3 ms·

Alright, now that I've had some time to read through your sources let's get down to it. First of all, I agree that civilization is wholly dependant on petroleu

by gph 13y ago

Alright, now that I've had some time to read through your sources let's get down to it. First of all, I agree that civilization is wholly dependant on petroleum, and that's probably not going to change much even in the next 30 to 50 years. If we are unable to find new sources of petroleum and/or migrate to another energy source there will be a collapse and likely the vast majority of humanity will die off. That probably would be the death kneel of civilization. Now it looks like part of your argument is that shale oil and fracking is not going to produce nearly the amount of petroleum as is forecasted. That businessweek article gives some good information I didn't know about, so good source on that. However, it looks like there is still debate around how much oil is recoverable from shale deposits. Sounds like the debates of peak oil from the past decades with one side optimistic and the other side pessimistic. I'm not a geologist, and only time will really tell who is right. But I think there is a good chance that technology will continue to improve and oil prices will rise enough to make recovery of more oil possible. Now you also say that Clathrate reserve estimates have continually dropped over time. In the OP article it says, >Estimates of the global supply of methane hydrate range from the equivalent of 100 times more than America’s current annual energy consumption to 3 million times more. It sounds like no one has a very firm grasp of how much Clathrate is available. But even if we take the low estimate given, that's a substantial amount. It would likely be enough to fulfil global energy needs for a couple decades. Unless you have good proof that Clathrate reserves are overestimated or that it's unlikely we can viably tap those sources, I'm going to say that you haven't refuted anything in the original article. You said the OP article was terrifyingly stupid, but all I see as a rebuttal is that shale oil reserves are debatably not as large as we think. Or are you trying to say that our energy consumption and reliance on petroleum is at such a high and rising level that even sustaining our current production isn't enough? To that I would argue that hopefully alternative energy sources will free up enough petroleum from electricity production to keep us above water so to speak.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
throwaway5752 13y ago
I hardly know how to respond. The decline curve of frac wells was new information to you, and you have no idea how much gas is present in clathrate deposits (but assume I have no insight). Why do you want to continue this discussion? Why do you imagine that I would? Let me leave you with some thoughts: 1. One random mistake in the article is the characterization of bitumen production in Alberta. He describes in situ, but a larger portion is still open pit. 2. One thing the author is correct about is judging energy by EROIE. What do you suppose is the EROIE of clathrate methane production? It either requires heating or CO2 substitution. What is the value of using more than one bboe to produce a single bboe? 3. "I would argue that hopefully alternative energy sources will free up enough petroleum from electricity production" - as is clear from the chart I posted, of the 34.7 quadrillion BTUs of petroleum consumed by the US, 0.22 goes towards the production of electricity. That is true across the world except in some very oil rich countries, very isolated countries, or very poor countries.
- gph 13y ago
  >I hardly know how to respond. You could respond by dropping the know-it-all attitude. Look I'm not an expert and I'm probably wrong on some things. That's why I'm trying to gather info from a bunch of sources on this, and also why I'm not taking everything you say at face value. But even if your facts are correct you aren't going to go around convincing people by being an arrogant prick and calling articles you disagree with stupid. Get the fuck over yourself, you aren't a god damn child and your ego doesn't exist on the internet. If you don't feel like discussing these things with me then don't. Why do I want to continue this discussion? Because I'm learning from it. Clearly you already know everything though, so I guess if you don't want to say anything more just stop. 1. Ok, but does that change the points he put forth much? Isn't the EROEI of either method still economically viable? 2. If the EROEI of clathrate methane was little to negative, then why are the Japanese throwing so much money at it? There must be some potential at economic viability for it. I didn't see anything in my 2 second google search that gave a good overview of it's economic potential, but if you have a source that gives a better picture on the EROEI then by all means I'll take a look. 3. Yes I noticed the graph, but I was kind of assuming that a lot of transportation in the next couple decades will move from petroleum to electricity. Perhaps that's somewhat of a stretch, but I think we are already trending in that direction somewhat. I'm willing to admit I'm probably overly optimistic about this though.

by gph 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

throwaway5752 13y ago

I hardly know how to respond. The decline curve of frac wells was new information to you, and you have no idea how much gas is present in clathrate deposits (but assume I have no insight). Why do you want to continue this discussion? Why do you imagine that I would? Let me leave you with some thoughts: 1. One random mistake in the article is the characterization of bitumen production in Alberta. He describes in situ, but a larger portion is still open pit. 2. One thing the author is correct about is judging energy by EROIE. What do you suppose is the EROIE of clathrate methane production? It either requires heating or CO2 substitution. What is the value of using more than one bboe to produce a single bboe? 3. "I would argue that hopefully alternative energy sources will free up enough petroleum from electricity production" - as is clear from the chart I posted, of the 34.7 quadrillion BTUs of petroleum consumed by the US, 0.22 goes towards the production of electricity. That is true across the world except in some very oil rich countries, very isolated countries, or very poor countries.

gph 13y ago
>I hardly know how to respond. You could respond by dropping the know-it-all attitude. Look I'm not an expert and I'm probably wrong on some things. That's why I'm trying to gather info from a bunch of sources on this, and also why I'm not taking everything you say at face value. But even if your facts are correct you aren't going to go around convincing people by being an arrogant prick and calling articles you disagree with stupid. Get the fuck over yourself, you aren't a god damn child and your ego doesn't exist on the internet. If you don't feel like discussing these things with me then don't. Why do I want to continue this discussion? Because I'm learning from it. Clearly you already know everything though, so I guess if you don't want to say anything more just stop. 1. Ok, but does that change the points he put forth much? Isn't the EROEI of either method still economically viable? 2. If the EROEI of clathrate methane was little to negative, then why are the Japanese throwing so much money at it? There must be some potential at economic viability for it. I didn't see anything in my 2 second google search that gave a good overview of it's economic potential, but if you have a source that gives a better picture on the EROEI then by all means I'll take a look. 3. Yes I noticed the graph, but I was kind of assuming that a lot of transportation in the next couple decades will move from petroleum to electricity. Perhaps that's somewhat of a stretch, but I think we are already trending in that direction somewhat. I'm willing to admit I'm probably overly optimistic about this though.