We cannot drill our way out of this oil crisis. Since 2000, oil companies working in the U.S. have doubled the number of wells drilled per year.
Although increased drilling has added new oil to the nation's supply, it has not done so fast enough to offset the terminal decline of existing fields.
We are going to have to import more of our oil. Period.
Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 12:16 am Post subject: Re: Alberta
pstarr wrote:
KillTheHumans wrote:
Blacksmith wrote:
To put it in tiny tot terms:
If natural gas was the same price per BTU as oil there would be no bitumen nor oil sands production.
Night Children.
A good explanation for why using EROEI measures to determine the validity of an economic event is nonsense.
Nonsense? You're making another lame RGD joke, yes?
Did I put smilies after what I typed? Did I sta...sta.....sta....stutter?
pstarr wrote:
If the energy return on a remote or difficult product is negative than why use another fossil (or nuclear) fuel to extract it? Why not just use the primary fuel as a primary fool? Oh. I mean fuel. Oh excuse me
You being confused, and inaccurate, is never a surprise. Would you like me to refer you to a wiki article on self help?
pstarr wrote:
But in all seriousness your comment displays a complete lack of sophistication and worldlyness. Sorry I can't argue with you any more
Devastatingly effective and accurate statements of fact have a way of doing that to you. _________________ Freddy RULZ!
www.TrendLines.ca/scenarios.htm Home of the Real Peak Date ... set by geologists (not pundits) (or bankers) (or web "experts")
Joined: Apr 06, 2006 Posts: 2529 Location: 3 miles NW of Champoeg
Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 9:18 am Post subject: Re: Alberta
Blacksmith wrote:
Please do not confuse bitumen with oil sands.
Not even a little? "Tar Sands" is admittedly off the mark but I (like many others) prefer it simply for purposes of being derogatory! It was a historical fluke that Tar was used to describe bituminous sand, like labeling the people in the New World Indians.
I say again: Sludge Refinement might have a positive EROEI, who cares? It isn't sustainable long term, barring some of these unproven techs like microbes or RF or THAI, that aren't dependent on the finite resources of water and NG. If you could have convinced the Syncrude founders at the beginning that they should conduct an extensive EROEI study to see whether it was a useful endeavor in the first place you might have done something proactive, but corporations don't think that way, as you may have noticed. I find most of these discussions of EROEI interesting but, in practical terms, useless. It's a logical and sensible way of going about business but you hardly ever see it being applied in the real world, where profits are the name of the game. _________________ Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
You got the wrong guy. I'm the Dude, man.
"We can find a needle in a haystack, but it is still a needle." - Colin Campbell on oil exploration.
Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 9:31 am Post subject: Re: Alberta
KillTheHumans wrote:
pstarr wrote:
If the energy return on a remote or difficult product is negative than why use another fossil (or nuclear) fuel to extract it? Why not just use the primary fuel as a primary fool? Oh. I mean fuel. Oh excuse me
You being confused, and inaccurate, is never a surprise. Would you like me to refer you to a wiki article on self help?
Let me reword this for your impacted brain.
Given a zero or negative eroei why waste natural gas converting tar sands to liquid fuel with that natural gas, when you can just convert the natural gas in a GTL plant without the extra attendant loss from conversion efficiencies?
In your world, which is better?
#1 conversion: Natural gas(all gone)---Petroelum?
#2 conversions: Tar sands (all gone & enviro nightmare) + Natural gas (all gone)---Petroleum?
My world says stop wasting your time on tar sands. _________________ ree rah rip ram. sunofabitch godamn. hidey didey christ almighty. rah rah crap
Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 9:58 am Post subject: Re: Alberta
I moved to Calgary in 2000 from Ottawa just for a girl. Perhaps it was youthful naivete, but that 'silly' decision is paying off huge dividends right now--I bought a house 5 years ago when prices were very low compared to now. I'm within comfortable walking distance to a grocery store, a movie theatre and several amenities. A 5 minute walk will get me to a bus stop that will take me directly to the downtown core (without any need of a transfer) in 20 minutes.
