Peak Oil heads: interesting info for you

[Must_B_Free]

Every time there is a gas crisis, prices go up, but then it is discovered to be more hype than anything.

I was watching a shop on Discovery HD about the Athabasca river in Canada and they showed the tar rocks. Apparently, Canada has more oil trapped here in rock than all of Saudi Arabia oil wells. Until recently it couldn't be processed efficiently, but it can now.

[Speck Tater]

1. NO! NO! Don't confuse me with facts!

I've devoted my entire life to my pet issue. If you confuse me with facts it makes me looks like a fool who has wasted his entire life! Please say it isn't so. Please say our civilization is going to crash and burn like we all hope it will.

[theophilus]

9. I think the info and the debate on Peak Oil has been focused on

the fact that prices for energy (and everything tied to it) will start a steady climb as long as it is based on petroleum. I have seen thoughtful discussion here to the effect that the "cheap" oil is gone. This article agrees with that totally. We are looking at sturm und drang because our suburban culture was built on cheap oil. What we might not have considered is the demand of China, India, Brazil, et al. These areas are going to out demand us. It is probably good that Canada has a huge supply of more expensive oil. We have a lot of coal. The question is, what is going to happen to all of this potential? Canada can call the shots. We can produce energy from coal but will we all choke to death in the process? The times they are a changin' and society will be different. It is up to us to proceed with caution and get the greedy crooks and eco-psychopaths out of the catbird seat.

[Nordmadr]

13. Here is a fact...you are stupid. Why don't you do some real

research and then come back and make more jokes.

Olaf

[Goldmund]

2. And they're planning to plan to build WMDs, too.

[Fovea]

3. Efficiently

How efficient? $30/bbl efficient?
Last I heard it was more like a $80-100/bbl product.

This stuff is a world away from light sweet crude, what our economy really runs on.

[Nite Owl]

4. Do you have any link

for this? As far as I always understood there was much oil there and it could be extracted but the cost of doing so is prohibitive. If they have found some new, cheaper way for extraction this could be a huge development but the fact that it is there and can be done doesn't make it feasible.

[Coastie for Truth]

5. Yes it can be processed EFFICIENTLY - just an environmental disaster

The sands are recovered in a process like strip mining (I grew up in the I-70/I-79 Corridor of South Western Pennsylvania - let me tell you about "strip mining").

It is these tar sands that are then retorted in a retort (a sealed vessel). This retorting is energy intensive -- you have to heat the daylights out of the tar sands to boil off over a temperature range of 250 degrees F to about 550 degrees F. This requires energy-- a lot of the hydrocarbon that you recover is burned to heat the retort.

The product of retorting a complex mixture of hydrocarbons that requires the same cracking, reforming, and distillation as crude.

Plus - you've got to dispose of the "spoils" - the sand and rocks that have been retorted. That is an environmental disaster. Take a look at Century III Mall in West Mifflin PA outside of Pittsburgh - built on steel mill slag and mining spoils.

If you're going to "retort" tar sand and get stuck with spoils -- why not just use Fischer-Tropsch liquefaction of good old Western Pennsylvania coal?

There is no such thing as "Free Energy" - unless you mean "H-TS"

[Democrats_win]

6. Yes, Its Canadian oil sands. Producing since 1978!

2003 article about Athabasca Oil Sands Deposit in Alberta, Canada
http://www.geotimes.org/mar03/NN_canada.html

--snip
Estimates of Canada’s oil reserves jumped from 4.9 billion barrels to 180 billion this year, making the country the second-largest oil reserve in the world, according to an annual survey conducted by the Oil and Gas Journal. The change catapults Canada ahead of Iraq in terms of reserve size, and decreases OPEC’s share of the world’s oil reserves by more than 10 percent.
--

from http://www.growley.com/war/can-oil.html

--snip
One of the reasons why the oil sands haven't played a larger role on the public policy stage is that until fairly recently, getting oil out of the ground in northern Alberta was time-consuming and expensive. Until the mid-1990s, producing a barrel of oil cost upwards of $15 (U.S.). That didn't leave much room for things like profits when the price of oil was at $20 - and it seemed especially ridiculous given that some OPEC countries can produce a barrel of oil for about $5 or less.
--
This article has a picture of North America's newest oil refinery built in the 1980's at a cost of $1 billion and produces 100,000 bbls of oil a day from Alberta oil sands.

on edit--yes, strip mining is required. Then the expensive retort and finally a similar refining that crude oil undergoes.

