Mark: yes, whenever you talk to anyone in o&g they're all for nuclear. Problem is, you're talking to people in O&G and to engineers. Not to billionaire investors, who actually control the money, and who fund lobbying organizations and "think tanks", whose only concern is promoting their pocket book.
Unfortunately, our monetary economy needs oil to maintain life. People think Green Energy will keep steel mills and agricultural industries growing. Maybe ppl can stop and think about what the supply chain worldwide will look like in another year.
So, do you think there are no billionaires poised to get richer by making solar and wind power equipment and cash in on government grants. Where I live gasoline is taxed.
@@disgusted3191 pretty much, yeah. Nearly all PV production is now happening in China, wind manufacturers are hanging on by a thread because it's nearly uneconomical to build them in the West. Only western billionaires profiting off the green revolution will probably be the battery manufacturers, and that's only so long as they can source their REs and other materials from China (which is the main producer and refiner).
I didn't hear someone saying that there IS more capacity in shale. The story here is another smart person who understands the challenge of energy for humanity. And yes, I vote for having him back.
@José Mercado You want reserves, at least PR: EIA: “We estimate that the United States had 44,418 million barrels of proved reserves of crude oil and lease condensate as of December 31, 2021-an increase of 16% from year-end 2020. Proved reserves increased 31% in Alaska, 17% onshore in the Lower 48 states…” Technically Recoverable US including shale oil is in the trillions bbl.
@@Nill757 You would fail every physics test because your answers aren't in the correct units. "Technically Recoverable US including shale oil is in the trillions bbl." -you sic Technically recoverable what? Methane, pentane, octane, butane, what? Just a bunch of whatever? Just "Technically recoverable US" whatever the hell that is? I don't put "US" in my fuel tank, I put C10H20 to C15H28. How much of that is "Technically recoverable US?" Be explicit. Further, what's the average energy cost per BTU recovered in your "Technically recoverable US" claim? Is that "Technically recoverable" because I'm using slave labor to extract it? Hard to say because your units are missing from your claim. What are the tolerances you're working from? How much is recoverable before I have to put guns to heads? Let's start there.
@@skeetorkiftwon reread. I said “shale oil”, ie a type of crude oil that comes from shale rock formations, and crude oil is indeed a collection of many compounds. It in turn goes to a refinery for individual compounds like butane. EROI is about 10:1 for shale oil. Don’t need any more instructions from you. Step off
“7-30 days” That’s technically amazing. It’s often months, with occasional dry holes in the old vertical well reservoir oil. As little as 7 days to complete a well? No wonder US became #1 producer via shale.
Interesting discussion but I heard nothing that counters what Leigh Goehring relayed in terms of peak shale. The title of this podcast suggests that Mark would be saying something that counters Leigh's message thus the title doesn't jive with the discussion. In any case, as always, an interesting insight into the extraction process. I didn't catch how injecting sand would force out the oil though. Does the sand actually push out the oil through rock fissures? Wouldn't a liquid have to be used to open the fissures?
In calculating costs of establishing a fracking well, the costs in fuel in vs hydrocarbons out, does not price in the externalized cost or pollution of atmospheric carbon
99.99% of Earth's History CO2 was higher than now. 90% of that time it was more than 5 times higher than now. Plants are STARVING for CO2 now. The last 50 million years Calciferous sea creatures took carbon to the ocean floor when they died... lowering CO2 to 180 ppm 15,000 years ago. BELOW 150 ppm CO2.... all surface plant life ON EARTH WILL DIE.
Great guest! The one thing that I’ve not heard a great deal about is he deep water drilling sector, which has plenty of room for expansion. While brutally expensive the amount of conventional oil a successful well produces can be staggering. Ten years ago when I was Captain on an Ultra Deep Water Drill Ships our managers indicated that a successful deep water well might yield 30,000 Barrels a day for twenty years or more.
Art Berman would totally destroy him. 1:30 EROI (standard) for any unconventionnal hydrocarbon would be nothing short of miraculous, but Hinaman giving 1:30 EROI for shale gas (source : trust me bro), for crying out loud ? That would mean that US shale oil is outyielding conventionnal oil EROI at it's peak in 1970. Hinaman himself just talked about a 1:5 to 1:6 short term return on capital investment, so now that's more close to the actual EROI of shale oil. In all available litterature the EROI of shale oil is 4:1 to 7:1. It means we're already teethering at the net energy cliff and yet those shale oil field are said to be all the tier 1 assets. At this rate you can discover 10 more "saudi arabia" of shale oil field and would still not even cushion the fast descent at the right side of the global peak oil bell curve. Saudi arabia was not only vast but also extremely high EROI, close to 100 and in the early days probably even unbelievably high. In the US in the 20's the yield at the well head of any random oil well was 1000:1. In the end it does not even matter if low EROI net cliff danglers hydrocarbon sources are peaking or not, it's already dead volume energy.
I would note that Mark Hinaman and his company Franklin Mountain Energy operate and produce a mere 110 unconventional wells in Lea County, New Mexico out of the 46,000+ unconventional wells in the Permian Basin. Mr. Hinaman barely mentioned "shale oil " and did not at all mention the problems facing operators with declining EURs and productivity in the Permian basin. Last Mr. Hinaman ignored the emerging problem of earthquakes in the Permian basin caused by disposing vast quantities of produced brine water into deep horizons.
I worked in the construction industry until recently retired, but still have contacts in the industry, so fairly up to date. If anyone thinks that AI and robots can build even an average size house with no human help, then I've got a bridge over a swamp to sell them!
So as with the UAE, there's a big cost driven incentive to go Nuclear. It should have been obvious in the 1950s why mining and refining have been ignored by the intention to sell more fossil fuel products than government providing service obligations.
