Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

homestead - Re: [Homestead] oil was:Political

homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Homestead mailing list

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Clansgian AT wmconnect.com
  • To: homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [Homestead] oil was:Political
  • Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 16:20:51 EST



> >Look at the abundance of methane hydrates on the continental
> >shelves around the world; it's practically an untapped resource for
> >natural gas.

Someone (Bev?) brought up oil sands and oil shale. They don't contain oil
per se, they contain kerogen, a sort of proto-oil. To get anything that you
can
put in your tank, the kerogen has to be 'cracked' into lighter hydrocarbons.
That is done presently with natrual gas. Peak NG is almost as heavily upon
us as peak oil.

By present methods it takes nearly as much energy to extract gasoline from
oil shale and oil sand as you get in the final product. You are only burning
up
vast amounts of energy to change forms of energy.

I've read all the "evidence" pro and con for the concept of peak oil. Fact
is, unless it goes up in the near future, world oil production HAS peaked.
Every giant (called King) oil field in the world is in decline with smaller
wells
taking up the slack for now.

As to new discoveries, you probably heard of the Jack 2 tauted recently in
the Gulf. Large oil wells are called Kings, smaller ones are Queens, and
still
smaller ones are Jacks. Jack 1 was almost dry. Jack two might, (that's
MIGHT) yield as much as 15 billion barrels of oil ( or as little as 300
million).
How much oil is that? The world uses 82 million barrels of oil a day ...
even IF that well could be successfully pumped, and IF it yielded the very
maximum estimate, and IF you could get it from the deep well site to on shore
pipelines ... all those if's ..... that well couldn't supply the world oil
but for
six months.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page