd say that it's not some environmental Potemkin village, because you can't fake a replanted forest of 25-year-old trees. You can't fake a 300-bison herd. Not on a former mine site 3.5 miles square.
Sure, there are still issues about land disturbance, settling ponds, water usage, gas usage and myriad of other things that come up when you?re spending billions of dollars on a major mining effort. But Syncrude has built its business model around dealing with the ?other? issues, and not just moving oil sands and recovering oil products. Don?t underestimate the ability of the Alberta government to regulate its energy producers. This is a long way from Appalachia.
Meanwhile, we?re talking about literally billions of barrels of bitumen (or oil equivalent) that the process makes available to the North American marketplace. And if the U.S. wants to get onto its environmental high horse about the source of the hydrocarbons from the oil sands ? and tax or ban their importation ? there are other buyers in the world. Like the Chinese, who have racked up many frequent flyer miles on their treks to Fort McMurray.
That?s all for now. In Part II, I?ll discuss the in situ process that I saw at the ConocoPhillips Surmont site.
Until we meet again,
Byron W. King
[/b]

For emphasis from the article:
"When we think about the concept of ?Peak Oil? today, we need to keep in mind what we?re talking about. The curves show oil output peaking in so many parts of the world. This phenomenon is quite real, as long as you understand that it?s the ?old fashioned? kind of oil deposit that Col. Drake was drilling. The light, sweet, easy-flowing oil is getting harder and harder to find, certainly in significant quantity.
But there are a lot of other hydrocarbon molecules out there. Most of those molecules are not light, sweet crude oil. Indeed, most of the hydrocarbon molecules that the world will use in the future will be ?heavy,? with lots of carbon atoms and not so many hydrogen atoms."
[/b]

For emphasis from the article:
"Canada?s 400 billion cubic meters of bitumen translates into something like 1.4 trillion barrels of oil equivalent. How much is that? Well, it?s about SEVEN times the total oil reserves of Saudi Arabia."
[/b]

I suggest that you Google Whiskey&Gunpowder and view
this article on their website. It has many interesting
charts and pictures. Just a word of warning. Once Agora
Financial has your e-mail address, you are going to be
bombarded with lots of e-mails everyday. But, every once
in a while, they have something pretty interesting like
this article. Best.
[/b]

Thanks 48. I will watch and see if others post the energy efficiency of this resource (EROEI).
Nice to have a close and friendly neighbor with so much energy for sale.
"Oh Lord, it's hard to be humble, but I'm doin' the best that I can-------"
Mac Davis
[/b]

Thank God the oil sands are in Canada and not in the U.S. as the canidians have the gumption to extract them. If they were in teh U.S. we could never get authority to extract the oil.
IMAGE(http://imgcash6.imageshack.us/img526/3431/worthyic6.gif) "I bow to conservative economic policies"
[/b]

Yeah, what Grainbelt said! []
I know all about Sasol, they've been developing the Fischer-Tropsch process in South Africa for decades now. Company Lurgi is probably a bigger player in process engineering in this regard. It's taken the South Africans more than 50 years of heavy investment to produce only 300 000 barrels a day. They've been running out of coal for electricity now for three years. Which means no new industry, no new mines, no new development. Which is exactly my point.
Last time corn hit it's highs, Mexicans were rioting over the price. Want that problem on your border? Let's call corn $10.00 and see how long Mexico doesn't have a civil war.
Uranium is cheap because of russian missile disarmament. Cheap feedstock from a controlled source. Cameco is a legacy mine, they still got some good grade ore in there, but I haven't really read about anything that get's me really all that excited in regards to development that will replace the cheap stuff out of Russia. Won't even discuss disposal, plant construction is a slam dunk as long as you are in line to get a core in the next two decades.
Wind and solar isn't going to replace anything, anytime soon, which shows you how much of a tree hugging liberal I truly am. [] China has cornered 90% of the market for rare earth metals, from the metal that makes the magnets in wind turbines to some of the exotica in the industrial solar installations. Won't matter anyways, none of it really scales in regards to replacing coal, nat gas or nuclear.
Just about the only alternative fuel that beats peak energy will be conservatium.
[/b]

quote:
Originally posted by OBG
[br]
A prime example for you 48;
The below well is definately NOT in "Irreversible Decline". (Because its new, and news wells don't do that.)
Eventually it will hit that sad day of course, as ultimately flow rates WILL wane. Flow rates in this well will do what they ALWAYS do. Climb, plateau, then decline irreversibly.
--------------------------------------------------------

American Petro-Hunter Updates Lutters #1 Well Oil Production
Thu Jun 25, 2009 7:00am
SCOTTSDALE, AZ, Jun 25 (MARKET WIRE) --
American Petro-Hunter, Inc. is pleased to report that the #1 Lutters Well has been in production for a week and that the first oil shipments for sale have occurred.
The well has been pumping oil at an Initial Production Rate (I.P.R.) of 108 barrels per day (4.5 barrels per hour) at the well head with no water. The actual oil volume being pumped into the tanks is over 90 barrels per day as pumping distance to the tank battery is approximately 2,000 feet. The tank battery was positioned strategically in order to maximize future efforts as the new discovery becomes fully developed. As reported previously, due to the expected increase of oil production over the original estimates, an additional storage tank may still be installed at the site battery in order to allow for 600 barrels of oil storage capacity.


OBG that well went "plateaued" the day you hung a
pump on it. It isn't going to pump more unless you
speed your pump or something like that. How can
you say a well isn't in reversible decline cuz
it's a new well? You pumped a barrel of oil out,
there's one barrel less of oil . It declined and
it's not reversible. That well will make 90 bpd
for a few weeks, in six months it will make 60 ,
in a year 20, on and on until it's a stripper
well in 3 years. Someo-sameo. Thousands of wells
just like it.
BTW I hope that means you drilled a well.
Congrats if that's the deal.
[/b]

FYI,
Glowplug
Sept. 2 (Bloomberg) -- BP Plc, Europe?s second-largest oil company, reported a ?giant? discovery at the Tiber Prospect in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico that may contain more than 3 billion barrels, after drilling the world?s deepest exploration well.
The well is located about 250 miles (400 kilometers) southeast of Houston, the London-based company said today in a statement. It was drilled to approximately 35,055 feet (10,685 meters), greater than the height of Mount Everest.
The latest discovery will help BP, already the biggest producer in the Gulf of Mexico, boost output in the region by 50 percent to 600,000 barrels of oil equivalent a day after 2020. It?s equal to about a year?s output from Saudi Arabia, the biggest exporter in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, as well as coming close to matching the U.K.?s entire proven reserves.
?It will take a while to develop, the second half of next decade, but it?s very important,? Jonathan Rigby, an analyst at UBS AG in London, said in a telephone interview.
BP climbed 22.15 pence, or 4.3 percent, to 541.65 pence in London, the highest close since January. BP has gained 3 percent since the start of this year.
BP, led by Chief Executive Officer Tony Hayward, is developing nine projects in the Gulf of Mexico and overtook Royal Dutch Shell Plc in terms of output in the region after ramping up the Thunder Horse platform to more than 300,000 barrels of oil equivalent a day.
Thunder Horse
Hayward, who took over as CEO from John Browne in May 2007, is boosting production growth after delays at projects including Thunder Horse led to an operational gap with rivals. BP has a history of pushing back the frontiers of exploration in North America, and pioneered enhanced oil recovery techniques in Alaska.
Oil companies have been increasingly turning to more technically challenging fields as oil-rich nations limit access. Tiber will help allay concerns over BP?s growth prospects given its reluctance to invest heavily in unconventional projects, such as oil sands in Canada, to replenish reserves as maturing fields age.
?What today?s announcement proves is that BP is a very, very successful explorer,? Irene Himona, an oil and gas analyst at Exane BNP Paribas, said by telephone. ?They?ve opened up the whole area for discoveries.?
Other major finds by the oil industry in recent years include the Tupi field in Brazil?s pre-salt region, the largest oil discovery in the Americas since Mexico?s Cantarell in 1976. Tupi may hold as many as 8 billion barrels of oil.
Production Boost
BP could potentially raise production by between 1 and 2 percent a year from 2013 to 2020, according to Andy Inglis, BP?s chief executive for exploration and production.
?Tiber represents BP?s second material discovery in the emerging Lower Tertiary play in the Gulf of Mexico, following our earlier Kaskida discovery,? Inglis said in today?s statement.
The new discovery ?will be bigger? than Kaskida, which is estimated to hold 3 billion barrels, BP spokesman Robert Wine said. ?This is a whole new geological play we?ve got here.?
The British producer last month bought additional acreage in the Lower Tertiary, or so-called Paleogene, region of the Gulf of Mexico. The 24 million-to 65 million-year-old formation, where both Exxon Mobil Corp. and Chevron Corp. are drilling wells, was previously thought to be unreachable. Tiber is the deepest exploration well ever drilled by the oil and gas industry, BP said.
Second Well
BP said it?s the largest net leaseholder in the Lower Tertiary area. ?I believe there are other structures to investigate,? Wine said. The company plans to drill a second well at Tiber next year, he added.
BP is operator of the Tiber project with a stake of 62 percent, while Petroleo Brasileiro SA, Brazil?s state-controlled oil company, holds 20 percent and ConocoPhillips 18 percent.
?The announcement of Tiber confirms the very positive prospectivity of the Lower Tertiary geological play in the locale,? Jason Kenney, an analyst at ING Wholesale Banking in Edinburgh, said. The news is ?positive, and potential for more upside still? possible.
[/b]