Oh guys, I love this pod but it's hard to take you guys serious when you spitball something like a wind turbines can't produce enough energy to make itself. It's not hard to do the math on this. I like Mark Nelson he is nuanced on every form of energy
Believe you’re a physician Chris Keefer, watching Mark Hinaman‘s face he came across to me as someone who was deeply troubled, but not in a good way. Maybe I’m wrong but I felt you were picking this up towards the end of the discussion. If Mark felt so strongly and with his experience of the Oil/Gas fracking industry as he claims why ( and don’t know why you didn’t raise it Chris) did he not mention Deep Geothermal, I found this very odd. I’m sorry but I don’t believe Mark Hinaman is interested in alleviating poverty, probably more interested in making money for himself by getting his foot in the door of the Nuclear industry especially from networking and through people like yourself Chris. And to talk as if its a simple matter of wanting to simplify nuclear regulations worries me, and I’m sure quite a few other people. I follow Nate Hagens and what worried me from this conversation was the thought of Nuclear Power providing unlimited energy to humanity, as though we haven’t done enough damage to the biosphere, and would truly have become the Super Organism, unfortunately a cancerous one🤔
Every person you "lift out of poverty" produces more people, consuming more materials, straining more resources, and accelerating collapse. Nice plan you got there, be a shame if it ever happened.
@@Nill757 I'm not, my enemies are trying to neuter you, get you to abort your children, ruin your familial wealth with divorce and family court. But declining EROEI is going to make you poor if you can't become self sufficient. You're dependent on food from trucks, and that's not sustainable. Fix it.
You are part of the group of folks who are so great at taking the carbon out of the ground and putting it into the air. Getting better and better at it least in the shorter term. The technical means are impressive but less so are the morals and ethics of the enabling that the hydrocarbons do for us and our relationship to the planet as a whole. We may benefit from the power but what are the costs and who or what bear them? The rewards are great for you and your family but good luck to the coming generations if there are any. The sooner we stop the indulgence of power hungry humanity (myself included - I can't stop myself) the better chance of getting a reset with far fewer humans in the apex predator role. How many would the world support without fossil fuels, debt, industrial agriculture and generally living beyond our means?
“Putting it into the air “ No, they stop at getting it out of the ground. It’s you, all you that burns it. You “are part of that group “ that burns it.
I ABSOLUTELY refuse to entertain the idea of genocide as a possible solution to overpopulation... I am not convinced that extra CO2 is a bad thing. But as a carbon-based lifeform who understands the carbon cycle, I might be a little biased.
The problem for the non US world as your guest indicated is the lack of individual property rights in the rest of the world which limits their energy production potential.
Dr. Ingraffea a co-developer of fracking technology said that despite enormous experimenting with sealing the well casing you always have around 8% failure rate when introducing the approximately up to 15,000 pounds per square inch (psi) while fracking. Please tell me have you gotten better at lowering the initial sealing failure rates?
@@Nill757 8% initial failure rates meaning no gas and polluted ground water for what? Dr. Ingraffea told me despite tons of experimentation and money spent on better well seals they could not get past the 8 % initial failure rates. So apparently you are saying, "So what? 8% overhead", and you seem to be not thinking about people/kids having to drink polluted toxic water and their properties that are now unsellable.
@@hafunland894 Ingraffea did not say failed well casing seal is the same as ground water pollution. That’s your invention. It’s like saying every mechanical problem with an aircraft on the ground means a crash. It could cause problems if not fixed, in some cases.
@@Nill757 Traditional wells drilled after 2009 had a leak rate of about 2 percent; the rate for unconventional wells was about 6 percent, the study found, provided by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection shows bubbling due to impaired cementing in an unconventional gas well in Pennsylvania, In Pennsylvania's fracking boom, new and more unconventional wells leaked far more than older and traditional wells, according to a study of inspections of more than 41,000 wells drilled. And that means that that methane leaks could be a problem for drilling across the nation, said the author of the study, which funded in part by environmental activist groups and criticized by the energy industry. The study was published Monday by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. (AP Photo/Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection) The leak rate reached as high as nearly 10 percent horizontally drilled wells for before and after 2009 in the northeastern part of the state, where drilling is hot and heavy. IF you are getting money from horizontal fracking nothing I could EVER say to you will have any merit. I talked to tons of people in Dimmock Pa that had their water wells ruined, property values going to crap and fighting Cabot Gas tooth and nail to say hey you guys did this. I'm sure you are somehow in the industry and have no conscious about the victims of horizontal fracking and will downplay any faults of your industry. Sociopaths do this with ease...
“I’m sure you are somehow in the industry” Sure you are. I’ve never worked in, invested in, held a stock in the oil gas business, but you’re sure, because you’re a wanna be Mussolini telling people what they do and what they think think, esp anybody that sees problems with your transparent messiah complex.
So diesel probably did peak in 2018? I think that’s where the volatility in the economy is coming from. Shit loads of debt combined with expensive fuel, it’s not a good combination….
@@TheSGStandard they were clearly talking about big change. Also, while current BAU will likely cause a lot of harm, it will “not destroy all life on earth”. I know the IPCC science and nowhere in there is there any such claim. I’m an environmentalist, so I reject anti science. You’re assertions lead not to environmentalism but to anti humanism, and a rationale for taking any action whatsoever in pursuit of your agenda.
Good content, i will spread the word. One word of warning, Yuval Hariri is full of it. Apart from that different opinion, I will be following you. Kind regards
Australia is the place. It had the coal seam gas revolution after USA. Queensland has 'oil shale twins' Gladstone dating back to 1960s. A demonstration plant was built. I know there were issues, but it didn't serm to go anywhere.
Totaling up the amount of lobby money contributed by all those in the fossil fuel & renewable energy industries and compare it against what the amount provided by the nuclear industry will answer why the green energy bill was voted down. The polititians don't even try to understand the nuclear industry for they are chasing the money, not the right or fair decision. Plus the nuclear industry is not an energy business, it is a safety business. More people in the nuclear industry are financially incentivised to add safety regulation and cost then those in the industry that are not. The environment is very far down the priority list and polititians will contiue to believe those that bring the lobby money instead of what is the quickest way to decarbonization and softest impact on the environment. It seems obvious that coal to nuclear power, nuclear heat for desalination & synthetic fuels, & carbon fee and dividend is the best way to start to solve the environmental problems that come from low density energy sources but polititians chase the money instead. Reducing the cost of nuclear power and paying the polititians to allow it to happen is the only way that it will.
Might not be economic, but I wonder what'd happen if they injected hot hydrogen gas into a well that is no longer producing because they've extracted all the smaller molecule hydrocarbons, but left behind longer chain stuff. Might react and generate shorter chain HCs?