Helmholtz free energy: F = U - TS

[EVDebs]

7. I read the Wikipedia on it and you're right

""While not a proven oil reserve, it is estimated that the Athabasca Tar Sands field contains as much as one third of the world's total oil deposits, with a similiar amount in the Venezuelan Orinoco tar sands field. Current production at the Athabasca site yields 120,000 barrels of oil per day with an increase to 280,000 by 2010 at a cost of $4,000,000,000 expected. Athabasca oil production is currently just a fraction of the 82,000,000 barrels of oil produced daily around the world.

According to the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board, the Athabasca tar sands is the largest oil deposit in the world, with an estimated 1.6 trillion barrels (254 km³) of oil, of which at most 315 billion barrels are considered recoverable by the oil companies given current technology. Syncrude (http://www.syncrude.com/who_we_are/01_06.html), one of the oil companies involved in mining the tar sands, states that the entire tar sand deposit is twice the size of Lake Ontario. It is estimated the Venezuelan Orinoco tar sands deposit is slightly larger than Athabasca (see tar sands article).

The Athabasca Tar Sands field is primarily located in and around Fort McMurray, an area that has only recently been heavily explored""

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athabasca_Tar_Sands

But with US demand at around 25% of the world's daily demand of 82,000,000 barrels per day, or over 20 million barrels per day ( http://www.gravmag.com/oil.html ) and with India and China wanting more, the Canadian source is simply a drop in the bucket.

So, I guess we're going to end up at war with the Canadians ?

Look into methane hydrates from the Artic and you see another source that is HUGE for natural gas (CH4 methane).

""The Methane Ice reserves are very large and accessible. If we could simply put a pieline down into this ice, we may be able to pump it up to the nearest shore and create important new areas of coastal development far greater than previous civilizations. Energy this cheap could allow us to desalinize sea water and power all of our civilization. This development could be very remarkable in undeveloped arid coastal areas such as Baja California and the west coast of South America, which are very near the Continental Slope. Desalinized sea water is the key to development in these areas. Cheap clean electricity and fuel would revolutionize the whole world. Agriculture could also be greatly expanded and world hunger virtually eliminated. Peace through world prosperity and the equality of this resource could liberate billions of people. Precious fossil fuels would then primarily be a source of valuable petrochemicals instead of just being burned. Life on this planet would expand rapidly, and all sorts of great new projects could create a new Garden Of Eden.

Current US Reserves of Methane are on the order of 1,500 Trillion Cubic Feet. Current Estimates of Methane Hydrates are on the order of 1 to 2 Million Trillion Cubic Feet! ref. USGS. This will give you a indication of the magnitude of this discovery and the potential changes to come""

from http://www.utopiasprings.com/methane.htm

also see US government reports at

http://www.netl.doe.gov/scngo/Natural%20Gas/Hydrates/about-hydrates/arctic-regions.htm

[earth mom]

10. WAR WITH CANADA???!!! F_CK NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :(

[rman]

15. Canada better work on that production rate

If the rest of the world is running out and we've got to depend on Canadian tar, and we're using 30 million barrels per day now, then by 2010 280.000/day is barely going to make a dent.

[Nordmadr]

8. Believe what you will, as will I. We shall see who is right.

Here is a little something sponsored by the DOE, just FYI:

http://www.energybulletin.net/4789.html


Olaf

[rman]

11. source please?

-

[arcos]

19. *crickets chirping*

It is a fact there is a lot of oil in Canada's tar sands, but it is very low quality, hard to extract, and environmentally disastrous.

The fact that the original poster had no idea that it existed doesn't make peak oil any less true.

[cthrumatrix]

12. non starter...takes "fresh water" and natural gas for the Alberta Tar Sand

maybe at $70 a barrel it's interesting

[cajones_II]

14. Just because they are there doesn't make them accessible

It's money and time. Granted this could be the time; at last the price of oil pushing $60 per barrel makes this refining process realistic,and worth the money; albeit the energy expended to get a bbl of oil is significantly higher than other oil products.

Peak Oil merely states what we all know to be true: there is a curve of discovery and output vs demand, and we have passed the peak of discovery.Demand is increasing exponentially however.

Just the fact that people are touting tar sands is evidence of this.
What is annoying about this desperate freebasing of the last oil in rocks left on the planet is it provides an excuse for one more day to not undertake serious alternative energy research.

Just because we can get oil from tar sands does not mean that we will see the price decline.

Or do you live in a dream world about that as well?

[arcos]

20. Exactly, you are absolutely right...

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[Wilms]

16. Keep it kicked n/t

[Strelnikov_]

17. Oil, But Not Net Energy, That Is The Problem

In the heyday of cheap oil, EROEI was 50:1 (net of 49 units energy).

For oil today I see figures of 8:1 to 20:1.

Figures I have seen for the tar sands to crude process indicate a loser (EROEI<1) to slight gainer (EROEI>2). Since only a few companies are involved, publicly available information seems to be limited.

Read a description of the process steps required to 'harvest' this oil and efficiency questions quickly come to mind.