Hello SES,
It is the case that a well in a mature basin pretty much starts irreversible decline from the git-go.
An isolated well in a fresh reservoir can plateau for a long time however. The reason you can't have a plateau at the same time as irrevesible decline is simply due to the way the definition of "irreversible decline" is written.
It applies to an oilfield. There's two types of declines in an oil field;
1) Reverible (voluntary) Decline
2) Irreversible (in-voluntary) Decline
When a pipeline ruptures, or OPEC cuts production, flow rates will decline. ITs temporary however in those cases. When a hurricane sweeps the Gulf, production is temporarily halted.
Those examples are of Reversible Decline.
If you do a google search on the term "Irreversible Decline" you will see that it pertains to falling flow rates in the face of massive attempts to prevent it.
Its kind of a misnomer. If I had it my way, they'd rename it, "Irreversible flow-rate decline".
I hope things are well in your part of the world!
[/b]

quote:
Originally posted by Grainbelt
[br]

quote:
Originally posted by 48
[br]
quote:
Originally posted by Grainbelt
[br]48,
By definition production with a negative EROEI would be uneconomical. If it costs more energy to extract it than you gain, you wouldn't even try to extract it, no matter how big the source!
YOU ARE WRONG! AND, THAT'S WHY I AM HAMMERING ON THE
FRAUDULENT USE OF EROEI. IT HAS ALWAYS TAKEN MORE ENERGY
TO PRODUCE A GALLON OF GASOLINE THAN THE ENERGY IN THE
GASOLINE.
OBG KNOWS THIS. THAT'S WHY HE WANTS TO CONCENTRATE ON
UPSTREAM NOT DOWNSTREAM.
THE KEY ECONOMIC QUESTION IS: IS IT PROFITABLE???
The question that remains (IMO) is: Once we draw down the high EROEI(high profit margin) sources, will there be enough volume of the low EROEI(low margin) stuff to maintain ecomomic growth in the world? The world has shown that it can grow economically with less and less BTU's per unit of GDP. I see no reason for this to change. The EROEI calculation has many changing parts and it is difficult to accurately forcast what all the variables will be in 5-10-20-50 years.
As far as for immediately drilling all of our domestic resivoirs. If they are relatively high EROEI sources and OBG and his group are correct that the worlds supply is running low. Maybe those you are railing against are doing the US an incredible favor. Let the rest of the world extract the easy stuff and sell it to us now, and then when they run past their peak, go get our easy stuff.
THIS SOUNDS SMART, BUT IT'S NOT. WHEN YOU GET THAT FAR DOWN
THE CURVE THERE WON'T BE ANY DRILLING OR OIL COMPANIES
LEFT TO GO GET IT.


48,
First off, don't pull a Thirsty on me! In the first response to me you (intentionally???) left out the header of my statement where I specifically said "upstream". Secondly, NO I am not wrong. My statement is 100% correct.
YOU'RE STILL WRONG! FIRST, IT IS NONSENSICAL TO JUST LOOK
AT UPSTREAM. YOU NEED TO LOOK AT THE OVERALL PROCESS. YOU
ALSO NEED TO LOOK AT THE ENERGY TO MAKE THE STEEL FOR THE
OFFSHORE PLATFORMS, DRILLING RIGS, PIPELINES, AND REFINERIES,
AND ALL OTHER RELATED ENERGY COSTS.
BACK WHEN CRUDE WAS $3/BBL AND GASOLINE WAS .29/GAL, IT
STILL TOOK MORE OVERALL ENERGY TO PRODUCE THAT GALLON
OF GASOLINE THAN THE ENERGY CONTENT OF THAT GALLON OF
GASOLINE.
THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS IS IF IT IS...PROFITABLE. PERIOD!
As far as your latest post. Yes everyone knows those process' are out there. You obviously fail to grasp the concept that in switching from conventional sources (crude with its high EROEI)
DEEP WATER OFFSHORE CRUDE DOES NOT HAVE A "HIGH" EROEI MY
FRIEND.
you raise the cost of producing the unconventional (Corn, Coal, Uranium, Algae, Wind, and Nat Gas with their lower EROEI)
URANIUM, WIND, AND ESPECIALLY...NATURAL GAS HAVE MUCH BETTER
EROEI THAN CRUDE
when you attempt to produce the volumes that we currently are with the high margin (high EROEI) sources. I am far from a doom and gloom end of the world energy production guy BUT the process is likely to be difficult and costly. It is completely nonsensical (and economically stupid) to think this can be done without US importation of crude oil.
YOU ARE JUST FLAT WRONG. I HAVE SHOWN YOU OVER AND OVER HOW
WE CAN DO IT. I THINK YOU ARE CONFUSING WORLD CRUDE USE WITH
US CRUDE USE.
"Be wary of the person who tries to sell you on their ability to know, the unknowable"---Grainbelt 2009


[/b]

http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601170&sid=aNrwOK1***MA
Thanx to the agweb censor, click Exclusive on the
left hand side, then click BP Gulf of Mexico Tiber.
[/b]

quote:
Originally posted by OBG
[br]

quote:
Originally posted by ses
[br]Slick, I'd like to take this opportunity to offer my most sincere apologies. Man, had I known you had such a severe case of A.D.D. I never would have posted anything that required an attention span of nearly five minutes.
You said nobody would spend more than a barrel's worth of energy to extract a barrel's worth of energy. Sorry Peter Bob, happens all day every day 365 days a year. As long as there are easy flowing wells to off set the poor producers the EROEI will never matter as far as oil production goes. Dollars are all that matters. If it makes a profit somebody will pump the oil no matter if the EROEI is negative. Might change some day but for now that's the way it is.


As long as the income from a well exceeds VARIABLE cost of production, it will produce. It does NOT need to exceed variable PLUS fixed costs in order to produce. (Although that's the idea when exploring in the fisrt place, because that's the only way to get a return on capital.)
A person drilling doesn't know what the EROEI will be, so the fixed cost is covered by betting on the come.
The total amount of oil flowing from negative EROEI projects like you described is too small to offset the even a sliver of the decline rate in existing production. That's the whole point. Its like making ethanol from lawn clippings. Won't scale up to a decent flow rate.
Chevron's "Jack" well has a nuetral/negative EROEI, as discovered by the first delineation well. Hence it will never produce a drop. It will never make financial sense at any oil price. Chasing a profit there will be chasing the horizon. You'll never catch it, because costs/expenses will always remain just out of reach.
Oil in places like that may be super plentiful, but it could just as well be on the 3rd moon of Neptune, and oil price skyrocketing doesn't do a bit of good. It just means you run faster at the receding horizon.