@@Nill757 Of course. The question is whether it might free up more energy to come back out, the way we currently put lots of energy into fracking to get more oil or gas out.
Gas went up 5x to $10 for awhile.Back down for the moment. What happens it goes back up and stays there via global demand. There won’t be any 100 reactors in the parking lot ready to go. And, gas has emissions too.
great show thanks! 34:40 “a wind turbine can’t produce the energy that can reproduce itself” can you point us to documentation on that? it’s always an arguing point with greenwashers, “they pay for themselves in so many years” etc
F ferroni and Robert Hopkirk have a paper out that does some of the work. Charles Hall and Jessica Lambert have another paper that shows it as well. BASIC materials science and chemical engineering ability allows you to cost out the production, however you'll need more training to be able to produce the differences in costs between systems as there is no method in place to use electricity to produce the concrete/steel/aluminium so that is largely based on second order evidence.
The mining and material processing for wind turbines requires the energy density of fossil fuels. Wind turbines are subsidized by oil. No oil, no mining or material processing at any scale that could possibly produce a wind turbine. The mining equipment, the steel, the aluminum, the refining plants, the concrete all exist because of Oil and the energy density of oil. Take away oil. No wind Turbines or Solar panels. Where on the planet are turbines or solar being produced from the electricity from solar and/or wind. Solar and wind are also being subsidized by non existent environmental regulations and slave labour in Chyna. Take away oil, no more wind and solar.
@@aliendroneservices6621 I've run the math on it. A wind turbine might be able to make itself as the energy in is quite low but a solar panel definitely can't make itself without escalating its own cost over a continuous feedback loop cycle
I really like this channel, I learn a lot from your guests but I am surprised that you haven't figured out that the truth about global warming is that while yes some warming is happening (About 0.8 degrees centigrade since 1900 till now but that is the natural cycle and is not man made. And most importantly it will not get worse or faster with increased carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has little to no ability to raise earth's temperature. In fact increased carbon dioxide concentrations in our atmosphere brings a number of positive benefits for humanity. One is that carbon dioxide is plant food and all plants thrive in higher concentrations of carbon dioxide. Many commercial green house managers deliberately raise the carbon dioxide levels in their green houses because it helps the plant grow quicker. Also when there are higher concentrations of carbon dioxide available plants can grow leaves with fewer pores that are used for taking up carbon dioxide, these same pores are also used by the plant to transpire moisture. The fewer pores, the less moisture transpired, thus making the plant a little more drought resistant. Satellite images show that deserts around the globe are shrinking because of plant growth, generally attributed to increased carbon dioxide levels. The current carbon dioxide levels are some of the lowest levels ever experienced in the history of planet earth and plant life begins to die off at around 150 parts per million. The fact of the matter is that life on earth over the last several billion years has been sequestering carbon, that has been derived from carbon dioxide, and we have actually reached a dangerously low level of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. The burning of fossil fuels has helped to raise carbon dioxide levels. I would like to recommend the UA-cam channel Yong Tuition for a detailed look at the science of carbon dioxide as a green house gas and it's potential for effecting earth's temperature.
I appreciate your views on nuclear energy. But to suggest we should loosen regulations is insane. Each regulation is a solution to a possible flaw that could lead to many people being harmed. I will bet there was no regulation to inspect for loose bolts on Boeing doors last month. But i will also bet there will be a new regulation next month. And shortly thereafter the airlines will complain that they are being regulated to death because of such "interference" in their business.
We MUST BUILD at least ~800 Nuclear Plants (over 2 Gigawatt) ASAP... to give us 50 years to transition our transportation fleet and Grid Power away from Fossil Fuels. Plus....it's stupid to burn oil...too valuable.
In the conversation about diesel, if E Musk broke in the podcast surely he would say solar plus his batteries are an alternative to remote generators. Seems like that debate should have had a few words here in anticipation.
The specific energy of a lithium battery is about 20% that of diesel. It would take a relatively huge amount of diffuse and intermittent green solar energy to charge a lithium battery in order to give the same amount of energy that a gallon of energy-dense diesel gives. Sunboards and wind veins connected to a national energy grid are the world's greatest con as without the vast and opaque ecosystem of industrial and domestic subsidies that renewables all receive and that the end user pays for they are uninvestable.
@José Mercado Thanks, but Those EIA charts don’t say “failing”. That’s you’re inserted term, can you see that? Any number of reasons for production to level off, which is why I asked the question. The Saudis for instance regularly, willfully, cut back on production to hold price. Visibly that doesn’t mean Saudi oil is “failing” imminently.
@@Withnail1969 . Saudi oil production *fell*, from 11M/day in late 2018 to under 10M/day, this summer dropping to 9M/Day. Why? June 2023: “Saudi Arabia announced Sunday that it would begin cutting oil production by 1 million barrels per day in July to support the "stability and balance of oil markets."”
Agree! Energy is the best thing that has happened to the human race! The sad part is that is used politically, its used for profit and wealth beyond beyond most peoples imagination, and its used for industrial uses that are polluting the planet. There are ways round all of the above. But it needs more work. 👍🌅
Lets all just ignore going past 1.5 deg C of global warming, and the nearness in time of that threshold, before 2030. Meanwhile biosphere food webs are undergoing collapse process already, predicted to go further, even after collapse of industrial civilization. Food shortages to hit Europe and USA, and just about everywhere else. Success at keeping up oil and gas industry supplies regardless of cost, means acceleration of tipping into hothouse earth. Difference between coal and methane production as energy source is same as makes no difference. Nuclear energy requires a lot of long term investment, expense, mining and long term complexity , such as powered waste management, which is what is already being lost with civilization collapse. Regulations reflect complexity. Do higher prices of oil and gas mean anything in an inflation economy, where the purchase price of everything else is also constantly rising? Nuclear energy was system subsidized by cheap oil and gas, and cheaper minerals mining for materials.
Shale demands fracking, as far as I know. Everything I've read during the last 20 years about Fracking is that profits are not good, not to mention that it can disrupt the surrounding water systems. It's just that the drilling laws have been politically jammed.
