PDA

View Full Version : World Oil Reserves - 30 Years Left



WWheeler
12-09-2004, 01:14 PM
http://dieoff.org/page224_files/image002.jpg

There's a number of sources that show world oil production declining dramatically in the next 30 years. After that point, almost all available reserves will be controlled by OPEC. The crossover event is shown on the chart above as occurring in 2008.

Similarly, per capita production has already peaked, an event which occurred in 1979.

http://dieoff.org/page224_files/image004.jpg

So, what's your next car going to be powered by?

km gresham
12-09-2004, 01:18 PM
I thought there were 30 years left 10 years ago! :confused:

Scott Rosen
12-09-2004, 01:21 PM
Originally posted by km gresham:
I thought there were 30 years left 10 years ago! :confused: When I was in elementary school in the '60s, they were teaching us that the world's oil would run out by the year 2000.

One thing about prophets of doom, is that if you wait long enough, eventually they will be right.

TomF
12-09-2004, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by km gresham:
I thought there were 30 years left 10 years ago! :confused: By which you mean to say ... :confused:

km gresham
12-09-2004, 01:23 PM
I thought it was clear! That means there are only 20 years left! :eek:

But according to Scot's sources we ran out 4 years ago! :eek:

[ 12-09-2004, 01:32 PM: Message edited by: km gresham ]

Paul H
12-09-2004, 01:30 PM
Considering there are alot of known formations, that aren't even on the books as reserves, I find the doom and gloom a bit over the top. Yes, alternative fuels and power sources do need to be investigated before all fossil fuels are exhausted. I laugh at the assesment that all reserves will be controlled by OPEC after 30 years, Russia, the US, and the far East aren't part of OPEC, and have large reserves. No, I don't think the reserves will be exhausted in any of our life times.

TomF
12-09-2004, 01:44 PM
I once attended a lecture by a noted demographer.

He said that the basis of demography was simple, but strict: each of us get one year older every year. And eventually, the future happens ... so we get to see if we were right.

t.

Alan D. Hyde
12-09-2004, 02:05 PM
In 1973, the doomsayers were predicting that we'd be out of oil by the 1990s.

They were also predicting global cooling.

And, remember Paul Ehrlich's 1968 book, The Population Bomb? In the 1970's and 1980's, millions were going to starve to death...

Alan

"I have tried in my time to be a philosopher; but, I don't know how, cheerfulness was always breaking in." Oliver Edwards

km gresham
12-09-2004, 02:11 PM
I forgot all about the population bomb! We're not starving - we're gettin fat!! :eek:

Anyway, why are the predicitons always bad? There's a question!

WWheeler
12-09-2004, 02:13 PM
I think you're missing the point. It's not that oil is going to be completely missing from the world, it's just that there's going to be much more demand, and that extra demand will become apparent in a fairly dramatic fashion. It become much more strategically important as to where those reserves are located, and who has access to them.

This is the most optimistic scenario, from the US Geological Survey. Looks pretty good, right?

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/feature_articles/2004/worldoilsupply/figure2.jpg

However, compare that with world population growth. During the period 2000-2050, world population will almost double to 9 billion.

http://www.prb.org/images/e-01.gif

So, just as world oil is declining, there would be almost twice as many potential consumers to use it.

TomF
12-09-2004, 02:16 PM
Give credit where credit is due, Alan.

At least hundreds of thousands have starved to death. And surely millions have tried.

It's not their fault that in Africa, at least, AIDS is currently finishing many off before starvation can have a decent go at them.