I have to agree with OBG's statement on the Jack oil field. It's going to take a tremendous amount of energy just to get the first barrel out of it. I thought when we had discussions about Jack last time somebody, that rock doc guy maybe, said the oil was under so much pressure it was heated to 500-600 degrees and wasn't worth a crap if they did get it.
Going after oil like this looks like desperation to me.
Bottom line is the US pisses away more resources than most countries even have. We could knock off 5 million BPD from our use and nobody would die from it. The only way out of this is through conservation. Even that's like Thirsty says, kicking the can down the road a little further, but it would go quite a ways.
[/b]

quote:
Originally posted by 48
[br]OBG: This sounds like Chevron is going to put Jack
into production:
http://www.scandoil.com/moxie-bm2/oil/supplier-contracts/mustang-awarded-feed-for-chevron-jack-st-malo-deep.shtml


They are talking sometime next year to fininsh a DESIGN for a platform?? Will it be built? No. BP is famous for attempting projects that eventually cost way more than they originally intended.
Take their "Thunderhorse" project as a Prime Example. They had to rebuild it... TWICE due to rust problems BEFORE production started. They had the platform out in the Gulf for nearly a decade before they finally recieved any oil. The cost was many times what they promised shareholders, and the output was a disappointment. A dissapointment that did NOT offset declines in their other projects.
Thunderhorse is a deepwater (not nearly as deep as Jack) Gulf of Mexico project, and "Receding Horizons" almost killed the project several years AFTER construction began.
This is why BP production slides each year. These INSANE projects yield practically NO oil. They burn RECORD amounts of diesel fuel to get a little oil.
Look at the link you provided on just the contract to DESIGN a platform. What is the guestimated flow rate?? 200K per day? We are talking years, decades actually of developement, plus endless energy, for a project that adds 200K/day to the supply picture??
What is 200K barrels/day? Why that's 200 seconds of supply. Meanwhile BP production will have slid 1,200 seconds of supply by 2025 when the project comes online. And that is IF technology can discover away to beat its present EROEI problem.
Presently Jack has a nuetral, perhaps BARELY positive EROEI. That's not to say that tech may improve the EROEI in a decade or two. As Grainbelt says, eventually even tiny EREOI positive projects may come online ultimately, but here's the thing that matters;
Only a person very bad at math would think they will offset even a SLIVER of the decline rate. The decline rate grows a little every year.
Look, when Jack was discovered, it was suppose to rival Prudhoe Bay for size. WHAT???? Prudhoe Bay was in its heyday a worthwhile field!! How does one tell?? It produced 1.5 mbpd! Now they are hoping for 200K per day from Jack??
If BP was serious about Jack, and clearly they aren't, they'd have punched the 2nd delineation well. They promised in Sept of 2006 that they would complete the 2nd well in Aug of 2007. The reason they didn't is its brain-dead.
It would be less brain-dead if oil was only $10/barrel. Then drilling costs would be so low, they could afford to do it. If you're gonna trade 2 gallons of diesel fuel to get back 1 gallon of crude oil, then by darn its awful nice to have cheap fuel.
----------------------------------------------------------
This is another Kashagan, where the oil companies never deliver on a project they anounced with great fanfare.
Meanwhile the decline rate never sleeps....
[/b]

BP?s Tiber Find Underscores Challenges of Deepwater Exploration
By Joao Lima and Fred Pals
Sept. 2 (Bloomberg) -- BP Plc?s announcement of a ?giant? discovery in the Gulf of Mexico underscores the technical challenges of deepwater exploration after Europe?s second- biggest oil company drilled to a depth that?s greater in height than Mount Everest.
The Tiber well, about 250 miles (400 kilometers) south east of Houston, was drilled to about 35,055 feet (10,685 meters), making it the world?s deepest exploration well to date, the London-based company said today. It may contain as many as 3 billion barrels, according to BP. Everest stands 29,029 feet tall in comparison.
?The rocks that are getting drilled are very tough rocks to extract oil from, and indeed nobody has really done it yet from this particular formation in the Gulf of Mexico,? Neil McMahon, a London-based analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. said in an interview. ?The development costs and exploration costs could be quite expensive relative to what we?ve seen in the past.?
Geologists and engineers didn?t know if oil that far beneath the seafloor could be tapped until 2006, when Chevron Corp. completed the first ever successful test well at those depths.
The well, drilled into Chevron?s Jack prospect about 175 miles southwest of the Louisiana coast, showed that energy companies could keep a hole open down to 60 million-year-old rocks despite shifting layers of salt and blistering temperatures.
Kaskida, Buckskin
Other discoveries in the same geologic formation as Tiber and Jack include BP?s Kaskida, found in August 2006, and Buckskin, which Chevron announced in February of this year.
?What we do at that water depth in the ocean is similar to NASA?s space program, but they get to do it without any pressure trying to attack them,? Kevin Renfro, production engineering manager at Woodlands, Texas-based Anadarko, said in a November 2007 interview.
BP?s Tiber well is deeper than Tupi, the largest crude find in the Americas in three decades and part of an area offshore Brazil with ultra-deep deposits. The pre-salt area runs 800 kilometers (500 miles) along Brazil?s coast and has oil deposits beneath a layer of salt resting as much as 3,000 meters beneath the ocean surface and another 3,000 to 5,000 meters below the seabed.
High Temperatures
To get to the pre-salt oil, Brazil?s Petroleo Brasileiro SA, which is also a partner with BP at Tiber, will have to sink tons of equipment to depths with high water pressure and temperatures. When oil as hot as 100 degrees Fahrenheit (38 degrees Celsius) suddenly meets pipes rising through extremely cold water on the ocean bottom, paraffin, a waxy substance in the oil, can solidify and block the pipes.
BP is operator of the Tiber prospect with a stake of 62 percent, while Petrobras holds 20 percent and ConocoPhillips 18 percent. BP is developing nine projects in the Gulf of Mexico and in 2007 overtook Royal Dutch Shell Plc in terms of output from the region.
[B]?The search for oil at those depths shows that the easier fields are clearly drying up,? [/B] said Peter Heijen, an Amsterdam- based analyst at Theodoor Gilissen Bankiers NV. ?Service companies will benefit from this and a lot will need to be constructed to get this out of the ground.?
[/b]

quote:
If EROEI does not apply to the overall process of building
an offshore platform and drilling rig, towing it out in the
ocean, drilling the well, building the pipelines, building
the refinery, pumping the oil out of the ground, pumping
the oil thru a pipeline to a refinery, refining the crude
to gasoline, pipelining or trucking the gasoline to a service
station...then it is a FRAUD, and it is intellectually
dishonest. Just like I said.


The infrastructure after the oil leaves the ground adds marginally to the energy invested column of the equation. Lifespan and scale offers industry the ability to pipe, refine and ship to enduser immense quantities of oil at very little cost per barrel over many decades. Exploring, drilling and developing oilfields is a complete different ball of wax. Rigs run on diesel, and have a far shorter lifespan than any pipeline or refinery. As well, the service equipment used for fracturing and cementing certainly don't run on hot air, like some people's arguments, and they ain't trucking across town that is for sure.
Law of thermodynamics is closely related to EROEI. Nobody is going to pump one barrel of oil out of the ground if it costs them a barrel of energy equivalent to do it. The only thing that allows corn to be refined into ethanol as fuel source is that the whole process piggybacks on top of the legacy infrastructure left by the petroleum industry. That is a hidden investment that a lot of the pro biofuel crowd is ignoring in the EROEI. Take away rubber tires, diesel, Haber-Bosch and all petroleum inputs and suddenly your output don't look all that swell. Nevermind the infrasture built ot bring product to enduser.
I really can't see a flaw in OBG's math, I do see flaws in his conclusions though, but that remains to be seen who is right and how this all plays out. My opinion is such that producers and entities with high current account surpluses will simply be able to outbid those with marginal economic situations and that whole regions of the world will soon drop off the map. Technology will play a role but I see little chance of it ever overcoming the laws of thermodynamics. The biggest trend will be to conservation. When I was working over in the Fatherland back in the last century it was common to get passed by high liter, big V8's one after the other on the Autobahn. Didn't see that on my last visit, cars are registered and taxed by the cubic centimeter, to drive around with a 5 liter V12 850i is gonna cost 5000 Euro a year. Who can afford that? That is correct, the rich, producers and those with positive balance sheets. The rest will be forced into ever more marginal positions and eventually into public transit or by foot.
Is it the end of the world? If your balance sheet doesn't have the right ink and you are consuming more than you produce than maybe you are in for some tough times. Look, China gets a growing GDP with one barrel of oil per capita. Germany runs a sophisticated high export economy on half of what the US consumes. I could literally argue that cutting American petroleum usage in half would be better for the economy than it would be worse. Think about that for a couple minutes. You might get my angle.
[/b]

quote:
It already takes more energy to get that gallon of
gasoline to the service station than the energy in
that gallon of gasoline. So...your whole argument is
dead before you get out of the gate.