The specific energy of a lithium battery is about 20% of that of the same weight as diesel. It would take a relatively huge amount of diffuse and intermittent green solar energy to charge a lithium battery in order to give the same amount of energy that a gallon of energy-dense diesel gives. Energy diffuse and intermittent sunboards and wind veins connected to a national energy grid are the world's greatest con, as without the vast and opaque ecosystem of industrial and domestic subsidies that renewables all receive and that the end user pays for they are uninvestable. Renewables create heavily subsidised jobs, not cheap, reliable and utilitarian energy.
Could we start a movement? About the work of Hermann J. Muller and the fact he laid the foundations for our understanding of ionizing radiation effects on the genome… We need to build a movement, asking for the Nobel Prize organization to revoke his 1946 Medicine Nobel price. Even if it's a thing that couldn't happen, it could drive the attention of regular people on this historical misstep" We need 1000 scientists signing a letter asking that, just like the one that just appeared to put a halt on AI progress…
Author, Mike Conley who is working on a book right now about the other Mueller report. He wrote “roadmap to nowhere“ a few years ago and it’s coming out as a revised version with his new book “fear of the nuclear planet“ it will be published by Generation Atomic books are in a month or two I read a draft of the “other Mueller report“ it’ll be worth your time.
FYI, Dr. Chris, I’m going to replay this interview for my second hour of my radio show this week. WOBC-FM 91.5 FM Oberlin College and community radio energy news in space report radio show.
I seriously doubt that Mark would approve of a less regulated nuclear reactor in his neighborhood. So what if they use inferior grade materials and there are no backup safety measures regulations in place. Just use Chernobyl's design. It will save money. BTW, how many men die on oil rigs every year? And how many men die in nuclear reactors?
“Less regulated” You imagine for some reason that regulators must be doing it just right, that they can’t be corrupt, getting paid by big wind or big coal? Why would you think that? US once built reactors in late 60s, fast in 2-4 yrs, cheap, and safe, ran for 50 years, or still running. Today, Korea, China, UAE are building affordable safe reactors. US can’t. Why do you think that is? “How many men die in reactors” In todays modern light water reactors, there are zero recorded deaths from radiation in the operation of commercial U.S. nuclear power. Zero. Compare that with oil, gas, coal accidents w fire, explosion, killing people every other week. And then there’s the billion tons of junk thrown in the air.
The failure in Mark's analysis is that every return on investment analysis he performs only makes sense because our economic systems ignore the external costs of burning fossil fuels. His confidence in new tech is worthless, he talks about the money made from fracking wells but he assumes there is zero cost nad he has zero accountability for the consequences of carbon emissions. Chris's assumptions fall apart when he assumes that the consequences of climate change are decades in the future or even next century. Because of the failure of our economic systems to account for external costs we have an unrealistic expectation about the availability of abundant cheap energy.
I'm all for nuclear, but there needs to be a serious analysis of Fukushima and how triple redundant cooling systems failed during a grid outage. Also needs to be a prohibition on building near any body of water.
Most likely will be a period of doom before nuclear can be ramped up. There are just not enough nuclear scientists on earth to increase nuclear capacity at the pace needed. But, there will be eventually. We are in for another 70s, and then we should come out the other side. Watch the decouple conversations with Simon Micheaux. They are excellent
5-10 years till peak oil in the permian basin? my grandkids git nothing to worry about then - sooner better, lets innovate, simplify, get through the paradigm shift
“Let’s innovate”? That’s cat nip for grifters with some new perpetual motion machine to sell. Grifters are even applauded for grifting in green energy, “oh it didn’t work, not at all? Well at you least you tried to innovate. Let’s dance”
@@underbelly69 it’s quite silly to think you can innovate where you want when you want by snapping your fingers, and saying ‘innovate’ three times, just ask Elizabeth Holmes. Maybe the innovation is geo engineering. Maybe it’s more fossil fuel extraction awhile and mitigation.
![[UA] NAVI vs MOUZ | BO5 | IEM Rio 2024](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/CMBYk0cbGoA/mqdefault.jpg)
Mark: yes, whenever you talk to anyone in o&g they're all for nuclear. Problem is, you're talking to people in O&G and to engineers. Not to billionaire investors, who actually control the money, and who fund lobbying organizations and "think tanks", whose only concern is promoting their pocket book.
Unfortunately, our monetary economy needs oil to maintain life. People think Green Energy will keep steel mills and agricultural industries growing. Maybe ppl can stop and think about what the supply chain worldwide will look like in another year.
So, do you think there are no billionaires poised to get richer by making solar and wind power equipment and cash in on government grants. Where I live gasoline is taxed.
@@disgusted3191 pretty much, yeah. Nearly all PV production is now happening in China, wind manufacturers are hanging on by a thread because it's nearly uneconomical to build them in the West. Only western billionaires profiting off the green revolution will probably be the battery manufacturers, and that's only so long as they can source their REs and other materials from China (which is the main producer and refiner).
Quite possibly the best energy-focussed channel in all of UA-cam. Thanks for making these vital contributions to the conversation.
I didn't hear someone saying that there IS more capacity in shale. The story here is another smart person who understands the challenge of energy for humanity. And yes, I vote for having him back.
@José Mercado
You want reserves, at least PR:
EIA: “We estimate that the United States had 44,418 million barrels of proved reserves of crude oil and lease condensate as of December 31, 2021-an increase of 16% from year-end 2020. Proved reserves increased 31% in Alaska, 17% onshore in the Lower 48 states…”
Technically Recoverable US including shale oil is in the trillions bbl.
@@Nill757 You would fail every physics test because your answers aren't in the correct units.
"Technically Recoverable US including shale oil is in the trillions bbl." -you sic
Technically recoverable what? Methane, pentane, octane, butane, what? Just a bunch of whatever? Just "Technically recoverable US" whatever the hell that is? I don't put "US" in my fuel tank, I put C10H20 to C15H28. How much of that is "Technically recoverable US?" Be explicit.
Further, what's the average energy cost per BTU recovered in your "Technically recoverable US" claim? Is that "Technically recoverable" because I'm using slave labor to extract it? Hard to say because your units are missing from your claim. What are the tolerances you're working from? How much is recoverable before I have to put guns to heads? Let's start there.