LeeG
12-09-2004, 02:22 PM
Karen et al,,something to consider is that all these charts showing various projections is that they come from the work of oil engineers,,folks doing the stuff. Kind of like if i'm driving the car and mention the tank is 1/4 full it doesn't mean the car is going to careen off the road or it'll stop immediately it means that I the driver am checking on something I'm dependent upon,people who have an interest in knowing how much is where are the people making projections,,they get money for being accurate,,they don't get money for pulling numbers out of their asses and being wrong.
It's not 20yr old liberal arts graduates putting stickers on their cars who make these various projections.
For an understandable assessment on easily extracted reserves look to a National Geographic of a few months ago.
The thing is Karen that the chart is a representation of data,,it's not an exact predictor anymore than a 1/4 indicator is an exact predictor of when i'll be able to get home,,but it's related if there are no other gas stations and home is 100 miles away.
This stuff really matters,,why? C.Rice was former CEO of Standard oil,,CHeneys Halliburton is a part of the energy industries, people who have been in these industries awhile understand that an oil field isn't forever,,the cost of extraction can change,,,sure new technilogies show up and new fields are discovered but trees don't grow to the sky. If China is expanding during a time when most projections showing inexpensive oil is projected to peak,,,and the cheapest, largest, most accesible reserves that the world is dependant upon are Iraq/Saudi Arabia,,then golly maybe we're there for more reasons than WMD,,or freedom.
Step back for a second and notice that these various studies being presented about pollution or limits of resources aren't being presented by people about to make millions from the projections,,it's truth spilling out of the work of humans. Just as GW/Allawi could say "things are getting better",,,and attacks/crime in Iraq are going up,,,you can't hide the truth for long.
So step back from the black/white and consider that if the driver of the car says "it's a quarter full,,we better find gas soon" it's not because of some devious plot to not get home,,it could be because the driver want's to get home.
If there are various studies saying tobacco causes cancer it just might. If there are studies saying incineration of modern garbage releases Dioxin it just might.
If there are various studies saying easily extracted oil,,that the world is dependant on,,is projected to peak in production in the next 10-40yrs it might be because the oil industry is interesting in how big the tank is.

Alan D. Hyde
12-09-2004, 02:23 PM
Starvation has not, Tom, been the result of inadequate resources.

The food was there for them, often not too far away.

Those who died were in most cases STARVED by their political or ethnic enemies, who kept the food from them.

Alan

LeeG
12-09-2004, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by km gresham:
I forgot all about the population bomb! We're not starving - we're gettin fat!! :eek:

Anyway, why are the predicitons always bad? There's a question!Karen, I have a prediction that my life will end sometime in 20-30yrs. Is that bad?
If my car gets 25mpg at 65mph and 20mpg at 80mph and I have to buy more gas is that bad?

the thing here is that when someone presents information that has variables it doesn't negate the entire message.
You know how you can blow off the fact that WMD haven't appeared,,the operational links between Al Qeda and Saddam don't exist yet STILL believe GW is running the show well? Ok,,there variables in GWs performance/veracity but there's still a message you get.
Apply the same thinking here,,there's a prevalance of articles and information saying there's some kind of peaking of production of low cost crude in the future,,it's not totally accurate,,there are variables,,maybe even some missing Resevoirs of Massive Proportions (but that's wishing isn't it?),,,could that mean there's some truth to it? Billions are at stake you know.
Did you know that James Baker spent 7yrs trying to broker a peace agreement between Morocco and guerillas in the Western Sahara under UN auspices? Why? not just because he's freedom loving,,but because Western Sahara has oil off it's coast,,Morocco doesn't. He finally quit as it wasn't happening,,and I suspect he's getting old,,more important things elsewhere,,but the western coast of Africa will be our mini-middle east,,not expected to have as large of reserves but big enough to PROJECT the cost.
Oil companies don't pony up $100million just for the pleasure of putting in test wells unless they expect a return,,the same science that justifies billion dollar committments is the same science saying "this field is peaking, production is now declinging,,estimate it'll be worth extracting for Xyrs at Y barrell price"...they don't pull these numbers out of their ass,,although the numbers are just "guesses" when there's 100's Billions of dollars and nations futures at stake the guesses tend to be based on facts. But anyone can choose to ignore unpleasant facts.

[ 12-09-2004, 02:42 PM: Message edited by: LeeG ]

NormMessinger
12-09-2004, 02:29 PM
Worry worts! If history is any indicator there will soon be discovered great new crude reserves. They probably already have been but to let us know now would drive the prices way down.

TomF
12-09-2004, 02:33 PM
Originally posted by Alan D. Hyde:
(snip)
Those who died were in most cases STARVED by their political or ethnic enemies, who kept the food from them.

AlanToo true. As I'm sure you knew, I was trying to inject some dark humour. Those who starved often did so in the midst of plenty - which illustrates some nasty aspects of the human character.

