Alberta's oil is a net loss of energy !

[quinton]

http://dymaxionworld.blogspot.com/2006/05/...ithout-end.html

Apparently, it takes more energy to extract oil from tar sands in Alberta than is contained in the oil that is produced, as much as 3x more. To get the oil out of the tar sands, they are using natural gas to cook it. But the energy of the oil that is produced is less than the energy of the natural gas that is used to produce it.

At a time when everybody is worried about our finite supplies of fossil fuels running out, why they are wasting energy to extract oil from the tar sands?

I guess it is economic to develop the tar sands as long as the price of energy in natural gas (in $/BTU) is cheaper than that in oil, but as natural gas supplies in N. America deplete (they are already half gone), it will eventually not be economic to produce oil from the tar sands (unless they switch to coal to cook the oil out of the sands).

I guess for the petroleum industry, it's all about the money.

[theloniusfleabag]

They have twice kicked around the idea of building a nuclear reactor to power Ft. Mac. Would have cut into profits. There is more money in the export of certain fuels than others.

I guess for the petroleum industry, it's all about the money.

Good guess.

[Leafless]

theloniusfleabag

I fail to see the purpose of your post.

It is common knowledge that unless oil is not over approx. $25.00 barrel then it does not pay to extract oil from the tar sands.

Am I missing something here?

[GostHacked]

theloniusfleabag

I fail to see the purpose of your post.

It is common knowledge that unless oil is not over approx. $25.00 barrel then it does not pay to extract oil from the tar sands.

Am I missing something here?

With the tar sands, as a guess let's say 1 point of oil energy produced takes 10 points of a combination of electric/gas/ect. From the creating of the process to the implimentation to the extraction to the refineries to the trucks to the pumps to the tank of your car. More energy is being used to create/discover new energy. If you can look at it like that, we are using up most of our energy just trying to get this crap out of the ground. We are actually getting less energy out of this source by rapidly depleting others that could be used in a better and more efficient manner. Prices go up on all fronts. Now it is not 25, but peaked at 76$ Lots of money is being made at the expense of running out of the energy faster than we can extract it or before we even get new sustainable energy sources of/out of the ground.

[quinton]

This seems to be the case.

It is not hard to imagine how today's oil deposits waste more energy in the extraction process than can ever be recovered in the oil.

For Alberta's tar sands we are wasting valuable natural gas to get the oil.

We are throwing good money after bad since we waste 3 BTU of natural gas for every 1 BTU of oil that we get.

Today's average oil user does so out of laziness. Making trips to malls, sporting events, a job that is not near home, etc.

Further, many ridiculous practices continue like burning oil for sport (auto racing).

I'm glad I don't spend $1/litre on gas anymore.

I rely on my bicycle and bicycle trailer and I can bike across Canada and camp along the way easily if I want to.

[August1991]

We are throwing good money after bad since we waste 3 BTU of natural gas for every 1 BTU of oil that we get.

Good money after bad? Good BTUs after bad? Waste BTUs? I thought that you must invest money to make money.

Your comparison raises an interesting idea.

Why not measure everything in terms of BTUs? Then, we could discover whether an activity is really energy efficient or not.

I hate to break this to you, but we already have a measuring system as you describe. It's called "money". (If the word money confuses you, just think of a BTU as an ounce of gold.) When the BTUs produced by a process are greater than the BTUs put into the process, it's called a "net profit". This concept is so revolutionary and so misunderstood that every so often, someone like you quinton comes along and thinks they have invented it.

If it were really true that tar sands oil contained less energy than the energy required to produce it, then tar sands oil would not be a profitable venture (in dollar or BTU terms). And the only way such a venture could survive is if it relied on government subsidies. Now that idea would require a whole new thread.

[Riverwind]

With the tar sands, as a guess let's say 1 point of oil energy produced takes 10 points of a combination of electric/gas/ect.

All energy production is 'lossy'. It is much more efficient in BTU terms to burn coal in our homes for heat instead of converting that coal to electricity and then using the electricity to heat the home. However, such simplistic calculations do not take into account numerous problems created by burning coal inside indiviudal homes. Similarily, it may be technically more efficient to equip an 18 wheeler with natural gas tanks, however, the safety risks alone make such a plan quite dodgy.

[geoffrey]

The argument proposed is incorrect anyways, it doesn't take more energy to extract a barrel of oil. There is alot of energy involved, but common sense... and my actual knowledge of energy economics... does prevail. Oil sands are horribly inefficient. But it doesn't cost more to extract it then the products that come out.