@@skeetorkiftwon reread. I said “shale oil”, ie a type of crude oil that comes from shale rock formations, and crude oil is indeed a collection of many compounds. It in turn goes to a refinery for individual compounds like butane.
EROI is about 10:1 for shale oil.
Don’t need any more instructions from you. Step off
The lighter the oil the less products you get. The heavier the oil is, more products. Example. Grease, engine oil, hydraulic and gear oils, etc.
I am a recent subscriber and I want to commend Chris for the strong contribution to the conversation!! Very interesting insights from Mark!
“7-30 days”
That’s technically amazing. It’s often months, with occasional dry holes in the old vertical well reservoir oil.
As little as 7 days to complete a well? No wonder US became #1 producer via shale.
Interesting discussion but I heard nothing that counters what Leigh Goehring relayed in terms of peak shale. The title of this podcast suggests that Mark would be saying something that counters Leigh's message thus the title doesn't jive with the discussion.
In any case, as always, an interesting insight into the extraction process. I didn't catch how injecting sand would force out the oil though. Does the sand actually push out the oil through rock fissures? Wouldn't a liquid have to be used to open the fissures?
Isn't the new diagonal drilling all about HIGH pressure?
Fracking is LOW profit, perhaps this is the reason for high QUANTITY. 🤔
In calculating costs of establishing a fracking well, the costs in fuel in vs hydrocarbons out, does not price in the externalized cost or pollution of atmospheric carbon
99.99% of Earth's History CO2 was higher than now. 90% of that time it was more than 5 times higher than now.
Plants are STARVING for CO2 now. The last 50 million years Calciferous sea creatures took carbon to the ocean floor when they died... lowering CO2 to 180 ppm 15,000 years ago.
BELOW 150 ppm CO2.... all surface plant life ON EARTH WILL DIE.
Great guest! The one thing that I’ve not heard a great deal about is he deep water drilling sector, which has plenty of room for expansion. While brutally expensive the amount of conventional oil a successful well produces can be staggering. Ten years ago when I was Captain on an Ultra Deep Water Drill Ships our managers indicated that a successful deep water well might yield 30,000 Barrels a day for twenty years or more.
Let this guy debate Art Berman. I think he would get ripped apart.
This guy seems nice, and Art is an ass..
@José Mercado Eh? OP said “debate”, with Hinaman but at least w somebody. A fanboy rah rah is not that.
Art Berman would totally destroy him.
1:30 EROI (standard) for any unconventionnal hydrocarbon would be nothing short of miraculous, but Hinaman giving 1:30 EROI for shale gas (source : trust me bro), for crying out loud ? That would mean that US shale oil is outyielding conventionnal oil EROI at it's peak in 1970.
Hinaman himself just talked about a 1:5 to 1:6 short term return on capital investment, so now that's more close to the actual EROI of shale oil.
In all available litterature the EROI of shale oil is 4:1 to 7:1. It means we're already teethering at the net energy cliff and yet those shale oil field are said to be all the tier 1 assets.
At this rate you can discover 10 more "saudi arabia" of shale oil field and would still not even cushion the fast descent at the right side of the global peak oil bell curve. Saudi arabia was not only vast but also extremely high EROI, close to 100 and in the early days probably even unbelievably high. In the US in the 20's the yield at the well head of any random oil well was 1000:1. In the end it does not even matter if low EROI net cliff danglers hydrocarbon sources are peaking or not, it's already dead volume energy.
@@aryafeydakin Berman was an impressive peak oil analyst, forecasting peak oil 20-25 years ago and collapse. I missed it somehow.
@@Nill757 Peak conventional was 2005 and the final peak was 2018.
48:19 more energy equals more population, this runs counter to current goals
I would note that Mark Hinaman and his company Franklin Mountain Energy operate and produce a mere 110 unconventional wells in Lea County, New Mexico out of the 46,000+ unconventional wells in the Permian Basin. Mr. Hinaman barely mentioned "shale oil " and did not at all mention the problems facing operators with declining EURs and productivity in the Permian basin. Last Mr. Hinaman ignored the emerging problem of earthquakes in the Permian basin caused by disposing vast quantities of produced brine water into deep horizons.
I worked in the construction industry until recently retired, but still have contacts in the industry, so fairly up to date.
If anyone thinks that AI and robots can build even an average size house with no human help, then I've got a bridge over a swamp to sell them!
So as with the UAE, there's a big cost driven incentive to go Nuclear. It should have been obvious in the 1950s why mining and refining have been ignored by the intention to sell more fossil fuel products than government providing service obligations.
P&IDs are my O&G Forte. I love taking a set of drawings and then chasing pipe until I need the most senior operator to not answer my questions.
Energy is wealth and waste management is expensive.
I would love to walk down a nuke plant.
Oh guys, I love this pod but it's hard to take you guys serious when you spitball something like a wind turbines can't produce enough energy to make itself. It's not hard to do the math on this. I like Mark Nelson he is nuanced on every form of energy
Did you say that you're bring Art Berman on? When?
Believe you’re a physician Chris Keefer, watching Mark Hinaman‘s face he came across to me as someone who was deeply troubled, but not in a good way. Maybe I’m wrong but I felt you were picking this up towards the end of the discussion. If Mark felt so strongly and with his experience of the Oil/Gas fracking industry as he claims why ( and don’t know why you didn’t raise it Chris) did he not mention Deep Geothermal, I found this very odd. I’m sorry but I don’t believe Mark Hinaman is interested in alleviating poverty, probably more interested in making money for himself by getting his foot in the door of the Nuclear industry especially from networking and through people like yourself Chris. And to talk as if its a simple matter of wanting to simplify nuclear regulations worries me, and I’m sure quite a few other people. I follow Nate Hagens and what worried me from this conversation was the thought of Nuclear Power providing unlimited energy to humanity, as though we haven’t done enough damage to the biosphere, and would truly have become the Super Organism, unfortunately a cancerous one🤔
Every person you "lift out of poverty" produces more people, consuming more materials, straining more resources, and accelerating collapse. Nice plan you got there, be a shame if it ever happened.
@@skeetorkiftwon In case you’re wondering, blocking people from leaving poverty for your own interests is evil.