Also, as others have mentioned, the environmental impacts are enormous.

In summary, it is no substitute for cheap oil.

[arcos]

21. Another excellent reply... you too are right... nt

[chlamor]

23. ding-ding-ding It's not the money people, it is the EROIE

Thank you for being the one to point out the reality not the abstraction. It doesn't matter if there are 4 trillion barrels. It doesn't matter if you can get 500 dollars per barrel. Best estimate on Energy Return On Energy Investments with tar sands is 1.5 to 1. That is all that matters. Let us all remember money is an illusion, energy is not and does not adhere to the laws of the Federal Reserve and the Markets.

Peak Oil is a catch-all phrase and it is here. You don't need to believe it, for the proof will be in our every day lives.

[EVDebs]

18. Must_B_Free, I believe that alternatives to Oil are needed and Peak Oil is

a valid concept, due to the inability to increase supply since 1973 or so. The same goes for Natural Gas deposits in their proven reserves, the timeline for oil goes out to about 35 more years, with natural gas to about 45 more years.

But methane hydrates as a source alternative to oil and conventional natural gas (which is mainly methane, CH4), is the best potential solution:

The Moter Lode of Methane
http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn_arch/11_9_96/bob1.htm

This souce would not be as limited, as oil shales and Canadian/Venezuelan tar rocks, but could be accessed by vitually the entire world community. If this source of methane is ever economically feasible, it would do DUers well I believe to consider it.

Most of the world's population lives along sea coasts; most methane hydrate extraction from oceans would be of necessity nearby. Desalination and pipelines to agricultural regions (like California's Central Valley, Imperial Valley) would be possible also. The Blue States would have a secure water source along with the rest of the world...freedom would 'reign' !

[Strelnikov_]

24. Methane Is 10X More Effective Than CO2 As A Greenhouse Gas

But when burned, methane releases up to 25% less carbon dioxide than the combustion of the same mass of coal and does not emit the nitrogen and sulfur oxides known to damage the environment

IMHO, I do not think we can afford to harvest this energy source due to the greenhouse gas danger. We have plenty of coal that we can use in the transition to carbon neutral energy sources.

On the brighter side, I have read that warming of the arctic and oceans may cause massive releases of these same trapped methane hydrates into the atmosphere, greatly increasing the greenhouse effect. We get a runaway greenhouse effect going, we probably don't have to worry about future energy sources.

[LSK]

22. oil is a FINITE RESOURCE - END OF STORY

Quit trying to avoid reality just so you can drive a Hummer.

The faster we get off oil as a fuel source, the better. And step 1 is to admit that we will run out sooner or later.

[Wilms]

25. kick n/t

[JohnyCanuck]

26. EROEI for Tar Sands Oil sucks & the pollution it leaves behind sucks too.

From a London Free Press article about the Alberta tar sands from March of 2004.

Oil project tarred with uncertainty.

<snip>

Campbell also believes that a lack of water will limit tar sands processing. Apparently, the supply is so tight in Alberta that the government is considering charging companies for it.

In the 2003 book, The Party's Over, Richard Heinburg also believes water is a big problem.

He observes that the wastewater pond for Syncrude is 4.5 miles in diameter and 20-feet deep.

In his book, he calculates that it would take 350 similar plants the size of Syncrude to meet the world's oil needs and together, their wastewater would be half the size of Lake Ontario.

Gallon believes that it takes so much energy to extract the sand from the bitumen that it isn't almost worth it.

http://www.fyilondon.com/perl-bin/niveau2.cgi?s=shopping&p=82637.html&a=1


Energy Accounting

energy return on energy invested, or EROEI

When an energy source that has an EROEI ratio of 4:1 is replaced with another, alternative, energy source which has an EROEI ratio of 2:1, twice as much gross energy has to be produced in order to reap the same net quantity of resulting usable energy.

This can be worse than it looks. Consider that I inherited one barrel of oil, and the EROEI was 4:1. I could use my one barrel and end up with four barrels. Now consider that the EROEI was 2:1, and I still wanted four barrels. Well, I can use my one barrel to extract two barrels, then I have to use those two barrels to extract the four barrels that I want. Thus with an EROEI of 2:1, it has cost me three barrels to gain four; whereas with an EROEI of 4:1, it only cost me one barrel.

This means that when a society moves to using energy sources that have lower EROEIs, the actual amount of energy available to use (for manufacturing, transport, heating etc.) inevitably will diminish.

http://www.abelard.org/briefings/energy-economics.asp

EROEI for tar sands oil is approximately 1.5 to 1. According to the figures posted at above web site EROEI for Middle Eastern oil is 30 to 1. Now you do the math.

[Wilms]

27. What a mess. n/t