I miss my family and friends in Ontario, but I don't miss the foreboding sense of being in trouble of losing my job if I make a mistake. It's a worker's market here, and I guess this is what the baby boom generation took for granted in the 1960s when manufacturing jobs were their birthright. I get asked: "Do you work hard in Alberta?" to which I reply: "Nobody actually works hard here, ha!".
True, the service in restaurants is quite crappy over here, however.
Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 4:27 am Post subject: Re: Alberta
KillTheHumans wrote:
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.
Did you take some poll that no one has heard about? Or maybe that is what you are thinking? Go get a job with Monsanto, you would fit right in with the walking dead who work there.
Joined: Oct 25, 2004 Posts: 1047 Location: Stalag 13
Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 7:14 am Post subject: Re: Alberta
pstarr, shame on you. You have been around here long enough to realize that it's not possible to win an argument with techno-freak denialists, no matter how many correct facts you throw at them. Let it rest and just ignore them. They are just looking for attention and really aren't worth the trouble.
Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 4:53 pm Post subject: Re: Alberta
Dreamtwister wrote:
Dezakin wrote:
Dreamtwister wrote:
And if natural gas production is falling, tar sands production can not expand sinificantly without a massive reallocation from either exports, or home heating.
Or nuclear power, or in situ methods.
OK, go build some nuclear power plants. Because...you know...they're so cheap and they go online so fast. They might come in handy 10 years from now, when Canada's NG production has fallen by 60%. But until that happens, tar sands production is limited by NG production.
Sure. I wasn't aware we were talking about next year.
Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 1:40 am Post subject: Re: Alberta
Dezakin wrote:
Dreamtwister wrote:
Dezakin wrote:
Dreamtwister wrote:
And if natural gas production is falling, tar sands production can not expand sinificantly without a massive reallocation from either exports, or home heating.
Or nuclear power, or in situ methods.
OK, go build some nuclear power plants. Because...you know...they're so cheap and they go online so fast. They might come in handy 10 years from now, when Canada's NG production has fallen by 60%. But until that happens, tar sands production is limited by NG production.
Sure. I wasn't aware we were talking about next year.
Well, you might want to get them started as soon as possible, no? I mean, it's not like concrete, steel and uranium prices are rising or anything...
It's going to be 10 years and over 6 billion dollars (CDN) from start to finish to build a nuke plant in Alberta, which means they are needed yesterday. _________________ The whole of human history is a refutation by experiment of the concept of "moral world order". - Friedrich Nietzsche
Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 11:24 am Post subject: Re: Alberta
Dreamtwister wrote:
Dezakin wrote:
Dreamtwister wrote:
Dezakin wrote:
Dreamtwister wrote:
And if natural gas production is falling, tar sands production can not expand sinificantly without a massive reallocation from either exports, or home heating.
Or nuclear power, or in situ methods.
OK, go build some nuclear power plants. Because...you know...they're so cheap and they go online so fast. They might come in handy 10 years from now, when Canada's NG production has fallen by 60%. But until that happens, tar sands production is limited by NG production.
Sure. I wasn't aware we were talking about next year.
Well, you might want to get them started as soon as possible, no? I mean, it's not like concrete, steel and uranium prices are rising or anything...
It's going to be 10 years and over 6 billion dollars (CDN) from start to finish to build a nuke plant in Alberta, which means they are needed yesterday.
If I held controlling interest in the provence, I would have started building a fleet a decade ago. I don't.
All times are GMT - 6 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Page 6 of 6
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
"Tar Sands" is admittedly off the mark but I (like many others) prefer it simply for purposes of being derogatory! It was a historical fluke that Tar was used to describe bituminous sand, like labeling the people in the New World Indians.
ree rah rip ram. sunofabitch godamn. hidey didey christ almighty. rah rah crap 