Still, I'd imagine that there are in principle some limits to the earth's carrying capacity. I wonder if/when we'll reach them.

t.

Oyvind Snibsoer
12-09-2004, 02:42 PM
Venezuela alone has enough known reserves to sustain their current production rate for another 300 years.

The Norwegian Petroleum Directorate, OTOH, estimated in a recent press release that the yet undiscovered resources in the Norwegian sector are at least as great as all hydrocarbon resourcs found to date.

Another untapped hydrocarbon resource of gargantuan proportions are methane hydrates. This is methane gas that is locked in an ice crystalline structure. One single known structure off North and South Carolina contains enough gas to cover the entire US domestic consumption for more than 70 years at the 1989 level! And there are a LOT more resources in arctic areas and deep sea areas. According to the USGS, the "worldwide amounts of carbon bound in gas hydrates is conservatively estimated to total twice the amount of carbon to be found in all known fossil fuels on Earth." There are some good technical reasons why this vast resource is left untapped, but serious work is under way to solve these issues.

Frankly, I'm much more worried about melting the ice caps than running out of fuel.

[ 12-09-2004, 02:44 PM: Message edited by: Oyvind Snibsoer ]

WWheeler
12-09-2004, 02:44 PM
There's coal and tar sands under most of the US-Canadian plains region. Several centuries worth just using current technologies. The problem with the tar sands is that to extract 100 barrels of oil, you have to burn 95 barrels. Makes the reserves a little smaller that way.

WWheeler
12-09-2004, 02:47 PM
Then of course, there's the strategic view:


Saudi fields are vital to world's oil supply
By James Cox, USA TODAY
Saudi Arabia is considered the world's lone indispensable oil supplier. But is it a reliable one?

A Saudi oil official watches progress at a rig near Howta, Saudi Arabia.
By John Moore, AP

That's what a growing number of energy industry veterans and Middle East observers are asking.

The kingdom sits atop the globe's biggest pool of oil and can outpump any other country. Over 30 years of war and political upheaval, the Saudis have prevented panic in global markets with a turn of the tap. (Related story: Oil prices fall on request for increase in OPEC quotas)

These days, other producers are pumping flat-out, so the kingdom's 2 million barrels a day of spare capacity are the only cushion for a world that burns through 80 million barrels of oil every 24 hours.

Prices have hovered near $40 a barrel following a terrorist assault that killed five foreign engineers in the Saudi oil city of Yanbu, as well as a Saudi. The incident fueled skepticism about the kingdom's reliability as a supplier, but doubts about Saudi Arabia have been growing for months. Oil industry executives and security experts want answers to three questions:

1. How safe are Saudi oil installations?

"Taking down Saudi Arabia's oil infrastructure is like spearing fish in a barrel," former CIA officer Robert Baer writes in his recent book, Sleeping with the Devil.

The Saudis have 262 billion barrels of proven reserves, 25% of the world's total. Nine percent of the petroleum consumed in the USA each day comes from Saudi Arabia, accounting for 15% of U.S. imports.

The kingdom has five giant fields that are connected by 10,500 miles of pipe, much of it above ground. A coordinated assault on five or more key junctions in the system could put the Saudis out of the oil business for two years, Baer writes.

"The choke points are too many to count," he says. His conclusion: A successful assault on the giant Ras Tanura complex "would be enough to bring the world's oil-addicted economies to their knees, America's along with them."

Abdallah Jum'ah, CEO of the normally secretive Saudi Aramco, recently went public with details of the state-owned oil company's security arrangements in an effort to reassure doubters. He said company facilities are protected by 5,000 security guards. "There is nowhere in the world that oil facilities are protected as well as in Saudi Arabia and Saudi Aramco," he said.

Nail Al-Jubeir, spokesman for the Saudi embassy in Washington, says the kingdom has spent decades beefing up security. "Our oil can come out of the (Persian) Gulf, or ... from the Red Sea. We've built in redundancies to make sure there's enough oil for the world and for our income for the future."

Those assurances do little for Matthew Simmons, a Houston-based investment banker who specializes in oil and gas ventures. He says he was alarmed by the light security at Saudi Arabia's massive Abqaiq oil processing plant.