The math involved in this equation tells me you have come to the wrong conclusion. You would simply have empty tanks if this was the mathematical case.
[/b]

Thirsty said,
"Nobody is going to pump one barrel of oil out of the ground if it costs them a barrel of energy equivalent to do it."
Thirsty I have to disagree with this. There is such a wide range in EROEI in oil production. Here in Kansas there are many, many oil wells that are making less than 3 barrels per day and have been for decades. The energy it took to bring in the wells are a factor but you need to also consider , it probably took six or eight dry holes to get that one producer. If you're figuring the EROEI on these wells you have to consider ALL of the energy, even from these dry wells. I don't know this for a fact, just my opinion, but I don't think wells like this are or ever were energy positive. IMO it takes more energy to produce these wells than you get out of them.
The free flowing Saudi wells, on the other end of the spectrum are probably several thousand to one EROEI. These wells are the only reason stripper wells are able to produce.
That does not mean there is not a profit to be made on these stripper wells. You can't confuse the energy return with economic return They're two separate things. If there is no PROFIT they will not be produced. At this point EROEI does not come into play. JMHO
[/b]

quote:
Originally posted by thirsty
[br]

quote:
If EROEI does not apply to the overall process of building
an offshore platform and drilling rig, towing it out in the
ocean, drilling the well, building the pipelines, building
the refinery, pumping the oil out of the ground, pumping
the oil thru a pipeline to a refinery, refining the crude
to gasoline, pipelining or trucking the gasoline to a service
station...then it is a FRAUD, and it is intellectually
dishonest. Just like I said.

The infrastructure after the oil leaves the ground adds marginally to the energy invested column of the equation. Lifespan and scale offers industry the ability to pipe, refine and ship to enduser immense quantities of oil at very little cost per barrel over many decades. Exploring, drilling and developing oilfields is a complete different ball of wax. Rigs run on diesel, and have a far shorter lifespan than any pipeline or refinery. As well, the service equipment used for fracturing and cementing certainly don't run on hot air, like some people's arguments, and they ain't trucking across town that is for sure.
Law of thermodynamics is closely related to EROEI. Nobody is going to pump one barrel of oil out of the ground if it costs them a barrel of energy equivalent to do it. The only thing that allows corn to be refined into ethanol as fuel source is that the whole process piggybacks on top of the legacy infrastructure left by the petroleum industry. That is a hidden investment that a lot of the pro biofuel crowd is ignoring in the EROEI. Take away rubber tires, diesel, Haber-Bosch and all petroleum inputs and suddenly your output don't look all that swell. Nevermind the infrasture built ot bring product to enduser.
I really can't see a flaw in OBG's math, I do see flaws in his conclusions though, but that remains to be seen who is right and how this all plays out. My opinion is such that producers and entities with high current account surpluses will simply be able to outbid those with marginal economic situations and that whole regions of the world will soon drop off the map. Technology will play a role but I see little chance of it ever overcoming the laws of thermodynamics. The biggest trend will be to conservation. When I was working over in the Fatherland back in the last century it was common to get passed by high liter, big V8's one after the other on the Autobahn. Didn't see that on my last visit, cars are registered and taxed by the cubic centimeter, to drive around with a 5 liter V12 850i is gonna cost 5000 Euro a year. Who can afford that? That is correct, the rich, producers and those with positive balance sheets. The rest will be forced into ever more marginal positions and eventually into public transit or by foot.
Is it the end of the world? If your balance sheet doesn't have the right ink and you are consuming more than you produce than maybe you are in for some tough times. Look, China gets a growing GDP with one barrel of oil per capita. Germany runs a sophisticated high export economy on half of what the US consumes. I could literally argue that cutting American petroleum usage in half would be better for the economy than it would be worse. Think about that for a couple minutes. You might get my angle.


Please explain your ethanol numbers here. For an ethanol plant
the largest energy cost to turn corn into ethanol is Natural Gas.
It takes 14 cents worth of NG to make one gallon of ethanol, not
much energy. As to the other petro products required, the largest
amount is consumed growing,harvesting, and trucking the corn to
the ethanol plant. I pay for all this when I grow corn. You could
breakdown all your inputs, but if you put $80 of nitrogen on corn,
how much of that $80 cost do you allocate to an energy cost? Also,
since alot of corn uses hog manue as a nitrogen source, what do
you allocate for an energy cost here? The overall point is, that
if the energy cost were high to grow corn, it would not be produced
by the farmer since he is the one that pays for it all.For the ethanol plant,14 cents of NG along with a minor amount of
electric, the energy cost is very small. Guess if you really wanted
to get at a net energy cost to produce corn it could be done with
research. The energy costs of the ethanol plant are simple and
straight forward, 14 cents + 1-2 cents of electric per gallon.
As far as the int. structure, again how do you allocate a percentage
cost to ethanol and to crude, 95/5, 90/10, Crude/Ethanol. Alot of
allocation costs that would need to be answered first before a
good cost/benefit study could be done.
[/b]

IA, I saw one study where they even charge the energy to haul the cattle to market, AFTER they were fed the DG, to the cost of ethanol.
"The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it."--H.L. Mencken
[/b]

quote:
Originally posted by r3020
[br]IA, I saw one study where they even charge the energy to haul the cattle to market, AFTER they were fed the DG, to the cost of ethanol.
"The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it."--H.L. Mencken


Yes, I have seen many of these totally biased studies put out
by the anti-ethanol groups too. One put out by the Enviromental
Working Group (think they are against all ag since it wrecks the
enviroment LOL) had the energy cost to produce a bushel of corn
at $6-7. Pretty funny, don't think you and I would grow too much
corn if we had an energy cost per bushel of $6-7 along with all
the other inputs.
[/b]

quote:
Originally posted by ses
[br]Thirsty said,
"Nobody is going to pump one barrel of oil out of the ground if it costs them a barrel of energy equivalent to do it."
Thirsty I have to disagree with this. There is such a wide range in EROEI in oil production. Here in Kansas there are many, many oil wells that are making less than 3 barrels per day and have been for decades. The energy it took to bring in the wells are a factor but you need to also consider , it probably took six or eight dry holes to get that one producer. If you're figuring the EROEI on these wells you have to consider ALL of the energy, even from these dry wells. I don't know this for a fact, just my opinion, but I don't think wells like this are or ever were energy positive. IMO it takes more energy to produce these wells than you get out of them.
The free flowing Saudi wells, on the other end of the spectrum are probably several thousand to one EROEI. These wells are the only reason stripper wells are able to produce.
That does not mean there is not a profit to be made on these stripper wells. You can't confuse the energy return with economic return They're two separate things. If there is no PROFIT they will not be produced. At this point EROEI does not come into play. JMHO


You just proved my point. When were the wells drilled?? A couple decades ago under a price and cost regime completely irrelevant to what you might find today. You think anybody today is going to drill a well in this climate now to flow three barrels a day? No. Back when manpower was $6 an hour an diesel was 25 cent for sure. Steel was under a $100 a ton. Those wells were barely marginal 25 years ago, now they are just folly and half of american oil production is from wells that produce less than 20 barrels a day. When you roll that 'round your half empty head that puts it all in perspective.
[/b]

quote:
Originally posted by IA CORN FARMER
[br]

quote:
Originally posted by thirsty
[br]
quote:
If EROEI does not apply to the overall process of building
an offshore platform and drilling rig, towing it out in the
ocean, drilling the well, building the pipelines, building
the refinery, pumping the oil out of the ground, pumping
the oil thru a pipeline to a refinery, refining the crude
to gasoline, pipelining or trucking the gasoline to a service
station...then it is a FRAUD, and it is intellectually
dishonest. Just like I said.

