The future of oil supply

[PS_RalphW]

US production oil production is NOT 10 Mbpd. That figure includes refinery gain, which is not only non-existent oil, some of it is IMPORTED non-existent oil.

I find it difficult to believe that non-existent volumes are added to the total. I find it more likely that something is added to the total that you disagree with, the EIA folks in my experience are pretty particular about these things.

And if what you are saying is true, obviously when ASPO said they would review the EIA models and code, they would have screamed "they are adding i numbers to make the totals what they wish!!" from the nearest rooftop. And they didn't.

Believe it. They do. Refinery gain is simply increase in volume between high density oil and lower density refined products. There is less primary energy in the finished products. It is simply an accounting convenience to explain why the numbers don't balance to the scientifically illiterate. All oil professionals understand this implicitly, but it is promoted as US oil production by industry pr and is blatantly dishonest. You are being blatantly dishonest and are clearly a paid troll or you would,the so dismissive of such an obvious truth

[RenewableCandy]

I'm not sure "(team) ralph" could even place the UK on a map, let alone actually know anything about it.

[Ralph]

You have to realise that the population density in the UK is about ten times that of the US and the shale areas are under the most densely populated parts. The counties for about 100 miles around London are also the wealthiest in the country, they are the commuter areas for the city of London financial area, and are ones to be fracked, the Balcombe site being in this area.

These people do not give a toss about the cost of fuel or what it might cost Joe Bloggs living on a council estate. If it costs them over £100 per week to fill up the Range Rover, are they bovvered? Nah! In rural areas they don't have a gas connection anyway and have probably had a very expensive biomass boiler or heat pump fitted to replace the old oil boiler and cook on an electric Aga. Gas is of no consequence to them unless someone wants to spoil the peace of "their" countryside looking for it. They would even, horror of horrors, vote LibDem if their Tory MP supported fracking.

So you are describing a NIMBY problem rather than a resource problem. All countries make a choice, and certainly you are saying that your rich folks will stop the country from being energy independent in terms of natural gas.

That is a choice made by the people living there, and has nothing to do with lack of resource being the problem then. It happens in smaller areas in the States as well, but resource plays cover some vast areas in the States, so we got more resource area than we do rich folks to object to their development.

[Ralph]

Refinery gain is simply increase in volume between high density oil and lower density refined products. There is less primary energy in the finished products. It is simply an accounting convenience to explain why the numbers don't balance to the scientifically illiterate.

Oh, I will call the EIA and ask them rather than take your word for it. Increases in volume are increases in volume, they are not the phantom numbers you appear to imply. Possible of course, but still unlikely. If in fact there is a volume gain, it is a volume gain of SOMETHING rather than nothing. Be it light ends or heavy.

As far as those being scientifically illiterate, it strikes me that those who account for refinery products know more about the chemical engineering involved, so I shall call, ask, and report back on what the answer is from those who have done it.

Unless you are speaking from personal experience and have manufactured numbers to make some national level estimates line up yourself?

Shouldn't be too difficult, and it has always amazed me that this isn't the answer from lots of folks when trying to understand these topics, rather than spouting off what might have been a standard oil-ignorant answer from TOD or something.

I will report back.

[vtsnowedin]

Refinery gain is simply increase in volume between high density oil and lower density refined products. There is less primary energy in the finished products. It is simply an accounting convenience to explain why the numbers don't balance to the scientifically illiterate.

Oh, I will call the EIA and ask them rather than take your word for it. Increases in volume are increases in volume, they are not the phantom numbers you appear to imply. Possible of course, but still unlikely. If in fact there is a volume gain, it is a volume gain of SOMETHING rather than nothing. Be it light ends or heavy.

As far as those being scientifically illiterate, it strikes me that those who account for refinery products know more about the chemical engineering involved, so I shall call, ask, and report back on what the answer is from those who have done it.

Unless you are speaking from personal experience and have manufactured numbers to make some national level estimates line up yourself?

Shouldn't be too difficult, and it has always amazed me that this isn't the answer from lots of folks when trying to understand these topics, rather than spouting off what might have been a standard oil-ignorant answer from TOD or something.

I will report back.

The problem comes from using liquid measure which tracks volume not unit weight. If they kept track of it by the metric tonne in and tonne out all would balance and the "gains" would disappear. Of course if someone actually delivered thee crude in 42 gallon drums then waited to reclaim his finished product to ship back home he would run out of drums before he ran out of product do to the lower unit weight of many of the top of the tower products.

[Ralph]

I will report back.

The problem comes from using liquid measure which tracks volume not unit weight.

I read the EIA definitions on it, so far it doesn't sound like the way Ralph has described, just a measure he doesn't like as the molecules are rearranged. The EIA definition focuses on density of the products and the change as the molecules are rearranged.

I would speculate that the gas inputs into the refinery process could contribute to this as well, I know that refineries require light end inputs, quite substantial ones, and like a saturated oil in the reservoir, volume is increased as the oil is saturated with the gas.

But the EIA has refinery experts, shouldn't be hard to find out from them.

[RenewableCandy]

It's obfuscating. Again.