@@Nill757 I'm not, my enemies are trying to neuter you, get you to abort your children, ruin your familial wealth with divorce and family court. But declining EROEI is going to make you poor if you can't become self sufficient. You're dependent on food from trucks, and that's not sustainable. Fix it.
You are part of the group of folks who are so great at taking the carbon out of the ground and putting it into the air. Getting better and better at it least in the shorter term. The technical means are impressive but less so are the morals and ethics of the enabling that the hydrocarbons do for us and our relationship to the planet as a whole. We may benefit from the power but what are the costs and who or what bear them? The rewards are great for you and your family but good luck to the coming generations if there are any. The sooner we stop the indulgence of power hungry humanity (myself included - I can't stop myself) the better chance of getting a reset with far fewer humans in the apex predator role. How many would the world support without fossil fuels, debt, industrial agriculture and generally living beyond our means?
“Putting it into the air “
No, they stop at getting it out of the ground. It’s you, all you that burns it. You “are part of that group “ that burns it.
I ABSOLUTELY refuse to entertain the idea of genocide as a possible solution to overpopulation... I am not convinced that extra CO2 is a bad thing. But as a carbon-based lifeform who understands the carbon cycle, I might be a little biased.
Yup - helps plants grow and raise levels above the current geological minima😊
Chris, you will be pleased with Author Mike Conley and his new book “The Other Muller Report” it does a good short deep dive into LNT.
Where can I get a copy Scott? So is this the following to the on-line book he and Tom Murphy published a few years ago?
Thank you
One of the best decouple podcasts yet. Logic and reason are strong with these two.
only anecdotal evidence from some wells, no macro data
The problem for the non US world as your guest indicated is the lack of individual property rights in the rest of the world which limits their energy production potential.
Dr. Ingraffea a co-developer of fracking technology said that despite enormous experimenting with sealing the well casing you always have around 8% failure rate when introducing the approximately up to 15,000 pounds per square inch (psi) while fracking. Please tell me have you gotten better at lowering the initial sealing failure rates?
So what? 8% overhead.
@@Nill757 8% initial failure rates meaning no gas and polluted ground water for what? Dr. Ingraffea told me despite tons of experimentation and money spent on better well seals they could not get past the 8 % initial failure rates. So apparently you are saying, "So what? 8% overhead", and you seem to be not thinking about people/kids having to drink polluted toxic water and their properties that are now unsellable.
@@hafunland894 Ingraffea did not say failed well casing seal is the same as ground water pollution. That’s your invention. It’s like saying every mechanical problem with an aircraft on the ground means a crash. It could cause problems if not fixed, in some cases.
@@Nill757 Traditional wells drilled after 2009 had a leak rate of about 2 percent; the rate for unconventional wells was about 6 percent, the study found, provided by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection shows bubbling due to impaired cementing in an unconventional gas well in Pennsylvania, In Pennsylvania's fracking boom, new and more unconventional wells leaked far more than older and traditional wells, according to a study of inspections of more than 41,000 wells drilled. And that means that that methane leaks could be a problem for drilling across the nation, said the author of the study, which funded in part by environmental activist groups and criticized by the energy industry. The study was published Monday by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. (AP Photo/Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection)
The leak rate reached as high as nearly 10 percent horizontally drilled wells for before and after 2009 in the northeastern part of the state, where drilling is hot and heavy. IF you are getting money from horizontal fracking nothing I could EVER say to you will have any merit. I talked to tons of people in Dimmock Pa that had their water wells ruined, property values going to crap and fighting Cabot Gas tooth and nail to say hey you guys did this. I'm sure you are somehow in the industry and have no conscious about the victims of horizontal fracking and will downplay any faults of your industry. Sociopaths do this with ease...
“I’m sure you are somehow in the industry”
Sure you are. I’ve never worked in, invested in, held a stock in the oil gas business, but you’re sure, because you’re a wanna be Mussolini telling people what they do and what they think think, esp anybody that sees problems with your transparent messiah complex.
Excellent.
So diesel probably did peak in 2018? I think that’s where the volatility in the economy is coming from. Shit loads of debt combined with expensive fuel, it’s not a good combination….
US sour production might have peaked. Not elsewhere, so trade domestic sweet or refined gasoline to S America, US already largest supplier.
so.... business as usual... and hope for an energy revelution before all of us die from our own waste. I don´t like that plan.
“business as usual … all of us die”
Yeah that’s not what they said, meaning, they didn’t say what you wanted, so you put some words in their mouths.
Do you disagree that they are talking about business as usual? Or that the waste products of business as usual will destroy life on earth? Or both?
@@TheSGStandard they were clearly talking about big change.
Also, while current BAU will likely cause a lot of harm, it will “not destroy all life on earth”. I know the IPCC science and nowhere in there is there any such claim. I’m an environmentalist, so I reject anti science. You’re assertions lead not to environmentalism but to anti humanism, and a rationale for taking any action whatsoever in pursuit of your agenda.
Good content, i will spread the word. One word of warning, Yuval Hariri is full of it. Apart from that different opinion, I will be following you. Kind regards
Australia is the place. It had the coal seam gas revolution after USA. Queensland has 'oil shale twins' Gladstone dating back to 1960s. A demonstration plant was built. I know there were issues, but it didn't serm to go anywhere.
I have to agree with him. Who thought fracking would work . Then the challenges will be met
Totaling up the amount of lobby money contributed by all those in the fossil fuel & renewable energy industries and compare it against what the amount provided by the nuclear industry will answer why the green energy bill was voted down. The polititians don't even try to understand the nuclear industry for they are chasing the money, not the right or fair decision. Plus the nuclear industry is not an energy business, it is a safety business. More people in the nuclear industry are financially incentivised to add safety regulation and cost then those in the industry that are not. The environment is very far down the priority list and polititians will contiue to believe those that bring the lobby money instead of what is the quickest way to decarbonization and softest impact on the environment. It seems obvious that coal to nuclear power, nuclear heat for desalination & synthetic fuels, & carbon fee and dividend is the best way to start to solve the environmental problems that come from low density energy sources but polititians chase the money instead. Reducing the cost of nuclear power and paying the polititians to allow it to happen is the only way that it will.