The infrastructure after the oil leaves the ground adds marginally to the energy invested column of the equation. Lifespan and scale offers industry the ability to pipe, refine and ship to enduser immense quantities of oil at very little cost per barrel over many decades. Exploring, drilling and developing oilfields is a complete different ball of wax. Rigs run on diesel, and have a far shorter lifespan than any pipeline or refinery. As well, the service equipment used for fracturing and cementing certainly don't run on hot air, like some people's arguments, and they ain't trucking across town that is for sure.
Law of thermodynamics is closely related to EROEI. Nobody is going to pump one barrel of oil out of the ground if it costs them a barrel of energy equivalent to do it. The only thing that allows corn to be refined into ethanol as fuel source is that the whole process piggybacks on top of the legacy infrastructure left by the petroleum industry. That is a hidden investment that a lot of the pro biofuel crowd is ignoring in the EROEI. Take away rubber tires, diesel, Haber-Bosch and all petroleum inputs and suddenly your output don't look all that swell. Nevermind the infrasture built ot bring product to enduser.
I really can't see a flaw in OBG's math, I do see flaws in his conclusions though, but that remains to be seen who is right and how this all plays out. My opinion is such that producers and entities with high current account surpluses will simply be able to outbid those with marginal economic situations and that whole regions of the world will soon drop off the map. Technology will play a role but I see little chance of it ever overcoming the laws of thermodynamics. The biggest trend will be to conservation. When I was working over in the Fatherland back in the last century it was common to get passed by high liter, big V8's one after the other on the Autobahn. Didn't see that on my last visit, cars are registered and taxed by the cubic centimeter, to drive around with a 5 liter V12 850i is gonna cost 5000 Euro a year. Who can afford that? That is correct, the rich, producers and those with positive balance sheets. The rest will be forced into ever more marginal positions and eventually into public transit or by foot.
Is it the end of the world? If your balance sheet doesn't have the right ink and you are consuming more than you produce than maybe you are in for some tough times. Look, China gets a growing GDP with one barrel of oil per capita. Germany runs a sophisticated high export economy on half of what the US consumes. I could literally argue that cutting American petroleum usage in half would be better for the economy than it would be worse. Think about that for a couple minutes. You might get my angle.


Please explain your ethanol numbers here. For an ethanol plant
the largest energy cost to turn corn into ethanol is Natural Gas.
It takes 14 cents worth of NG to make one gallon of ethanol, not
much energy. As to the other petro products required, the largest
amount is consumed growing,harvesting, and trucking the corn to
the ethanol plant. I pay for all this when I grow corn. You could
breakdown all your inputs, but if you put $80 of nitrogen on corn,
how much of that $80 cost do you allocate to an energy cost? Also,
since alot of corn uses hog manue as a nitrogen source, what do
you allocate for an energy cost here? The overall point is, that
if the energy cost were high to grow corn, it would not be produced
by the farmer since he is the one that pays for it all.For the ethanol plant,14 cents of NG along with a minor amount of
electric, the energy cost is very small. Guess if you really wanted
to get at a net energy cost to produce corn it could be done with
research. The energy costs of the ethanol plant are simple and
straight forward, 14 cents + 1-2 cents of electric per gallon.
As far as the int. structure, again how do you allocate a percentage
cost to ethanol and to crude, 95/5, 90/10, Crude/Ethanol. Alot of
allocation costs that would need to be answered first before a
good cost/benefit study could be done.


I figure if a guy could produce gasoline or an equivalent for 20 cents a gallon and sell it for ten times that than we would be awash in the stuff. So lets just replace ten million barrels a day of gasoline with ethanol and then what???
There's an answer to that question and it's not pretty.
[/b]

quote:
Originally posted by thirsty
[br]

quote:
Originally posted by ses
[br]Thirsty said,
"Nobody is going to pump one barrel of oil out of the ground if it costs them a barrel of energy equivalent to do it."
Thirsty I have to disagree with this. There is such a wide range in EROEI in oil production. Here in Kansas there are many, many oil wells that are making less than 3 barrels per day and have been for decades. The energy it took to bring in the wells are a factor but you need to also consider , it probably took six or eight dry holes to get that one producer. If you're figuring the EROEI on these wells you have to consider ALL of the energy, even from these dry wells. I don't know this for a fact, just my opinion, but I don't think wells like this are or ever were energy positive. IMO it takes more energy to produce these wells than you get out of them.
The free flowing Saudi wells, on the other end of the spectrum are probably several thousand to one EROEI. These wells are the only reason stripper wells are able to produce.
That does not mean there is not a profit to be made on these stripper wells. You can't confuse the energy return with economic return They're two separate things. If there is no PROFIT they will not be produced. At this point EROEI does not come into play. JMHO


You just proved my point. When were the wells drilled?? A couple decades ago under a price and cost regime completely irrelevant to what you might find today. You think anybody today is going to drill a well in this climate now to flow three barrels a day? No. Back when manpower was $6 an hour an diesel was 25 cent for sure. Steel was under a $100 a ton. Those wells were barely marginal 25 years ago, now they are just folly and half of american oil production is from wells that produce less than 20 barrels a day. When you roll that 'round your half empty head that puts it all in perspective.


Thirsty, to start with when you drill a well how in hell do you know if it's going to be a 3 barrel well or a hundred barrel well, or if it's going to be a well at all? If you have that figured out please pass that information on. If it looks like it will make a little money, you already have that much money invested so you hang a pump on it and see if you can get some of your money back. That does not make it energy positive. There are plenty of wells being drilled today that are coming in at under 20 barrels per day and will be strippers in a year. You know that's likely to be the case when you drill it because that's the way all the wells around here are. That does not make them energy positive. New technology does improve the odds of getting a well quite a bit but the new technology doesn't come cheap. Those big 60,000 pound thumper trucks with their two big diesel engines moving a quarter of a mile an hour use lots of diesel. They 3D several sections of land at a time but might drill only 3 or 4 wells. That was a ****** of a lot of energy used to get a few thousand barrels of oil.
There are wells being drilled in Texas that are expected to be 3 barrel wells when they are drilled but they are shallow wells and don't cost lots of money to drill. They are expected to be 3 barrel wells when they're drilled.
That's what I was talking about in my post, there is a big difference between energy return on energy investment and a return on dollars invested. You said nobody was going to drill for oil if it was going to cost more energy to drill it than you are going to get back. That's BS, it happens every day.
Looking back at my post I can't see anything I wrote that deserved the "roll 'round in your half empty head" smartassed remark. With that in mind all I can say is "You can kiss my fvcking ***"!
[/b]

quote:
Originally posted by thirsty
[br]

quote:
Originally posted by IA CORN FARMER
[br]
quote:
Originally posted by thirsty
[br]
quote:
If EROEI does not apply to the overall process of building
an offshore platform and drilling rig, towing it out in the
ocean, drilling the well, building the pipelines, building
the refinery, pumping the oil out of the ground, pumping
the oil thru a pipeline to a refinery, refining the crude
to gasoline, pipelining or trucking the gasoline to a service
station...then it is a FRAUD, and it is intellectually
dishonest. Just like I said.

The infrastructure after the oil leaves the ground adds marginally to the energy invested column of the equation. Lifespan and scale offers industry the ability to pipe, refine and ship to enduser immense quantities of oil at very little cost per barrel over many decades. Exploring, drilling and developing oilfields is a complete different ball of wax. Rigs run on diesel, and have a far shorter lifespan than any pipeline or refinery. As well, the service equipment used for fracturing and cementing certainly don't run on hot air, like some people's arguments, and they ain't trucking across town that is for sure.
Law of thermodynamics is closely related to EROEI. Nobody is going to pump one barrel of oil out of the ground if it costs them a barrel of energy equivalent to do it. The only thing that allows corn to be refined into ethanol as fuel source is that the whole process piggybacks on top of the legacy infrastructure left by the petroleum industry. That is a hidden investment that a lot of the pro biofuel crowd is ignoring in the EROEI. Take away rubber tires, diesel, Haber-Bosch and all petroleum inputs and suddenly your output don't look all that swell. Nevermind the infrasture built ot bring product to enduser.
I really can't see a flaw in OBG's math, I do see flaws in his conclusions though, but that remains to be seen who is right and how this all plays out. My opinion is such that producers and entities with high current account surpluses will simply be able to outbid those with marginal economic situations and that whole regions of the world will soon drop off the map. Technology will play a role but I see little chance of it ever overcoming the laws of thermodynamics. The biggest trend will be to conservation. When I was working over in the Fatherland back in the last century it was common to get passed by high liter, big V8's one after the other on the Autobahn. Didn't see that on my last visit, cars are registered and taxed by the cubic centimeter, to drive around with a 5 liter V12 850i is gonna cost 5000 Euro a year. Who can afford that? That is correct, the rich, producers and those with positive balance sheets. The rest will be forced into ever more marginal positions and eventually into public transit or by foot.
Is it the end of the world? If your balance sheet doesn't have the right ink and you are consuming more than you produce than maybe you are in for some tough times. Look, China gets a growing GDP with one barrel of oil per capita. Germany runs a sophisticated high export economy on half of what the US consumes. I could literally argue that cutting American petroleum usage in half would be better for the economy than it would be worse. Think about that for a couple minutes. You might get my angle.