To cripple the Saudi oil network, "All you'd need to do would be to get a big fire raging at Abqaiq," Simmons says. "It's got a chain-link fence around it. Chain-link fences aren't exactly the Maginot Line."

2. How certain is the ruling family's grip on power?

The Yanbu attack took place at a refinery co-owned by a state-run Saudi company and ExxonMobil. Various Saudi authorities have blamed al Qaeda, a Saudi fugitive who was believed to be in London, "Zionists" and other "external elements." The attack was an inside job: Three of the four militants worked in Yanbu's oil sector and used their company passes to slip into petrochemical facilities there.

Al Qaeda — and Saudi militant groups sympathetic to it — has targeted the kingdom's oil assets as a means of bringing down the House of Saud, which has ruled the country since the 1920s.

"Oilfields used to be beyond their agenda, but now they're including oil resources as targets, as well," says Fouad Ibrahim, editor of Saudi Affairs magazine in London. "Now, there is no place safe in Saudi Arabia."

Ibrahim and other Saudi dissidents say the attack in Yanbu proves what they've been saying for years — that radical groups have won converts among workers at state-owned oil company Saudi Aramco and key areas of the government.

Al-Jubeir, the embassy spokesman, says Saudi security forces have extremists on the run. The proof? "They're picking softer and softer targets" farther removed from the capital of Riyadh, he says.

A bomb blast at national police headquarters last month hit a motor vehicle office, not key law enforcement facilities, Jubeir says.

Dissidents say there is little danger of a popular uprising against the Saudi rulers. But the kingdom's critics are just as emphatic that more Saudis are becoming deeply disaffected with the monarchy.

Much of the disaffection is economic. According to United Nations statistics, Saudi GDP was $15,500 per capita in 1980 — $2,500 more than in the USA. Today, the figure is around $7,500. Forty percent of Saudis are under age 15. More than 30% of working-age adults are unemployed.

Saudi mosques have become recruiting and training grounds for the radicals, says Ali Al-Ahmed, director of the Saudi Institute, a pro-democracy group in Washington. "In the mosque on Friday, it's the same feeling you'd get in an al Qaeda camp — the resentment, the anger."

3. Can we count on Saudi reserve estimates?

Simmons argues that the giant Saudi fields have peaked. The kingdom has only been able to maintain output by drilling new wells and using expensive technology to get at hard-to-reach oil. Aramco has inflated the kingdom's proven reserves for political reasons and overestimated what it can recover by making faulty technical assumptions, Simmons says.

Simmons' analysis shows the kingdom headed for a steep output decline. "You could say, wow, they're headed for a collapse."

That could be a rude shock for a world that is expected to slurp up 50% more oil by 2025. Even experts who don't question the Saudi figures say the kingdom must embark on a massive expansion program and find new oil if it is to satisfy demand.

Michael R. Smith, technical director at research firm EnergyFiles in London, says, "Saudi Arabia can produce much more than it is now, but it will be called upon to produce more than it can sustain."

Not everyone is convinced.

"We don't really believe Saudi reserves are exaggerated," says Manouchehr Takin, senior analyst at the Centre for Global Energy Studies in London. "But the scale of projects is huge, the requirements and cost are enormous, and the logistics are a challenge."

LeeG
12-09-2004, 02:49 PM
Oyvind,,what are the development costs of those fields, what is their output compared to world consumption, my understanding is that the infrastructure we run on,,not the infrastructure that can be built for a new source (tar sands, hydrates) is based on crude,,sure these other sources come on line, like windmills and solar panels on every home,just as old fields can be squeezed more with new technology, but the energy required to do so is more than the technology used to extract existing oil.

LeeG
12-09-2004, 02:58 PM
wwheeler,,that's where i think Republican tough love will come into play,,instead of restriction consumption with candyass CAFE standards now just invest more in west african production,,in a couple decades of disruptions in Saudi fields from recently trained jihadists we'll get the market influences encouraging conservation,,with all the disruptions in Saudi supplies for a decade start pushing nuclear electric generation,,by the time various other fields dry up Saudi Arabia and Iraq are politically stable and pumping crude big time.

