American Dominance

Maybe if you fuckers didn't NIMBY every nuclear project we wouldn't be at this impasse.

No, shale has low EROEI and shale drilling is inherently unprofitable. We're going back to pre-industrial times soon.

gay faggot

>inherently unprofitable.
???

Thank you.

>inherently unprofitable.
Do you know what he meant by that? What the fuck is that supposed to mean?

So explain why drillers are producing $100 billion a year of "inherently unprofitable" shale oil? Words are cheap. Real money tends not to lie.

I assume he meant that it takes more to get and refine the shale than you'd get out of it. I don't know if that's actually true though.

Money printing.

What is a grand solar minimum?

Attached: 1442952931546.jpg (357x538, 61K)

it's true.

When the price of producing oil is higher than the market prices for oil, or energy alternatives, it is unprofitable. Not all proven reserves can be extracted profitably.

we have 100 year supply worth of shale not 10 and its the purest on earth. if we tap into it the saudi oil market price will collapse. we could then buy it all cheap or keep using ours until we find a new clean energy source which is exactly what trump wants to do. he is still in the oil deal with saudi arabia because hes making deal with them to stop funding corrupt politicians and ISIS and they agreed.

>I assume he meant that it takes more [energy] to get and refine the shale than you'd get out of it. I don't know if that's actually true though.
I think it's not true, but even if it were true, it wouldn't make shale inherently unprofitable.
Oil is still the densest energy storage vehicle that we can use safely/productively. As long as that is true, there will be a market for oil.

"Currently unprofitable" is different than "inherently unprofitable". The latter is a much more extreme statement.

muh earth

its a lot higher than .05 sweetie you should stop getting your info from WAPO/AMAZON. it also brings back that american industry just like how we no longer accept bad steel materials from CHINA because china was doing it to make our infastructure collapse every 10 years and that went for ships in the naval yard and military assets as well. i woudnt be surprised if china ever started selling oil that it would quickly destroy your car.

Yeah it was slightly exaggerated, but alternative energy prices are trending downwards, I am no energy expert so i do not know the details, but i do know some Shell has sold off a lot of it expensive to drill oil, makes me think they predict lower energy prices.

10% in energy price drops correlates with about a .1% GDP growth.

Oil price*

No, there is no oil there. It is kerogen, an organic wax. High cost, low quality. Current technology requires 1.3 barrels of water to produce 1 barrel of wax. it will only be important when oil production no longer meets demand, and even then will require major changes.

"Too many people have opinions on things they know nothing about and the more ignorant the are, the more opinions they have".

Attached: 1515659118320.png (2504x1587, 605K)

It may be pure in terms of wax, but compared to oil it is as bad or worse than current coal production.

lmao you sucker

>Is it true that shale oil will bring american dominance over the worlds energy?
yes... because the united states has enormous water resources. Fracking is going to be around for a long time.

check into it bro, north america is net exporter of energy now thanks to shale. it's price per barrel is comparable to saudi arabian oil (cheap!)

Why are you here?

Germany here to help with the big words.

Also checked

>India is more polluted than China
Maybe if they stopped pooping outside they'd go up a bit.

The reason it is being exported is that the fuels being exported do not meet U.S. (or any other advanced country) standards. The so-called diesel, for example, is illegal to sell or use in the U.S. And for good reason. Not just because of its effects on humans and infrastructure but also long term environmental effects.

chinks...

If we don't first run out of the water needed. It takes about 4 gallons of fresh water to extract one gallon of oil.

no the us is using most of it, and we haven't had to import nearly as much from the middle east, making us net exporters

they use brakish water that is unusable and is deep underground you guys really need to zeihan

I was referring to the products being exported. Those fuels are substandard as produced. They can be treated and re-refined to raise quality to U.S. standards (as set by S.A.E.) but costs are too high to compete was oil-based fuels. What is being used in the U.S., which is indeed most of it, is the sludge that is left after the lightest fractions are removed. The sludge is used to make asphalt, synthetic rubbers, plastics, etc. All low quality products.

you got any sources? haven't heard anything about this

Takes pumps that use energy to bring that water to the surface, and more energy and money to treat it (Sodium is bad for fuel) for use. For energy and money to deal with residues which are toxic.

Department of Energy website, u.S. Customs export records, and S.A.E. bulletins.

shale is sweet and light not sludge

give me link to anything that backs up what you say pls

no because even if the U.S. turns away from better energy sources the rest of the world won't. They will have no one to sell most of the oil to in a few decades and oils used in manufacturing will be the only potential market. Even then, I'm sure manufacturing will start switching to non-fossil related oils by then too.