Might not be economic, but I wonder what'd happen if they injected hot hydrogen gas into a well that is no longer producing because they've extracted all the smaller molecule hydrocarbons, but left behind longer chain stuff. Might react and generate shorter chain HCs?
Hydrogen would be yet more energy shot down the well.
@@Nill757 Of course. The question is whether it might free up more energy to come back out, the way we currently put lots of energy into fracking to get more oil or gas out.
CO2
49:03 49:04 49:05 49:06 "Let's use it to help the argument to support more nuclear."
This is a corrupt position.
Who are both of you and what do you know about shale oil?
they are Harari followers.
Awesome episode. Nice complement to the previous one.
This was a very interesting episode!
It's more economic to build gas plants compared to nuclear with gas prices so low in the US.
Gas went up 5x to $10 for awhile.Back down for the moment. What happens it goes back up and stays there via global demand. There won’t be any 100 reactors in the parking lot ready to go. And, gas has emissions too.
CO2 🤬🔥
@@christinearmington
Yep. And pipelines, drilling, storage, methane leaks.
great show thanks! 34:40 “a wind turbine can’t produce the energy that can reproduce itself” can you point us to documentation on that? it’s always an arguing point with greenwashers, “they pay for themselves in so many years” etc
F ferroni and Robert Hopkirk have a paper out that does some of the work. Charles Hall and Jessica Lambert have another paper that shows it as well.
BASIC materials science and chemical engineering ability allows you to cost out the production, however you'll need more training to be able to produce the differences in costs between systems as there is no method in place to use electricity to produce the concrete/steel/aluminium so that is largely based on second order evidence.
It's completely false
The mining and material processing for wind turbines requires the energy density of fossil fuels. Wind turbines are subsidized by oil. No oil, no mining or material processing at any scale that could possibly produce a wind turbine. The mining equipment, the steel, the aluminum, the refining plants, the concrete all exist because of Oil and the energy density of oil. Take away oil. No wind Turbines or Solar panels. Where on the planet are turbines or solar being produced from the electricity from solar and/or wind. Solar and wind are also being subsidized by non existent environmental regulations and slave labour in Chyna. Take away oil, no more wind and solar.
@@ryccohThen why are there no countries majority-powered by wind and solar?
@@aliendroneservices6621 I've run the math on it. A wind turbine might be able to make itself as the energy in is quite low but a solar panel definitely can't make itself without escalating its own cost over a continuous feedback loop cycle
I really like this channel, I learn a lot from your guests but I am surprised that you haven't figured out that the truth about global warming is that while yes some warming is happening (About 0.8 degrees centigrade since 1900 till now but that is the natural cycle and is not man made. And most importantly it will not get worse or faster with increased carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has little to no ability to raise earth's temperature. In fact increased carbon dioxide concentrations in our atmosphere brings a number of positive benefits for humanity. One is that carbon dioxide is plant food and all plants thrive in higher concentrations of carbon dioxide. Many commercial green house managers deliberately raise the carbon dioxide levels in their green houses because it helps the plant grow quicker. Also when there are higher concentrations of carbon dioxide available plants can grow leaves with fewer pores that are used for taking up carbon dioxide, these same pores are also used by the plant to transpire moisture. The fewer pores, the less moisture transpired, thus making the plant a little more drought resistant. Satellite images show that deserts around the globe are shrinking because of plant growth, generally attributed to increased carbon dioxide levels. The current carbon dioxide levels are some of the lowest levels ever experienced in the history of planet earth and plant life begins to die off at around 150 parts per million. The fact of the matter is that life on earth over the last several billion years has been sequestering carbon, that has been derived from carbon dioxide, and we have actually reached a dangerously low level of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. The burning of fossil fuels has helped to raise carbon dioxide levels. I would like to recommend the UA-cam channel Yong Tuition for a detailed look at the science of carbon dioxide as a green house gas and it's potential for effecting earth's temperature.
I appreciate your views on nuclear energy. But to suggest we should loosen regulations is insane. Each regulation is a solution to a possible flaw that could lead to many people being harmed.
I will bet there was no regulation to inspect for loose bolts on Boeing doors last month. But i will also bet there will be a new regulation next month. And shortly thereafter the airlines will complain that they are being regulated to death because of such "interference" in their business.
We MUST BUILD at least ~800 Nuclear Plants (over 2 Gigawatt) ASAP... to give us 50 years to transition our transportation fleet and Grid Power away from Fossil Fuels.
Plus....it's stupid to burn oil...too valuable.
In the conversation about diesel, if E Musk broke in the podcast surely he would say solar plus his batteries are an alternative to remote generators. Seems like that debate should have had a few words here in anticipation.
Where's the solar powered factory that makes solar panels? Why doesn't anyone make it? Talk about it? Why is there no research paper on it?
@@skeetorkiftwon are none.
The specific energy of a lithium battery is about 20% that of diesel. It would take a relatively huge amount of diffuse and intermittent green solar energy to charge a lithium battery in order to give the same amount of energy that a gallon of energy-dense diesel gives. Sunboards and wind veins connected to a national energy grid are the world's greatest con as without the vast and opaque ecosystem of industrial and domestic subsidies that renewables all receive and that the end user pays for they are uninvestable.
@@Nill757 Maybe the world's needs to hear that question a lot more then eh?
@@dipladonic Exactly. And the batteries always consume more energy in their production than they store in their lifetimes.
The shale geological formations in the US are vast. Much of it untouched. When he says 5-10 years “core” does he mean just Permian?
@José Mercado Thanks, but Those EIA charts don’t say “failing”. That’s you’re inserted term, can you see that? Any number of reasons for production to level off, which is why I asked the question. The Saudis for instance regularly, willfully, cut back on production to hold price. Visibly that doesn’t mean Saudi oil is “failing” imminently.
@@Nill757 They do not cut back production. Only production quotas which weren't being met anyway.
@@Withnail1969 . Saudi oil production *fell*, from 11M/day in late 2018 to under 10M/day, this summer dropping to 9M/Day. Why?
June 2023:
“Saudi Arabia announced Sunday that it would begin cutting oil production by 1 million barrels per day in July to support the "stability and balance of oil markets."”
Agree!