Oyvind Snibsoer
12-09-2004, 03:18 PM
Lee,
regarding yet-to-be-found resources in the North Sea, production costs should not differ significantly from current costs. There are currently four major geographical areas that are being produced in the Norw. sector. The Norwegian policy is to thoroughly exploit an area once it has been opened, and new areas will not be opened for exploration and production for quite a few years.

Regarding hydrates, the problem is unlocking the methane from the ice lattice that it is trapped in, in a safe and efficient manner. Also, drilling into these reservoirs may not be trivial. Dunno much more about the eventual production of the methane, but I suppose that once it has been brought to the surface it's a matter of separating the gas from the ice (water), and handling the gas pretty much like any other natural gas. I'd also suppose that methane can be fairly easily be converted to methanol, which the industry is very familiar with handling.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
12-09-2004, 03:21 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you're missing the point You think KM Gresham missed the point? Wow, that's new :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :D :D

On the good news side: Shell just made a MAJOR discovery of natural gas in Canada, the largest in 20 years. The estimate is around 800 BILLION cubic feet.

LeeG
12-09-2004, 03:23 PM
I bet the Norwegian resources are a significant income for Norway but I'm asking is how big that resource is compared to WORLD consumption/reserves.

LeeG
12-09-2004, 03:27 PM
Oyvind,,is this a useful resource? I don't know as I'm not an oil engineer,,my dad was. In a nutshell his opinion was that our ability to consume will exceed our ability to produce eventually.

http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0406/feature5/map.html

Oyvind Snibsoer
12-09-2004, 04:06 PM
Lee,
if I read that map correctly, the UK only has enough reserves for 5 more years at the current rate, and Norway 10 more years. That's not very consistent with my impression of future potential of the North Sea.

Of course, at some point we will run out of but not in ours nor our children's lifetimes. OTOH, all the SUVs I saw in Houston sure aren't contributing in any positive way :(

huisjen
12-09-2004, 04:46 PM
I notice that as the level of well reasoned debate has gone up it this thread, Karen's presence has gone down. I think you guys have driven her off again.

Dan

captain's gig
12-09-2004, 04:52 PM
Oooo .. charts and graphs, I'm sexually aroused by that.

MJC
12-10-2004, 09:50 AM
Originally posted by km gresham:
I forgot all about the population bomb! We're not starving - we're gettin fat!! :eek:

Anyway, why are the predicitons always bad? There's a question!833 recent news stories found searching 'starving children' (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=starving+children&btnG=Search+News)

Joe Dupere
12-10-2004, 10:06 AM
Frankly, I think everyone's missing the real danger in this situation. Once we run out of oil, there are going to be all of these huge underground caverns with no remaining hydraulic pressure to hold up the earth's crust above them. With the additional weight of all of the SUV's on the earths's surface, all of the empty oil caverns are going to collapse causing the seas to rush in to fill the gaping holes in the earth's crust. Instead of the sea levels rising because of the increase in global warming, the sea levels will drop, changing the oceanic currents and the resulting climactic change will alter life on earth forever.

It's true, I read something somewhere by some scientist who said so.

Joe.

P.S. I suppose the good news is that Texas will become a giant lake and Norm won't have to drive so far to get Prarie Islander into the ocean. :D

km gresham
12-10-2004, 10:08 AM
Well, that's it then. Time to outlaw SUVS.

WWheeler
12-10-2004, 10:13 AM
By contrast with the above, the only hope for mankind seems to be in the developing world:


Kenyan environmental activist Wangari Maathai became the first African woman to receive the peace prize for her work fighting for the environment and the rights of women and children. She accepted a gold medal, a diploma, along with 10 million kronor (euro1.1 million, US$1.5 million), from Ole Danbolt Mjoes, chairman of The Norwegian Nobel Committee.

In her lecture, she warned that threats to the world's environment were linked to expanding peace.

"The Norwegian Nobel Committee has challenged the world to broaden the understanding of peace: there can be no peace without equitable development; and there can be no development without sustainable management of the environment in a democratic and peaceful space," she said in English. "This shift is an idea whose time has come."

LeeG
12-10-2004, 10:14 AM
Joe,,there are oil fields in Long Beach (Terminal island I think) that have subsided below sea level as a consequence of drilling. No big deal.