'Shale oil' is not shale and not oil. It is an organic wax, and is a solid at the temperatures and pressures you find on the surface of the Earth. It does not meet the definition of 'oil' as used by anyone in the industry, such as The American Petroleum Institute. It can be dissolved or heated into a liquid that can be pumped through a pipeline but it is by no means light. As far as sweet, no and maybe. Sulphur content varies but cannot be called sweet but could depend on how it is diluted for transport and processing.

you were saying its sludgey which means mixed with a bunch of foreign substances
I did a search and it says refineries have trouble processing it for jet fuel. But I read they usually mix it with heavier oil to help adjust and maybe they retrofit refineries to deal with it. Doesn't seem like a deal stopper.
Why would rig counts be increasing so much if they can't use shale oil

As the lighter fractions are removed what is left is the heavier fractions. They would be solid but the refining process uses temperatures high enough for it to be a liquid/sludge.

Refineries have trouble refining kerogen into any of the light fractions, such as gasolene, jet fuel (which is basically kerosene), diesel, #2 fuel oil, etc. To produce these fuels to standards as set by appropriate authorities like the Society of Automotive Engineers, requires additional treatment that costs more. Refineries can be retrofitted but costs will always be higher than using oil as defined by the A.P.I. Not a deal breaker but a real on-going problem for the industry.

Rig counts are increasing because they dry up quickly and need replacing.

I was an oil broker in Oklahoma, and specialized in Oklahoma Intermediates #1 & #2.

Currently I work for Puget Sound Refinery [Shell] in Anacortes

Its not. You're a full ten years out of date. Technology and techniques have improved.

Attached: shaleoil.png (1095x810, 176K)

well I appreciate you talking and if what you say is true I got btfo.
Do you not think the technology has vastly improved in the past 10 years to change the dynamics of the oil trade? And that the tech will continue to improve to lower cost and environmental impact?

also how many people typically work at a refinery?

When the Saudis leave the international market everything will change and not for the better, if you buy petroleum based products. In the history of the 20th. Century oil business (awl bidness or earl binness, depending on what part of Texas you are from) 45 countries have been net exporters of petroleum products. Currently the list is down to 26, and it is unlikely anyone is going to be added. There is virtually no reserve capacity in production. as the world's population keeps growing the world will need more energy even if per capita use stays the same. But as societies increase in prosperity energy use will rise per capita. Oil production will not keep up with this so the world is turning to alternatives like wax (shale oil), tar (Alberta 'oil' sands), Natural Gas Liquids (propane, butane, etc), turkey guts, etc. as substitutes. These will cost more if standards are maintained, and even more in the long run if they are not.

What it comes down to, is the current owners of the world's fossil fuels intend to pump or dig every bit of them up and burn them, or sell them to someone else that will.

Shell currently outsources to outside contractors as much as possible. Add up contractors, employees, and management payroll is around $200,000,000 a year.

>Shale

We want California to have a massive earthquake and sink quicker. Shale is a win win situation.

Typical 4d chess retard trump supporter

You gotta account for musk. Solar to car etc . He wants to harness suns energy and use it for everything

I live in the boonies, I don't want to ride my bicycle 10 miles for groceries.

As far as technology the real changes occurred more like 15 years ago. It just took a while for implementation. Computerizing everything was the big deal. Slant drilling was the other really big change in oil field production. Fracking dates to 1868, and is not really a big deal. in the oil business, not natural gas or shale, fracking is mostly used to increase the rate of production in a given field, and not total overall production. Say you have a 10,000,000 barrel oil field of Oklahoma Intermediate #1. Using conventional primary extraction you can expect to remove 2,000,000 to 3,000,000 barrels of oil. Secondary extraction techniques, if used at the outset would be 3,000,000 to 5,000,000 bbl. Tertiary,same, would be 4,000,000 to 6,000,000 bbl. Fracking would make no difference in the geological formations in Ok in a field this small, but could speed up production by a year.

This guy hasn't linked you a single source and you're ready to show him your belly?

Alternatives, even when added together, do not even begin to compare to fossil fuels in cheapness (even allowing pollution standards) and volume. If you covered every roof in America to solar panels it would barely keep up with increases in demand, let alone replace a barrel of oil.

I have given him leads he can follow up on his own. Always the best source.

Umm space force? Fuck the world America's future is in the stars.

>Implying that if stop polluting then everyone else will magically stop polluting
Fuck off retard.

Attached: WorldWithoutUSA.png (800x1634, 340K)

>gpd drops
>shale oil productions starts in third world
>fresh water resources dwindle
>more blacks, mexicans, and samolians move into white neighborhoods as result of shale oil production and enviromental disaster
>juan gets raised by traditional machoism being a star in the football team and fucking teen pussy cheerleaders
>hunter and colin stay home playing xbox and jacking off to pornstars.

Your leads are "go find these Gov publications" that will either be a high level summary and will support the statement that the USA is a net oil exporter or will be so low level as to require a CPA and and an oil business consultant to maybe kinda sorta support your assertions about refinery capabilities and kerogen. You've provided nothing and you're probably larping.