Please explain your ethanol numbers here. For an ethanol plant
the largest energy cost to turn corn into ethanol is Natural Gas.
It takes 14 cents worth of NG to make one gallon of ethanol, not
much energy. As to the other petro products required, the largest
amount is consumed growing,harvesting, and trucking the corn to
the ethanol plant. I pay for all this when I grow corn. You could
breakdown all your inputs, but if you put $80 of nitrogen on corn,
how much of that $80 cost do you allocate to an energy cost? Also,
since alot of corn uses hog manue as a nitrogen source, what do
you allocate for an energy cost here? The overall point is, that
if the energy cost were high to grow corn, it would not be produced
by the farmer since he is the one that pays for it all.For the ethanol plant,14 cents of NG along with a minor amount of
electric, the energy cost is very small. Guess if you really wanted
to get at a net energy cost to produce corn it could be done with
research. The energy costs of the ethanol plant are simple and
straight forward, 14 cents + 1-2 cents of electric per gallon.
As far as the int. structure, again how do you allocate a percentage
cost to ethanol and to crude, 95/5, 90/10, Crude/Ethanol. Alot of
allocation costs that would need to be answered first before a
good cost/benefit study could be done.


I figure if a guy could produce gasoline or an equivalent for 20 cents a gallon and sell it for ten times that than we would be awash in the stuff. So lets just replace ten million barrels a day of gasoline with ethanol and then what???
There's an answer to that question and it's not pretty.


Not sure I understand your point here, but if you could produce
gas or ethanol for 20 cents/gallon and sell for $2, sure there
would be alot of production till the excess supply brought the
price down to close to 20 cents. This whole net energy thing
makes no difference anyway, it is the costs/money/return on investment that matters. With ethanol, I will gladly pay for
all the energy required to produce a bushel of corn. My only
concern is the total cost of all energy and other inputs combined
be less than what I sell the corn to the ethanol plant for. Who
cares about the amount of energy required to produce a bushel
of corn, I only care about the cost. Same with the ethanol plants,
they only care about the ethanol crush margin, which is currently
at 46.2 cents per gallon, very,very profitable for them right
now. Again, I do not care if it requires 10 trillion BTU's to
produce 1 bushel of corn, it is my cost to produce that matters
to me. If I can produce corn for under my variable costs and the
ethanol plants can do the same, production will always occur.
Noticed I said under variable costs, not variable+fixed. Alot
of production will still occur at levels below your fixed+variable
cost to minimize a negative gross return.
[/b]

The plan is to cool the oil by pumping seawater along the bore shaft so it doesn't exceed 100 F when it rises through miles of rock before it reaches the bottom of the ocean. The oil in place is 5 times that hot, as is everything in the ground 30,000 feet below the surface.
They're talking lots of seawater injected, just to cool the oil.
Is this what we are counting on so that we can avoid the hassle of trains?? Really??
[/b]

Its absolutely no wonder why Gulf of Mexico production falls every year like clockwork. Every year new fields are found and discovered, and the new fields fail miserably to offset declines in the old ones.
If you don't believe that, then just look at the data.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Take a look at this story below, which is about oil production in the Lower Eocene (presalt) in the GOM. This includes Tupi, Jack, Carioca, and the latest, Tiber. Keep in mind none of these Presalt projects delivered a drop of oil, and nobody knows if they ever will.
Now ask yourself what the same $$ would do if spent buildning trains.
How far does a billion barrels go? About 2 weeks.
I intersperse the article below with my own comments in BOLD CAPS.
All Itallics are their words. Not mine.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Friday, May 02, 2008
Brazil - The New Saudi?
While the oil-fields off Brazil may hold oil in a quantity only beaten by two larger reservoirs in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, getting it out of the ground may prove extremely difficult. REALLY?? YOU THINK SO?The latest find is called Carioca, in the Santos Basin, 170 miles offshore, and follows the Tupi field, whose reserves are confirmed at 5 - 8 billion barrels. It is thought that Carioca may contain 33 billion barrels of oil and gas, and if this figure is confirmed it will represent the greatest discovery for 32 years. Among much enthusiasm and speculation, it should be noted that 33 billion barrels is about what the world gets through in terms of oil in a year.
Brazil is now the eighth largest consumer of oil in the world, and last year it became self-sufficient in oil production, largely from the state-oil company, Petrobras, exploiting the country's offshore reserves. If these major new reserves can be tapped, then Brazil will become a major oil-exporter since most of its own transportation is run on cheaper ethanol made locally from sugar-cane. It is a big "if", however.
Brazilian expertise in drilling at depths of over 2,000 metres is relatively recent, and to get at Carioca, Tupi and the giant gas-field, Jupiter, it will be necessary to drill down to a combined depth of up to 10,000 meters (6 miles), going through layers of rock and sand, followed by a layer of salt that might be 1.3 miles thick. Under these conditions, the pressure is in excess of 1,000 times atmospheric pressure (almost 8 tonnes per square inch), enough as has been noted, to "crush a pickup truck". The temperatures are high too, at above 260 degrees C (500 degrees Fahrenheit).
In getting the oil out of the reservoirs, engineers will need to cope with the sudden drop in temperature from that hot enough to melt bi****h (used to transport uranium fuel rods) to near freezing-point at the ocean floor, with a likely concomitant and manifold increase in viscosity. The salt-layer under such conditions of pressure and temperature also exhibits some degree of plastic flow, meaning that there is a tendency for holes drilled through it to spontaneously close-up again.

The technological development and investment is presently prohibitive, but with oil at around $120 a barrel and almost certainly set to rise, [WHEN WAS THIS WRITTEN??some think to $200 within a year or so, the incentive increases commensurately.
No it doesn't. As the price of oil rises, the incentive to use it all up just to drill for a tiny bit in return actually DECREASES commensurately.
[/b]

HEY!!! I'VE GOT A GREAT IDEA!!!
Let's drill another mile lower!! Then we can UNLEASH MOLTEN LAVA AND MAKE THE WORLD'S GREATEST VOLCANO!!
One word describes this insanity.... "Kashagan". (Cash-a-gone)
My favorite piece from the story above;
--------------------------------------------------------------
"In getting the oil out of the reservoirs, engineers will need to cope with the sudden drop in temperature from that hot enough to melt bi****h (used to transport uranium fuel rods) to near freezing-point at the ocean floor..."
----------------------------------------------------------------
I doubt anybody here wants me to unleash the research paper on "Jack" I wrote in 2006....
[/b]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I'll drink every commercial oil barrel that comes from Chevron's Jack.
Below is bloomberg story about the USGS estimates on temperatures in the Lower Eocene's presalt; (500 degrees F)
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?
(split to not mess with the margin)
pid=20601086&refer=news&sid=a5d8FWu4LE5k
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the early eighties a blowout occured at an offshore rig near Santa Barbara in shallow water. Since then its happened way too often.
It's not a question of "If" but "when" a blowout happens from horsing around in the presalt. When it does, you'll kill everyone near it, there will be zero way to stop it. Until... All. Of. The. Pressure. Is. Released. Into. The. Ocean.
The pressure at those depths will crush a Sherman Battle tank.
That's besides the point.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The point is that it takes more diesel fuel to accomplish than oil it produces.
A special helicopter reloading pad will need to get constructed, cuz its too far from shore. Nice.
[/b]

OBG: There is no question that there are challenges to
develop Jack and Tupi. But, I remember when Phillips
was developing the North Sea, and everybody...IN THE
COMPANY!!!...was saying it was too expensive and couldn't
be done. lol.
[/b]

Breaking News!!
The Organization For The Promotion of Business As Usual (TOFTPOBAU) has discovered that Pluto is actually a big gelatinous blob of crude oil.
TOFTPOBAU is delaying their plans to develop an oilfield on the 3rd moon of Neptune siting "a local band of enviro wackos" present on that lunar surface who stymie their plans to extract oil there.
"We were really excited about the 3rd moon of Neptune." Stated Johnie Nascar, spokesman for TOFTPOBAU. "That project is nearly 500 light-years closer than Pluto. Its just too bad the 3 green little inhabitants didn't want us there."
TOFTPOBAU brushes off all notions that hauling oil from Pluto to Earth presents an over-whelming problem.
"It doesn't make any difference how much energy a project costs or how little it yields in return." Adds Johnie Nascar. "The main thing to remember is to never build a train."
[/b]

quote:
Originally posted by OBG
[br]
Breaking News!!
The Organization For The Promotion of Business As Usual (TOFTPOBAU) has discovered that Pluto is actually a big gelatinous blob of crude oil.
TOFTPOBAU is delaying their plans to develop an oilfield on the 3rd moon of Neptune siting "a local band of enviro wackos" present on that lunar surface who stymie their plans to extract oil there.
"We were really excited about the 3rd moon of Neptune." Stated Johnie Nascar, spokesman for TOFTPOBAU. "That project is nearly 500 light-years closer than Pluto. Its just too bad the 3 green little inhabitants didn't want us there."
TOFTPOBAU brushes off all notions that hauling oil from Pluto to Earth presents an over-whelming problem.
"It doesn't make any difference how much energy a project costs or how little it yields in return." Adds Johnie Nascar. "The main thing to remember is to never build a train."