[PS_RalphW]

The energy content of different oil products is very well known and easy to look up. Basically the heavier the oil, the more carbon carbon bonds, and these release more energy than carbon hydrogen bonds when oxidised. NGLs have about 70% the energy of typical crude oil, similar to petrol, by volume Diesel has slightly more energy and is denser and is a longer chain mix of hydrocarbons. All basic chemistry. By no means are all oils equal. Very heavy oils have slightly more energy, but this is offset by the extra processing they need to make them usable.

[vtsnowedin]

I would speculate that the gas inputs into the refinery process could contribute to this as well, I know that refineries require light end inputs, quite substantial ones, and like a saturated oil in the reservoir, volume is increased as the oil is saturated with the gas.

But the EIA has refinery experts, shouldn't be hard to find out from them.

An honest accounting of gas inputs would use their barrel of oil equivalents and probably are being accounted for. After all the refinery has to pay for the natural gas it uses to heat and cook the crude plus any that is added to heavy crudes to get the mix right. Company bean counters are usually pretty good at tracking every cost that has a bill attached but not so good on depreciation, wear and tear and resource depletion.
But even if no gas was added to a light crude there would still be gains in volume.

[Ralph]

The energy content of different oil products is very well known and easy to look up. Basically the heavier the oil, the more carbon carbon bonds, and these release more energy than carbon hydrogen bonds when oxidised. NGLs have about 70% the energy of typical crude oil, similar to petrol, by volume Diesel has slightly more energy and is denser and is a longer chain mix of hydrocarbons. All basic chemistry. By no means are all oils equal. Very heavy oils have slightly more energy, but this is offset by the extra processing they need to make them usable.

We know. The question is whether or not people are just making things up to get numbers to balance, or properly accounting for all of the carbons and hydrogens in, versus the carbons and hydrogens out.

Like I said, I shall ask. No point in asking general chemistry questions when you can dial up some refinery expert and ask them, the EIA is funded by the US government to answer wild and crazy questions from their citizens, might as well see my tax dollars in action.

[Ralph]

But even if no gas was added to a light crude there would still be gains in volume.

Ralph said there aren't real gains in volume, just made up numbers to try and get things to balance. I have no objection to gains in volume HONESTLY, it is the "gee they just make stuff up" attitude from those who are eager to grab a TOD quality answer rather than the right one. Seems reasonable to call an expert and ask.

[Ralph]

I find it difficult to believe that non-existent volumes are added to the total.

Believe it. They do. Refinery gain is simply increase in volume between high density oil and lower density refined products.

Ralph is quite correct. Refinery gain is a real thing, the refinery takes in some volume and during the processing to less dense products creates yet more volume!

It is not an accounting gimmick at all, and is accounted for in terms of percentage quite nicely on the EIA website.

It is not a make believe number as some have implied, the actual volume of products demanded by the consumer is larger than the inputs to the refinery. According to the EIA this general trend has increased from about 5% gain a decade ago in the States to about 7% nowadays. Again, this is wildly exciting, because it implies an increase in efficiency in relation to inputs.

Maybe we can look forward to the day when we put just 1 barrel of crude into a refinery and get 2 barrels of finished product out the other side? Talk about dispatching peak oil by creating more and more consumer products with this stuff, has anyone looked into this as a cure to peak oil?

[Catweazle]

Maybe we can look forward to the day when we put just 1 barrel of crude into a refinery and get 2 barrels of finished product out the other side? Talk about dispatching peak oil by creating more and more consumer products with this stuff, has anyone looked into this as a cure to peak oil?

Are you mad ? Hell, why not convert that one barrel of crude into Hydrogen and Carbon Monoxide ? Then we can get thousands of barrels out ? Peak oil is ended, hoorah. Now, we just have to install huge tanks on all our vehicles......

[Ralph]

Maybe we can look forward to the day when we put just 1 barrel of crude into a refinery and get 2 barrels of finished product out the other side? Talk about dispatching peak oil by creating more and more consumer products with this stuff, has anyone looked into this as a cure to peak oil?

Are you mad ?

No. Why would I be mad? This refinery gain thing is quite interesting, if more manufactured product can be made from the same amount of feedstock, I want to know how far this game can be played!!

It is like putting a gallon of petrol into the car and getting twice as many miles out of it as normal!! Lets do it more!

Hell, why not convert that one barrel of crude into Hydrogen and Carbon Monoxide ?

As long as I can turn a crankshaft or make some power out of it, sure, why not!

Important question though, can I do this cheaper than turning gasoline into water and CO2?

Then we can get thousands of barrels out ? Peak oil is ended, hoorah. Now, we just have to install huge tanks on all our vehicles......

Not me. Maybe they require such things in the UK but here in the US nowadays the local trucking folks are turning to the cheap and abundant natural gas. Quite a bargain in terms of BTU when used for transport, been wandering if it isn't in my families best interest to collect a CNG powered car.

[kenneal - lagger]

Did I not learn somewhere that energy can be neither created nor destroyed or some such mantra. I think PS_RalphW said that there may be more volume but it has a lower energy density. That would make sense and shows that refinery gain is just a bit of window dressing to fool non technical people that we are safe with oil.

I thought Ralph was a technical bod and would know about things like that! Or should that be bot?