The Mad Scramble..

[Rocky Road]

http://www.andrewnikiforuk.com/

Read this book, be entertained, be ashamed, and then do something to stop the insanity."

Thomas-Homer Dixon, author of The Upside of Down

"Passionate and forcefully argued, Tar Sands is a wake-up call not just to Canadians but to the wider world to take a serious look at what is happening in northern Alberta. To call this book a polemic is a compliment."

Margaret MacMillan, author of Paris 1919

"Andrew Nikiforuk is one of the most astute, relentless and original writers of his generation. This book, which reveals the true cost of the Alberta tar sands, shows why he's so admired in some quarters and so feared in others."

Gary Stephen Ross, Editor-in-chief, Vancouver Magazine

[Rocky Road]

Search al kasim

Edited September 17, 2012 by Rocky Road

[Michael Hardner]

Rocky - you appear to have published an entire story of material for which you don't own the copyright.

This is against MLW policy - please review the Rules and Guidelines if unsure.

[Rocky Road]

Rocky - you appear to have published an entire story of material for which you don't own the copyright.

This is against MLW policy - please review the Rules and Guidelines if unsure.

Ok thanks.

[Mr.Canada]

I'd like to see stronger efforts made to start moving toward non petroleum products across the board. Oil will not last forever and it's time to start thinking about moving to something else that we can sustain.

[Wild Bill]

I'd like to see stronger efforts made to start moving toward non petroleum products across the board. Oil will not last forever and it's time to start thinking about moving to something else that we can sustain.

Well, before petroleum we used whale oil!

Whales have gotten scarce but perhaps we can set up whale farms, similar to what we do with salmon. :lol:

[wyly]

we should at very minimum find ways to stop burning the stuff, if not for CC then for the stupidity of burning up a non renewable resource, it's gone forever when we follow that route...millions of products are derived from oil, burning up a finite resource will only drive up the cost of those products...

[gunrutz]

we should at very minimum find ways to stop burning the stuff, if not for CC then for the stupidity of burning up a non renewable resource, it's gone forever when we follow that route...millions of products are derived from oil, burning up a finite resource will only drive up the cost of those products...

So we should stop using the product that made the modern world what it is because it won't last forever and we won't be able to make all of those things, but i guess not having them now makes sense, somehow.

[Wild Bill]

So we should stop using the product that made the modern world what it is because it won't last forever and we won't be able to make all of those things, but i guess not having them now makes sense, somehow.

There is some argument about oil being a non-renewable product. This is something that has just been accepted for over 100 years, because 100 years ago they had formulated a theory as to where oil came from.

Some believe that hydrocarbons are continually being formed deep within the earth and very slowly collect into pools.

I don't pretend to be an expert myself but I am struck by the notion that if petroleum is indeed formed from decayed organic matter from millions of years ago, there must have been a staggering lot of it! Any one who has mulched their lawn knows how drastically the volume of the residue shrinks over time. Even only a small fraction of that would have been covered up. Most would have been exposed to the open air and blown away by the wind.

Even if vegetation eons ago lay hundreds of miles thick on the surface of the earth I find it hard to believe it could have eventually become as much oil and natural gas as we have already pumped out, let alone all the reserves that are left.

I think there must be a better explanation - one that may include a constant formation process rather than the dead plant theory.

Edited September 18, 2012 by Wild Bill

[PIK]

And change will happen, just forcing it down people's throats will only slow it up. It is like anything else ,once you can make a shit load of money in doing it, it will change fast.

[Rocky Road]

And change will happen, just forcing it down people's throats will only slow it up. It is like anything else ,once you can make a shit load of money in doing it, it will change fast.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/9523903/Saudis-may-run-out-of-oil-to-export-by-2030.html

Saudi to run out of oil by 2030

[Jiblethead]

oil is NOT a renewable resource. This is a fact, I really don't think anyone can deny that...

Let's just hope that the last remaining oil supply doesn't get spilled all over the place, rather than get burned into the air like its supposed to.

[PIK]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/9523903/Saudis-may-run-out-of-oil-to-export-by-2030.html

Saudi to run out of oil by 2030

We will see.

[CPCFTW]

We'll turn to the deep oceans next... then by the time we run out of that we'll probably be able to synthesize the stuff. Sorry to burst your ewok bubble.

[Moonbox]

Nuclear fusion will save the world within my lifetime.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Even if vegetation eons ago lay hundreds of miles thick on the surface of the earth I find it hard to believe it could have eventually become as much oil and natural gas as we have already pumped out, let alone all the reserves that are left.

I think there must be a better explanation - one that may include a constant formation process rather than the dead plant theory.

It's actually very easy to comprehend.

Take all of the human fat/oils released generated over the last 100 years.

Mutiply that by 10,000,000... (1billion years ago since earth had multi cellular creatures.)

Keep in mind, that humans make up a very small portion of the Earth's biomass. Oceans are full of tiny creatures with their hydrocarbon lipids.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

We'll turn to the deep oceans next... then by the time we run out of that we'll probably be able to synthesize the stuff. Sorry to burst your ewok bubble.