I heard that they are going to drill in the Gulf of Mex--it will be the deepest hole ever--know anything about that?
[/b]

Signposts along the way....
What is cash for clunkers really about? Yes this is in the right thread....
[/b]

quote:
Originally posted by thirsty
[br]Signposts along the way....
What is cash for clunkers really about? Yes this is in the right thread....


speeding up the phasing in of fuel efficient vehicles
[/b]

quote:
Originally posted by Gerald
[br]

quote:
Originally posted by thirsty
[br]Signposts along the way....
What is cash for clunkers really about? Yes this is in the right thread....


speeding up the phasing in of fuel efficient vehicles


Part of it. More importantly it will take a large segment of very fuel inefficient vehicles often driven by a demographic with very low per capita income off the road and force those people on foot or on public transit due to a lack of supply in clunkers. This will result in a small reduction in GDP for the largest reduction in fuel consumption possible...
... and than on the other hand people with higher per capita incomes are now driving more fuel inefficient vehicles.
[/b]

quote:
Originally posted by 48
[br]
There is no question that the major reservoirs in the world
are in irreversible decline. But...the minute you drill
a brand new well, it is in irreversible decline when you
start pumping it. lol.


Excuse me good Sir, but that isn't the case. Later tonight when I get back to my laptop, I will post flow charts from various oil fields.
Never in history has a SUCSESSFULL conventional oilfield peaked at the onset of production. In every single caset takes a few years of gaining flows before those flows finally level off, then finally eneter irreversible decline.
Tonight I'll post flow charts so that you can see what I mean.
Have a great day 48!!
[/b]

quote:
Originally posted by ses
[br]

quote:
Originally posted by thirsty
[br]I can't help myself ses, it's sometimes too easy. Here's where Gene talks about you and 48....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txrikNFX-8E&feature=related


Hey Slick,may I call you Slick, I ran across your picture while doing a bit of research on You Tube. Hope you don't mind me sharing with the guys here , Slick. Slick is the guy in the middle, but I'm sure that's pretty obvious.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F07HlwNMjMQ


Yawn.... you lost me. Seriously if it takes you a five minute youtube clip to get your insult across, well I just don't have the attention span. As for masturbation, if I had to jerkoff or **** the fat, ugly slumpbuster you call a boyfriend, I'll stick to the five knuckle shuffle. []
[/b]

I'm going to take this topic seriously for one more post. I was following coal to diesel for quite awhile. Syntroleum was one of the more well known names in the industry, they've actually progressed to almost being a producer, albeit in a minor way. The Department of Defense was doing a lot of testing with them through the mid part of the decade and nothing has happened since. I've read the reports from the DOD and the CIA, they openly admit that peak oil is a problem and that all attempts to scale alternatives has come up cold against one challenge or another. Coal is no different than corn, the price of feedstock is market determined and the secondary feedstock (natural gas) is no better. Coal to diesel would impact electric generation. Corn to ethanol impacts the cost of foostuffs ACROSS borders. Uranium has been dependent on cheap feedstock from dismantled russian nukes. Solar on silicon and other rare metals and wind is just not reliable. This has been admitted by numerous government organizations around the world and has been hinted at by various organizations in the US, including the DOD and the CIA.
I don't really need to argue this point any more, it's already been discussed at length by far more illustrious entities than your's truly. The only thing left to discuss is how the world is going to squabble about the last remaining barrels on the downside of the curve?
[/b]

Electric generation could be solved with nuclear. Corn to ethanol is a much better utilization of natural resources in that it converts sunlight into fuel. If the starch is not removed before it is fed to cattle it is wasted. Instead of focusing on oil flow rates and EROEI we need to focus on the best use of our remaining natural resources.
"The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it."--H.L. Mencken
[/b]

Many on here are arguing one point or the other. The right answer is not one thing but a multitude of things many intrigrated like a puzzle to make the whole picture. Decentralzation is my thought
on the thing so if there is a glitch the whole thing doesn't come to a hault.
I just got my first wind charger in the air a few days ago and started charging this afternoon. I have two more on the way. Just bought them last week. As an experiment I ordered a electolizer
and it is being built now.
OBG: if you have any more info on "stranded wind to NH3" post it on your web site or here.
[/b]

Slick, I'd like to take this opportunity to offer my most sincere apologies. Man, had I known you had such a severe case of A.D.D. I never would have posted anything that required an attention span of nearly five minutes.
You said nobody would spend more than a barrel's worth of energy to extract a barrel's worth of energy. Sorry Peter Bob, happens all day every day 365 days a year. As long as there are easy flowing wells to off set the poor producers the EROEI will never matter as far as oil production goes. Dollars are all that matters. If it makes a profit somebody will pump the oil no matter if the EROEI is negative. Might change some day but for now that's the way it is.
[/b]

quote:
Originally posted by ses
[br]Slick, I'd like to take this opportunity to offer my most sincere apologies. Man, had I known you had such a severe case of A.D.D. I never would have posted anything that required an attention span of nearly five minutes.
You said nobody would spend more than a barrel's worth of energy to extract a barrel's worth of energy. Sorry Peter Bob, happens all day every day 365 days a year. As long as there are easy flowing wells to off set the poor producers the EROEI will never matter as far as oil production goes. Dollars are all that matters. If it makes a profit somebody will pump the oil no matter if the EROEI is negative. Might change some day but for now that's the way it is.


As long as the income from a well exceeds VARIABLE cost of production, it will produce. It does NOT need to exceed variable PLUS fixed costs in order to produce. (Although that's the idea when exploring in the fisrt place, because that's the only way to get a return on capital.)
A person drilling doesn't know what the EROEI will be, so the fixed cost is covered by betting on the come.
The total amount of oil flowing from negative EROEI projects like you described is too small to offset the even a sliver of the decline rate in existing production. That's the whole point. Its like making ethanol from lawn clippings. Won't scale up to a decent flow rate.
Chevron's "Jack" well has a nuetral/negative EROEI, as discovered by the first delineation well. Hence it will never produce a drop. It will never make financial sense at any oil price. Chasing a profit there will be chasing the horizon. You'll never catch it, because costs/expenses will always remain just out of reach.
Oil in places like that may be super plentiful, but it could just as well be on the 3rd moon of Neptune, and oil price skyrocketing doesn't do a bit of good. It just means you run faster at the receding horizon.
[/b]