You do bring up the issue of how oil is extracted,,i'm not up on the details but have read an article that said that the methods of extraction in Iraq require a revising of projected reserves as the fields have been using a technology that is not as conducive to methods required later when the pressure is less.

NormMessinger
12-10-2004, 01:30 PM
Thanks for the optomistic scenario, Joe. Once the Permian Seas return to Kansas and Nebraska, I'll be sitting pretty. A new age of dinosaurs can imerge and we can begin again and we'll see if Sam or Keith is correct.

High C
12-10-2004, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by Joe Dupere:
...It's true, I read something somewhere by some scientist who said so...Did he have a Master's Degree in science?

JimD
12-10-2004, 02:11 PM
I think I understand. 10 yrs ago there were only 30 yrs left, or 30 yrs ago there were only 10 yrs left. Either way, the difference is 20 yrs, so it stands to reason that in 10 yrs time there will be only 20 yrs left, which is bang on with the prediction. Its uncanny!

Joe Dupere
12-10-2004, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by High C:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Joe Dupere:
...It's true, I read something somewhere by some scientist who said so...Did he have a Master's Degree in science?</font>[/QUOTE]I think I'm pretty sure I almost remember he did. It was on a TV special, or in a book I got from a library or maybe an article in a magazine or the newspaper, or maybe a website, I can't remember, but it must be true because he was a scientist.

Joe

km gresham
12-10-2004, 02:59 PM
Isn't that amazing, Jim!

Now I have a new worry. It's not enough that we're going to evaporate in the global warming and run out of oil, we're also going to sink into the earth.

I don't know which one to worry about first or most! :eek:

[ 12-10-2004, 03:01 PM: Message edited by: km gresham ]

Joe (SoCal)
12-10-2004, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by km gresham:
Isn't that amazing, Jim! Now I have a new worry. It's not enough that we're going to evaporate in the global warming and run out of oil, we're also going to sink into the earth.

I don't know which one to worry about first or most! :eek: Well you certainly don't have to worry about yer children serving in the military ;) . So are ya gonna get John a new football fer Christmas?

Meerkat
12-10-2004, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by NormMessinger:
Thanks for the optomistic scenario, Joe. Once the Permian Seas return to Kansas and Nebraska, I'll be sitting pretty. A new age of dinosaurs can imerge and we can begin again and we'll see if Sam or Keith is correct.I think the dinosaur age never left - there are at least 3 examples of Imosaurous Carolinsus around... ;)

seafox
12-11-2004, 07:34 PM
I keep bringing up the discover magazine artical about synthetic oil from sewage and other organtic wastes. america wastes enough organtics to supply all of our oil needs for the forseeable future it isn't all that complicated it just takes the will and a "can do" attitude that I fear america has lost. I 've heard it said that america will never because of all the enviromentalest do a great project again. no more dams no more cannels great bridges or buildings but their was a time when america did acomplish tremendus constructions. the empire state building built i 31 months. the penn turnpike something like 230 miles right? taking unde 2 years, less time that the rebuilt of 11 miles of freeway in salt lake city utah.

on another note a utah company is testing thermal disasociation of water at 1000 degrees celcus, in association with nucular power. a local engineer who working for thiocal(sp) the people who make the solid fuil rockit boosters for the shuttal wrote a letter in todays paper talking about how his zero thermal expansion carbon fibre could be used to make parabolic mirrors that can easly produce those kinds of temps from the sun.
further as many have noted that their is a relience on low cost crude well right now the price for january deliver I belive is around 40$ its been as high as 60$ almost and opec is talking about cutting back to keepthe price above 40$
the technique in the discover magizine projects costs fo the pilot plant at 15$ a barrel droping to 12$ at larger size plants seems to me a proffetable sitiuation 25$ ber barrel net on 200 barrels a day at the pilot plant a full scale plant say processing all the organtic waste from a new york city or a chicago. hey goverment might not even need to tax people any more they would be making so much money
jeffery

Tonyr
12-11-2004, 09:40 PM
To WWheeler, who said "The problem with the tar sands is that to extract 100 barrels of oil, you have to burn 95 barrels. Makes the reserves a little smaller that way".

Where on earth did you get that piece of nonsense? Go to www.cos-trust.com (http://www.cos-trust.com) to get the accurate story from the audited accounts for the past several years.