Energy is the best thing that has happened to the human race!
The sad part is that is used politically, its used for profit and wealth beyond beyond most peoples imagination, and its used for industrial uses that are polluting the planet. There are ways round all of the above. But it needs more work. 👍🌅
The IPCC reports contradict themselves between the scientific analysis and the policies for politicians section.
The global poor don't need more energy. They need their land back.
Use as many different forms of energy that are beneficial to the people and the Earth. Seaweed can be grown to create gas for fuels.
Lets all just ignore going past 1.5 deg C of global warming, and the nearness in time of that threshold, before 2030. Meanwhile biosphere food webs are undergoing collapse process already, predicted to go further, even after collapse of industrial civilization. Food shortages to hit Europe and USA, and just about everywhere else.
Success at keeping up oil and gas industry supplies regardless of cost, means acceleration of tipping into hothouse earth. Difference between coal and methane production as energy source is same as makes no difference. Nuclear energy requires a lot of long term investment, expense, mining and long term complexity , such as powered waste management, which is what is already being lost with civilization collapse. Regulations reflect complexity. Do higher prices of oil and gas mean anything in an inflation economy, where the purchase price of everything else is also constantly rising? Nuclear energy was system subsidized by cheap oil and gas, and cheaper minerals mining for materials.
Climate change is problem but there no food shortage in Europe or US, the biggest food exporter in the world. What is wrong w you?
Shale demands fracking, as far as I know. Everything I've read during the last 20 years about Fracking is that profits are not good, not to mention that it can disrupt the surrounding water systems. It's just that the drilling laws have been politically jammed.
The specific energy of a lithium battery is about 20% of that of the same weight as diesel. It would take a relatively huge amount of diffuse and intermittent green solar energy to charge a lithium battery in order to give the same amount of energy that a gallon of energy-dense diesel gives.
Energy diffuse and intermittent sunboards and wind veins connected to a national energy grid are the world's greatest con, as without the vast and opaque ecosystem of industrial and domestic subsidies that renewables all receive and that the end user pays for they are uninvestable. Renewables create heavily subsidised jobs, not cheap, reliable and utilitarian energy.
2%
Could we start a movement?
About the work of Hermann J. Muller and the fact he laid the foundations for our understanding of ionizing radiation effects on the genome…
We need to build a movement, asking for the Nobel Prize organization to revoke his 1946 Medicine Nobel price.
Even if it's a thing that couldn't happen, it could drive the attention of regular people on this historical misstep"
We need 1000 scientists signing a letter asking that, just like the one that just appeared to put a halt on AI progress…
Author, Mike Conley who is working on a book right now about the other Mueller report. He wrote “roadmap to nowhere“ a few years ago and it’s coming out as a revised version with his new book “fear of the nuclear planet“ it will be published by Generation Atomic books are in a month or two I read a draft of the “other Mueller report“ it’ll be worth your time.
FYI, Dr. Chris, I’m going to replay this interview for my second hour of my radio show this week. WOBC-FM 91.5 FM Oberlin College and community radio energy news in space report radio show.
@@scottmedwid1818 Keep up the good work Oberlin! ❤
I seriously doubt that Mark would approve of a less regulated nuclear reactor in his neighborhood. So what if they use inferior grade materials and there are no backup safety measures regulations in place. Just use Chernobyl's design. It will save money. BTW, how many men die on oil rigs every year? And how many men die in nuclear reactors?
“Less regulated”
You imagine for some reason that regulators must be doing it just right, that they can’t be corrupt, getting paid by big wind or big coal? Why would you think that? US once built reactors in late 60s, fast in 2-4 yrs, cheap, and safe, ran for 50 years, or still running. Today, Korea, China, UAE are building affordable safe reactors. US can’t. Why do you think that is?
“How many men die in reactors”
In todays modern light water reactors, there are zero recorded deaths from radiation in the operation of commercial U.S. nuclear power. Zero.
Compare that with oil, gas, coal accidents w fire, explosion, killing people every other week. And then there’s the billion tons of junk thrown in the air.
The failure in Mark's analysis is that every return on investment analysis he performs only makes sense because our economic systems ignore the external costs of burning fossil fuels. His confidence in new tech is worthless, he talks about the money made from fracking wells but he assumes there is zero cost nad he has zero accountability for the consequences of carbon emissions. Chris's assumptions fall apart when he assumes that the consequences of climate change are decades in the future or even next century. Because of the failure of our economic systems to account for external costs we have an unrealistic expectation about the availability of abundant cheap energy.
The worst consequences for climate change *are* decades in the future per the IPCC. Sea level rise 2100 is a 1/2 meter.
48:00 The most energy-impoverished country in the world is the *_United States of America._*
Mark Mills
I'm all for nuclear, but there needs to be a serious analysis of Fukushima and how triple redundant cooling systems failed during a grid outage. Also needs to be a prohibition on building near any body of water.
What's wrong with sea walls?
How are you gonna cool down the reactor ? you're gonna blow on it ? be our guest
You’re just fine. 🤬👍💥😆
You turned this old Doomer chick pro nuclear. 😑🔥
Most likely will be a period of doom before nuclear can be ramped up. There are just not enough nuclear scientists on earth to increase nuclear capacity at the pace needed. But, there will be eventually. We are in for another 70s, and then we should come out the other side. Watch the decouple conversations with Simon Micheaux. They are excellent
Shame the bunk about climate change.
5-10 years till peak oil in the permian basin? my grandkids git nothing to worry about then - sooner better, lets innovate, simplify, get through the paradigm shift
“Let’s innovate”?
That’s cat nip for grifters with some new perpetual motion machine to sell. Grifters are even applauded for grifting in green energy, “oh it didn’t work, not at all? Well at you least you tried to innovate. Let’s dance”
@@Nill757 its quite darwinian to resist innovation
@@underbelly69 it’s quite silly to think you can innovate where you want when you want by snapping your fingers, and saying ‘innovate’ three times, just ask Elizabeth Holmes. Maybe the innovation is geo engineering. Maybe it’s more fossil fuel extraction awhile and mitigation.
@@Nill757 keep on embellishing then, without innovating, see if i care
@@underbelly69 Plenty of innovation will happen, as it has.