How then, do we move backwards? How does a society, with most of the people having no clue of future events, move from being dependent on a vast and intertwined network of goods and services produced by the indigenous people of whereever, to a local resource and renewable energy based society, and do so in the timeframe available (20-30 years using the most liberal extimates, 10-20 with resonable estimates, 5-10 with worst case scenarios), all the while prices on everything increasing, world politics getting more militaristic, governments continuously reducing civil liberties, shortages of goods on the market and weather patterns resembling bad Hollywood movies?
Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 2:27 am Post subject: Re: Alberta
You need to understand that production will increase as new technologies are brought into play and as new development projects begin (Husky, Canadian Natural etc)
What contrary facts have you given me? trying to deny that is like denying that the sun will rise in the morning.
And yes i have the utmost respect for nature. It is a force more powerful than we are. We depend on what it provides and must unlock its bounty as best as we can.
Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 2:45 am Post subject: Re: Alberta
vampyregirl wrote:
You need to understand that production will increase as new technologies are brought into play and as new development projects begin (Husky, Canadian Natural etc)
What contrary facts have you given me? trying to deny that is like denying that the sun will rise in the morning.
And yes i have the utmost respect for nature. It is a force more powerful than we are. We depend on what it provides and must unlock its bounty as best as we can.
I hope that all the people who are sucking the blood out of the earth realize that there will be a price to pay. It will come both individualy and collectively. Exploitation has a price. So if you are just exploiting and giving nothing back, don't lament when you are starving.
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 1956 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 3:04 am Post subject: Re: Alberta
vampyregirl wrote:
www.capp.ca
Mmm, that web site had this to say about oil sands:
"the deposits contain as much as 173 billion barrels of economically viable oil, or enough oil to meet the country’s current energy needs for 500 years."
So I looked at Statistics Canada for some figures on energy consumption, and used the conversion figure, found here, of 6.1 GJ per barrel of oil, to figure out how the above claim stacks up (regardless of the practicalities of it).
According to Statistics Canada, the country made use of 9,980 petajoules of energy in 2006. That's the equivalent of 1.6 billion barrels of oil. So that 173 billion barrels would last only 108 years (assuming it could be extracted at 4.4 mbpd).
Notice that the site didn't say "liquid fuel energy", or "oil energy", but let's suppose that the author of that remarkable statement made a typo and really meant oil consumption. Well, Statistics Canada reports about 4,585,917 terajoules of refined petroleum products and natural gas liquids, combined, in 2006. This is the equivalent of 751 million barrels and so the 173 billion barrels would last 230 years (assuming it could be extracted at 2 mbpd for that long).
So the site you pointed at, to prove something or other, got simple calculations completely wrong. Most of your links don't seem to cast your posts in a good light. I seem to remember your saying you are an analyst; is that right?
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 1956 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 3:21 am Post subject: Re: Alberta
vampyregirl wrote:
You need to understand that production will increase as new technologies are brought into play and as new development projects begin (Husky, Canadian Natural etc)
What contrary facts have you given me? trying to deny that is like denying that the sun will rise in the morning.
And yes i have the utmost respect for nature. It is a force more powerful than we are. We depend on what it provides and must unlock its bounty as best as we can.
I need to understand a hopeful prediction? You may well believe that production will increase as much as you say it will but you can't prove that. You can't even provide evidence of your claimed 1.2 mbpd of oilsands production two years ago. It is all wishful thinking. This doesn't mean that you definitely won't get your wish but it seems unlikely at this stage. I have given you plenty of facts that show that; you have given no facts that support your case.
As for respecting nature, why do you like oilsands production so much and why do you appear to want even more oil to be burned for our pleasure? Unlocking nature's bounty as best we can is doing so in a sustainable manner. Do you understand what sustainability is?
Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 8:19 am Post subject: Re: Alberta
pstarr wrote:
You're envious of my 'expert' rating at Peakoil.com? God! Is that pathetic or what? .
Oh my Peter, now THAT misunderstanding is HYSTERICAL. I stand in AWE of your internally certified, forever true and wiki backed up "expertise", and every time you prove it by reaching for wiki in the hopes someone will mistake reading something as knowledge I can't post for at least 20 minutes until the belly laughs subside.
pstarr wrote:
If it makes you feel better KTH I will petition the authorities to have my coveted emblem removed so we can meet as equals on the field of combat. But first you must remove your fancy degree. Okay?
Fancy degree? You mean my certification from the "Gas Pumper Union Of America" which allows me to safely dispense liquid fuels into the tanks of th consumers who drive by my little kiosk every day? _________________ Freddy RULZ!
www.TrendLines.ca/scenarios.htm Home of the Real Peak Date ... set by geologists (not pundits) (or bankers) (or web "experts")
Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 8:25 am Post subject: Re: Alberta
vampyregirl wrote:
And tell me about the Basin Centered gas in Alberta
Oh Vampy! Now you are getting tricky with poor ol' Pete, bringing continuous geological formations into the conversation. Wiki's expertise on that subject is pretty limited, Pete is going to be at a disadvantage, particularly considering how those same types of reservoirs in the US have completely reversed our 1970's natural gas production decline and built another peak in production decades later. Pete won't want to talk about them Vampy! Not without dreaming up some EROEI mumbo jumbo to distract from how poorly wiki can put words in his mouth on this particular subject. _________________ Freddy RULZ!
www.TrendLines.ca/scenarios.htm Home of the Real Peak Date ... set by geologists (not pundits) (or bankers) (or web "experts")
Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 8:27 am Post subject: Re: Alberta
manu wrote:
I hope that all the people who are sucking the blood out of the earth realize that there will be a price to pay. It will come both individualy and collectively.