They separate out "purchased energy", and it is in fact quite a small part of the total cost of production, which itself is competitive with the total (finding and extraction) cost of most North American oil. You owe it to yourself to correct this, since the tar sands are going to be pretty important to all our futures.

Tony.

LeeG
12-11-2004, 09:49 PM
Tony,,what are the environmental consequences of extracting oil from tar sands?

Art Read
12-12-2004, 01:24 AM
Keep trying, Lee... I'm SURE there's just got to be some bad news here SOMEWHERE!

Tonyr
12-12-2004, 07:33 AM
LEEG, to learn about Syncrude's environmental consequences, the same website has a pretty good environmental section. We have been up there (Fort McMurray), and spent two full days looking at that aspect of Syncrude's operations. They have buffalo grazing on the first sections of land used (i.e. mined out). Their reclamation efforts seems sincere and quite successful (I am no expert, but no fool either). The weakest area is perhaps the long time it takes for fine particles to settle out of the waste water (that small proportion they don't recycle.)

To answer the question, I would say that they are much better than most mines, with some way to go. They know this, and are spending plenty on the remaining problems. Their PR people do answer the phone, and one can have a civilized discussion on any reasonable topic. I seem to remember that they issue a periodic environmental Report, which they will send you.

Tony.

LeeG
12-12-2004, 08:21 AM
Art,,as long as you're upstream there's no bad news eh?

consequences does not mean negative anymore than side effects for a new cancer drug are negative..it just is.

carioca1232001
12-12-2004, 08:25 AM
If the original conjecture is indeed pertinent:

"30 years of oil left at present consumption rates"

then it is high time governments world-wide demand that internal-combustion (IC) engines DOUBLE THEIR EFFICIENCY in the very least. (Big cross-head diesels on ships currently attain above 50%).

Can anyone imagine the glut in oil supplies and the dire consequences for those entangled in the oil maze ? :rolleyes:

LeeG
12-12-2004, 08:29 AM
I wonder if some folks are reacting to the misleading phrase "30yrs left" as if there is literally only 30yrs of oil left,,don't the charts read that production is peaking in the next 30yrs? So oil production will be going on for millenia but the rate of production will be going down.

carioca1232001
12-12-2004, 09:17 AM
LeeG wrote:


wonder if some folks are reacting to the misleading phrase "30yrs left" as if there is literally only 30yrs of oil left..... The charts predict OPEC dominance during the coming 30 years, as non-OPEC production is shown to decline.

The crux of the matter is as follows : to whom would it interest to dramatically reduce the present consumption of oil, be it by incentivating large-scale use of alternative, renewable energy sources, be it by demanding a doubling of current efficiency of IC prime-mover/engines ?

There is a production diesel-engine car out there somewhere that is so thermally efficient that in cold climates, a viscous fluid is pumped through a tortous route using a mechanically driven pump to generate the heat for the passenger compartment. ;)

You know, Rudolph Diesel disappeared mysteriously on the ship taking him back to Europe from NY, and all he did was to present an alternative fuel(powdered coal or diesel) for the petrol-powered IC engine.

Don΄t underestimate the gigantic power of the world fossil-fuel lobby - they are infinitely more powerful than your dreaded military :D

LeeG
12-12-2004, 09:24 AM
I think there's potential for a movie here,,,165,000 population

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2327951.stm

carioca1232001
12-12-2004, 09:39 AM
Indeed ! The setting seems perfect for footage depicting a lush tropical haven of leisure, once Ms. das Neves gets her act together that is smile.gif

seafox
12-12-2004, 08:53 PM
the artical was in may 03 discover Iam not a subscriber and could only get the sub title " 600 milion tons of prgantic waste into 4 bilion barrels of light texas crude."

how many barrels a day is america using?
jeffery

Oyvind Snibsoer
12-13-2004, 12:53 PM
~20 million barrels/day (2003). Approx. 1/2 of this was imported, chiefly from Canada(2.1 MMBD), Saudi Arabia (1.8 MMBD), Mexico (1.6 MMBD), and Venezuela (1.4 MMBD)

[ 12-13-2004, 12:53 PM: Message edited by: Oyvind Snibsoer ]