Assuming that increasing the carbon level to something that hasn't been seen in 400million years does not have serious side effects...

[CPCFTW]

Assuming that increasing the carbon level to something that hasn't been seen in 400million years does not have serious side effects...

I think that's a safe assumption.

[madmax]

we should at very minimum find ways to stop burning the stuff, if not for CC then for the stupidity of burning up a non renewable resource, it's gone forever when we follow that route...millions of products are derived from oil, burning up a finite resource will only drive up the cost of those products...

If Canadians Stop burning oil, more can be sold to China and the US.

On the otherhand, if Canada stopped selling to the world and kept all the oil for domestic use, it would last a very very very very very long time.......

Neither option is going to happen.

[eyeball]

I think that's a safe assumption.

What about the vast majority of scientists throughout a vast field of studies who don't?

Good thread title, because it's definitely not a Sane Scramble...

[CPCFTW]

What about the vast majority of scientists throughout a vast field of studies who don't?

Good thread title, because it's definitely not a Sane Scramble...

I haven't heard the majority of scientists say there will be "serious side effects". Can you give me some examples of the serious side effects?

First it was that the majority of scientists (and remember we're talking about climate "scientists") agreed that global warming is happening and is happening because of humans, now the narrative is that the majority of scientists say there will be "serious side effects"? You guys just keep pushing it further.

I asked in the other thread if any studies have been done on the economic benefits of global warming... no one bothered answering:

I know there have been plenty of studies regarding the supposed economic costs of GW, but I'm wondering if there have been any studies considering the economic benefits?

For example the opening of the artic passage, greater exploration opportunities in the far north, longer resource extraction seasons, more arable land, lower road maintenance costs, less heating, less snow removal, lower incidence of traffic accidents, faster delivery, more opportunity to use alternative transportation (eg. Bicycles) all year round, etc.

I'm not afraid of a few degrees warmer temperatures? Are you?

[eyeball]

I haven't heard the majority of scientists say there will be "serious side effects". Can you give me some examples of the serious side effects?

First it was that the majority of scientists (and remember we're talking about climate "scientists") agreed that global warming is happening and is happening because of humans, now the narrative is that the majority of scientists say there will be "serious side effects"? You guys just keep pushing it further.

What about the scientists in the employ of Harper's government who've told me I can't fish because the effects of climate change have damaged salmon runs? That's an example by the way that's had a very dramatic effect on me.

I asked in the other thread if any studies have been done on the economic benefits of global warming... no one bothered answering:

There is the vast world wide conspiracy to spend research grants.

I'm not afraid of a few degrees warmer temperatures? Are you?

Not when you make it sound so innocuous, no.

[Rocky Road]

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2009-07-25/wall_street/29989939_1_china-telecom-china-s-cnooc-chinese-companies

"China has been in a bind for a while.

Thanks to its smart strategy of lending us money to buy its products and services, China owns $2.2 trillion in Treasuries and other foreign paper. This makes China rich, but it has also left it exposed to getting clobbered if inflation destroys the value of the dollar. If China starts dumping Treasuries to protect itself from inflation, meanwhile, it will destroy the value of the rest of the paper it holds.

So now China has a new plan. Use those dollars to buy stuff. Companies, land, natural resources, you name it. "

http://www.mekarn.org/workshops/environ/proenv/lengnew.htm

"The world appears to be at a most critical period in recent history, a financial crisis precipitated by simultaneous and interrelated/ interactive events including Peak Oil (the end of inexpensive energy),other global resource depletion and climate change all of which are undermining food security particularly in developing countries. There is an urgent need to respond to these challenges in order to produce and deliver food to maintain the present world population, let alone the increased population predicted by 2030 of 8-10 billion people."

[Wild Bill]

It's actually very easy to comprehend.

Take all of the human fat/oils released generated over the last 100 years.

Mutiply that by 10,000,000... (1billion years ago since earth had multi cellular creatures.)

Keep in mind, that humans make up a very small portion of the Earth's biomass. Oceans are full of tiny creatures with their hydrocarbon lipids.

Well, perhaps its easy for you but I still have some problems. Did all that biomass like in protected pools, so that nothing ate it or dissolved it way? Was it out in the open, under the sun and the wind?

How did it get so far underground? How did it collect into specific areas and not be spread evenly over millions of square miles?

Even crude oil released in spills doesn't just sit there for millions of years. Creatures big and small, from bacteria to bears, can and do eat oils. Unless protected under hundreds and thousands of feet of rock and earth, wouldn't the biomass likely dry up, be eaten or dispersed in a much smaller volume into the general environment?

It's not the concept in itself of biomass eventually becoming petroleum that I have a problem accepting. It's the logistics of it becoming oil fields of millions of barrels that seems unlikely.

[Guest]

Most of the world's oilfields have only been stripped of the easy stuff. When a company abandons a well it's not because the oil has run out. It's because it's not commercially viable to bring what's left to the surface. As prices go up, in the absence of anything better, oil companies will revisit wells and use new and better technology to make them produce again.

Add to that the shale gas reserves that are being discovered and it's obvious we aren't going to run out anytime soon.

Not in my lifetime, anyway, and I'm 6.