Good AM 48! Below are some production charts from various oilfields around the world. They always follow the same pattern. Granted, an onshore field has a lot longer tail than does an offshore field, but the overall bell-curve is similar.
The funny thing is, nobody knows at the start of production when a field's production will stop growing, or when it will start decline until they have the benifit of hindsight.
50% of all the oil in the world comes from 1% of the fields, and they are all old, and in decline phaze.
So in order to offset that decline, we can do one or more of the 4 things below;
1) Develop new tiny little fields and tons of them.
2) Develop alternatives.
3) USe energy more efficiently.
4) TEOTWAWKI
The problem with options 1 and 2 is that the data shows the decline rate is too steep for that combo alone to offset. Doing 1, 2, and 3 will work just great.
IMAGE(http://i41.tinypic.com/143nw4i.gif)
Below is Alaska's North Slope
IMAGE(http://i40.tinypic.com/s4ti4k.jpg)
Below is Egypt's depletion curve;
IMAGE(http://i39.tinypic.com/2501icm.jpg)
The graph below is the MOST IMPORTANT BY FAR! It compares the production curve over time for both the North Sea and for Texas.
These 2 ares are in the free world, and enjoy less regulation than anywhere. The North Sea entered irreversible decline in 1999, and Texas entered irreversible decline in 1970. Both X axis represent the differant fields as do the Y axis.
IMAGE(http://i41.tinypic.com/2w1v6ex.png)
In 1930 -1935, the rate at which oil discovery in the USA peaked and started its decline. It was 35 - 40 years later that USA oil production peaked in 1970.
We know with certainty what the rate of past oil discovery was. The global rate of oil discovery enterered irreversible decine in 1965.
Below is the chart;
IMAGE(http://i44.tinypic.com/1679rvb.jpg)
[/b]

quote:
Originally posted by thirsty
[br]I'm going to take this topic seriously for one more post.
YAWN...COULD WE BE SO LUCKY??? LOL.
I was following coal to diesel for quite awhile.
WELL...IF YOU HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING IT, YOU KNOW THAT SOUTH
AFRICA HAS BEEN USING THE FISCHER-TROPSCH PROCESS TO CONVERT
COAL TO GASOLINE AND DIESEL SINCE THE APARTHEID BOYCOTTS.
THE COMPANY IS SASOL. SASOL IS ALSO BUILDING THESE SAME
PLANTS FOR CHINA.
Syntroleum was one of the more well known names in the industry, they've actually progressed to almost being a producer, albeit in a minor way. The Department of Defense was doing a lot of testing with them through the mid part of the decade and nothing has happened since. I've read the reports from the DOD and the CIA, they openly admit that peak oil is a problem and that all attempts to scale alternatives has come up cold against one challenge or another. Coal is no different than corn, the price of feedstock is market determined and the secondary feedstock (natural gas) is no better.
NO SHXT? THE PRICE OF EVERYTHING IS MARKET DETERMINED.
Coal to diesel would impact electric generation.
COAL TO DIESEL WOULD NOT IMPACT ELECTRICITY GENERATION, IF ALL
OUR ELECTRICITY WAS GENERATED BY NUCLEAR POWER.
Corn to ethanol impacts the cost of foostuffs ACROSS borders.
YOU'RE FOS. ENDING STOCKS OF US CORN ARE 1.6 BIL BU. US CORN
TO ETHANOL WOULD ONLY AFFECT THE COST OF FOOD IN OTHER
COUNTRIES IF WE WERE IMPORTING CORN FROM THOSE COUNTRIES
TO CONVERT IT TO ETHANOL. YOUR ASSERTION IS JUST A FLAT
OUT LIE TYPICAL OF OIL DRUM, TREE HUGGER PROPAGANDA.
Uranium has been dependent on cheap feedstock from dismantled russian nukes.
YOU'RE LYING AGAIN. CAMECO AND ALL THE OTHER URANIUM MINING
COMPANIES ARE NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF DISMANTLING RUSSIAN
NUKES...NOR IS THE FUTURE OF THE US NUCLEAR POWER INDUSTRY
DEPENDENT ON SAID DISMANTLING. MORE OIL DRUM/TREE HUGGER
PROPAGANDA.
Solar on silicon and other rare metals and wind is just not reliable.
MORE BS. WHILE THE INITIAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT IS HIGH
INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNERS CAN BECOME ENERGY INDEPENDENT JUST
EXACTLY LIKE IOWA55 ON THIS BOARD IS DOING.
WIND SCALES FOR UTILITIES AND FLORIDA POWER&LIGHT IS A
BIG PLAYER.
This has been admitted by numerous government organizations around the world and has been hinted at by various organizations in the US, including the DOD and the CIA.
I don't really need to argue this point any more,
THAT'S TRUE CUZ ALL YOU ARE DOING IS PARROTING OIL DRUM
PROPAGANDA. YOU CAN'T MAKE YOUR CASE.
it's already been discussed at length by far more illustrious entities than your's truly. The only thing left to discuss is how the world is going to squabble about the last remaining barrels on the downside of the curve?
THAT'S THE CLASSIC PEAK OIL/OIL DRUM MANTRA. WE'RE OUT OF OIL.
THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT IT. THE WORLD IS GOING TO END.


[/b]

quote:
Originally posted by Grainbelt
[br]48,
By definition production with a negative EROEI would be uneconomical. If it costs more energy to extract it than you gain, you wouldn't even try to extract it, no matter how big the source!
YOU ARE WRONG! AND, THAT'S WHY I AM HAMMERING ON THE
FRAUDULENT USE OF EROEI. IT HAS ALWAYS TAKEN MORE ENERGY
TO PRODUCE A GALLON OF GASOLINE THAN THE ENERGY IN THE
GASOLINE.
OBG KNOWS THIS. THAT'S WHY HE WANTS TO CONCENTRATE ON
UPSTREAM NOT DOWNSTREAM.
THE KEY ECONOMIC QUESTION IS: IS IT PROFITABLE???
The question that remains (IMO) is: Once we draw down the high EROEI(high profit margin) sources, will there be enough volume of the low EROEI(low margin) stuff to maintain ecomomic growth in the world? The world has shown that it can grow economically with less and less BTU's per unit of GDP. I see no reason for this to change. The EROEI calculation has many changing parts and it is difficult to accurately forcast what all the variables will be in 5-10-20-50 years.
As far as for immediately drilling all of our domestic resivoirs. If they are relatively high EROEI sources and OBG and his group are correct that the worlds supply is running low. Maybe those you are railing against are doing the US an incredible favor. Let the rest of the world extract the easy stuff and sell it to us now, and then when they run past their peak, go get our easy stuff.
THIS SOUNDS SMART, BUT IT'S NOT. WHEN YOU GET THAT FAR DOWN
THE CURVE THERE WON'T BE ANY DRILLING OR OIL COMPANIES
LEFT TO GO GET IT.


[/b]

This is mudslinging contest over here.
No doubt that EROEI on oil is better than corn.
But....
How much is taken to account for the military's use of oil, to secure oil? I bet it rivals that of our fertilizer use/creation.
The math can be made to support about any argument. As for oil, if it's 1000 a barrel we will still buy it. We farmers will be among the lucky few to actually get it. It's total horse***** to think we are gonna go back to the 1800s standard of living. Changes will be made: conservation, technology, personal responsibility, etc. We will survive and overcome Peak Oil, as long as Cap and Trade doesn't bury us.
[/b]

Would be a good discussion if we could avoid slinging the mud at each other.
Seems to me that EROEI measured at the well head is a great way for folks to ESTIMATE the net new capacity of new oil resources. I still tned to think that many other sound factors will come into play in developing new resources.
Wonder if the rare earth metals used in hybrids and electric cars can and will be efficiently recycled??????????
Seems to me that there is a big risk that there are signs of cognitive dissonance, cognitive heuristics, circular logic, denial, etc in the groups on the extreme ends of the energy arguements presented in our media.
Me? the energy needs to sustain society as we know it seem monumental.
The problem still does not seem insurmountable. Keep the info flowing and I will reserve the right to change my mind. Economic issues in the US make energy supply issues much more complex and risky for the US.
The debate is healthy in that there is so much at stake in getting the world's energy needs fulfilled.
"Oh Lord, it's hard to be humble, but I'm doin' the best that I can-------"
Mac Davis
[/b]

I apologize for slinging mud.... again. [V]
[/b]

I'd like to see a spread sheet with the differences:
crude oil and ethanol-
with all the variables, including freight--whether by truck, rail,
barge, or carrier pigeon.
including --grease for lubrication to cotter keys on planters--
and pumping units.
and land value, with local, state and federal taxes.
There are probably a lot of things in the possible
list we/I haven't thought of, but shooting each other
in the foot doesn't really get the word out that
there are alternatives--besides giving rag heads
money so they can shoot us.
[/b]

quote:
Originally posted by OBG
[br]
I apologize for slinging mud.... again. [V]


I enjoy reading your posts and as I said, I have much to learn about this issue. This Skywalker has trouble differentiating the dark side from the light.
"Oh Lord, it's hard to be humble, but I'm doin' the best that I can-------"
Mac Davis
[/b]

Add new comment

Images
More information
  • Files must be less than 2 MB.
  • Allowed file types: png gif jpg jpeg.
Attachment
More information
  • Files must be less than 2 MB.
  • Allowed file types: zip rar.