PRAISE THE LORD AND LET THE SINNERS BE PUNISHED!!!
No wonder people think religious zealots are at the heart of this entire issue. _________________ Freddy RULZ!
www.TrendLines.ca/scenarios.htm Home of the Real Peak Date ... set by geologists (not pundits) (or bankers) (or web "experts")
Deliverability of Canadian natural gas will decline by seven to 15 per cent during 2007-2009, says a National Energy Board (NEB) report released today. The report, Short-term Canadian Natural Gas Deliverability 2007-2009, says gas deliverability will decrease from 483 million cubic metres per day or 17.1 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) at the end of 2006, to a lower between 410 and 449 million [cubic metres] in 2009 (14.5 to 15.8 Bcf/d).
"The drilling pace that sustained Canadian natural gas deliverability is gone, for the moment," said National Energy Board Chair Gaetan Caron.
Dave Cohen wrote:
Increased investment in the tar sands is hampering investment in the natural gas upon which production at the tar sands depends! To make matters worse, decreased exports to the United States would result in less revenue available for natural gas drilling, which would lead to lower production rates ... and so on.
Stakeholders agree that the Athabasca River does not have sufficient flows to support the needs of
all planned oil sands mining operations. Adequate river flows are necessary to ensure the ecological
sustainability of the Athabasca River. In winter, river flows are naturally lowervi with low rates of
precipitation, and therefore, water withdrawal during this period is of particular concern.
Between those two factors I don't see tar growing much, barring alternative approaches like THAI or Raytheon/Schlumberger's microwaves. Latest I've heard about THAI was that it isn't delivering the way they expected. McKenzie River pipeline is still on the drawing board, Alaska NG line has been approved but is ca. 10 years out.
GW will impact glacial melt that feeds the Athabasca in the first place, too. Suggest you read Cohen's articles on North American NG, vampy. They are real eye openers. Links are in the EB article. _________________ Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
Walter, there is an unspoken message here.
Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 9:35 am Post subject: Re: Alberta
vampyregirl wrote:
You need to understand that production will increase as new technologies are brought into play and as new development projects begin (Husky, Canadian Natural etc)
So the entire basis of your argument rests on "The tech fairy will save us."
Tell us, oh wise one...What percentage of Canada's production is the MacKenzie project expected to be? Because the CIA Factbook seems to think it will be somewhere around 4%.*
You'll pardon us if we don't break out the party hats and noisemakers quite yet.
*Based on Canada's 2005 figure of 178.2 bcm/a, or 6.314 tcf/a and Mackenzie's...optimistic figure of 0.8 bcf/d. Even including the other projects that are expecting to use the Mackenzie pipeline, that only brings the total up to 1.2bcf/d, or 7%.
Edit: Wandering decimals... _________________ The whole of human history is a refutation by experiment of the concept of "moral world order". - Friedrich Nietzsche
Joined: Apr 06, 2006 Posts: 2788 Location: 3 miles NW of Champoeg, Republic of Cascadia
Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 9:45 am Post subject: Re: Alberta
You might also parse this http://www.tsldoctoral thesis (pdf) done at Uppsala University a few years ago. They project that if tar sands production were done flat out it'd still peak, most likely at around 3.5 mb/d. Or listen/read this interview with David Hughes on Canada's Oil and Natural Gas. Hughes is a geologist with Natural Resources Canada and has worked in the industry for decades. _________________ Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
Walter, there is an unspoken message here.
Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 10:30 am Post subject: Re: Alberta
From the article:
Quote:
Until adopting a new name and mission last fall, Arctic Oil & Gas called itself Bulldog Financial Inc. Its declared specialty was taking over and collecting on "subprime" or high-interest loans made by vacuum cleaner dealers to risky or delinquent buyers of their machines on instalment plans.
_________________ The whole of human history is a refutation by experiment of the concept of "moral world order". - Friedrich Nietzsche
Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 10:35 am Post subject: Re: Alberta
Dreamtwister wrote:
From the article:
Quote:
Until adopting a new name and mission last fall, Arctic Oil & Gas called itself Bulldog Financial Inc. Its declared specialty was taking over and collecting on "subprime" or high-interest loans made by vacuum cleaner dealers to risky or delinquent buyers of their machines on instalment plans.
It sounds somewhat like a circus or sewer up there in Northern Canada (to paraphrase Lew Reed). _________________ ree rah rip ram. sunofabitch godamn. hidey didey christ almighty. rah rah crap
My back-of-the-napkin math says that in 2003, it cost approximately $0.58 in new investments for every cubic foot of NG. In 2006, that figure went to $1.38, and there was still a drop in production.
Let me restate that: In 3 years, the amount of new investments in natural gas nearly doubled, yet production still fell by nearly 6%.
And if natural gas production is falling, tar sands production can not expand sinificantly without a massive reallocation from either exports, or home heating. _________________ The whole of human history is a refutation by experiment of the concept of "moral world order". - Friedrich Nietzsche
Last edited by Dreamtwister on Thu May 15, 2008 10:56 am; edited 1 time in total
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
.
ree rah rip ram. sunofabitch godamn. hidey didey christ almighty. rah rah crap 