6,000 cf of natural gas is equal in caloric value to a barrel of oil. To extract the 500,000 barrels per year that Suncor is predicting by 2011... your concept would require at least 30,000,000,000 cfu of natural gas... and we only have about 50 tril of it extractable. Add our consumption and exports not related to insitu activities and we'd have 7,030,000,000,000 per year... we'd have about 7 years left of natural gas in Canada at current rates. And I'm only including basic consumption/export production and Suncor's activities...

Your wrong.

In situ extraction of bitumen is definitely a very inefficient method, but hey, that's all we're going to have left in the not so distant future. Improvements will be made in in situ technology.

August, your ideas are solid... except for one key element. If natural gas that produces 1 BTU costs $1.00 and oil increases to say $1.15 per BTU (hypothetically), you won't neccessarily see people just switch fuels right away. There are conversion costs, of course, that need to be factored in. It is technically possible for there to be a cheaper fuel, but impossibly high conversion costs. Hydrogen power would be a good example... its technically possible to produce mass volume hydrogen cheaper as a commodity, but the infrastructure costs make it impossible.

All in all, I'd be more worried about the massive amounts of water used for in situ production. That is a bigger threat to us then anything else.

[quinton]

It is possible that the link I read is wrong.

However, I haven't found any information that says there is a net gain of energy in Alberta's oil tarsand production either.

It will be interesting to see what happens to all the people with natural gas furnaces in cities if natural gas runs out in 7 years like you say.

[quinton]

I agree that the fresh water usage for tarsand oil harvesting is a huge threat.

Another is the deforestation to create the tarsands pits.

[geoffrey]

It is possible that the link I read is wrong.

However, I haven't found any information that says there is a net gain of energy in Alberta's oil tarsand production either.

It will be interesting to see what happens to all the people with natural gas furnaces in cities if natural gas runs out in 7 years like you say.

I meant to post another post on what reserves actually are, but I'm far too tired to get into this. We aren't in threat of running out of extractable gas in the near future, in my life time maybe, but not in the near future.

I agree that the fresh water usage for tarsand oil harvesting is a huge threat.

Another is the deforestation to create the tarsands pits.

Well thats the problem quinton. We can use in situ which leaves a small footprint but uses lots of water. Or we can strip mine with uses no water but destroys trees. It's a tough choice, the oil does need to be extracted though, I just hope they effectively return the environment back to its original state (or as close as possible) afterwards.

[quinton]

The oil does not "need" to be extracted.

[geoffrey]

The oil does not "need" to be extracted.

Oh I forgot, we don't need plastics, motor transportation or electricity! Silly me!

It's not like everyone in the world can buy a bike, stop shipping grain (unless that's your plan for the population reduction) and convert everything to windpower tomorrow. We are making progress on these issues but it takes more than a couple days. Until then, we need oil.

[quinton]

As long as people like you ride around SUVs, ATVs, motor boats etc for pleasure, as long as I see auto racing on TV, as long as professional sports exist, as long as people drive a car to work instead of ride a bicycle there, as long as the public complies with the government's plan for perpetual and deliberate population growth I will say:

We want the oil, we don't "need" the oil.

I wouldn't be surprised if that huge forest fire you are having in Alberta can somehow be attributed to the rampant deforestation of the land containing tarsands. Desertification lowers the water table and causes drought.

[Drea]

As long as people like you ride around SUVs, ATVs, motor boats etc for pleasure, as long as I see auto racing on TV, as long as professional sports exist, as long as people drive a car to work instead of ride a bicycle there, as long as the public complies with the government's plan for perpetual and deliberate population growth I will say:

We want the oil, we don't "need" the oil.

I, for one, need my vehicle. I'd look pretty funny riding around all day on my bicycle in my skirt in the pouring rain!

I'm looking into buying a new car -- a hybrid for $35,000 or a regular car for less than $20,000. The savings from the hybrid don't add up to $15,000 over the life of the vehicle so it's still more economical (from a personal perspective) to buy a gas powered car.

If "they" really wanted us to stop using gas powered vehicles, alternative powered ones would be more affordable.

[August1991]

As long as people like you ride around SUVs, ATVs, motor boats etc for pleasure, as long as I see auto racing on TV, as long as professional sports exist, as long as people drive a car to work instead of ride a bicycle there, as long as the public complies with the government's plan for perpetual and deliberate population growth I will say:

We want the oil, we don't "need" the oil.

quinton, you seem to believe that these activities (SUVs, ATVs, etc.) are harmful to the environment. Let's accept that premise.

Do you propose that the government simply forbid SUVs and ATVs? Do you think that would work? (What about emergency services? There will always be special cases.)

Or how about letting the price of these activities incorporate their true cost (including the harm they cause to the environment)?

However, I haven't found any information that says there is a net gain of energy in Alberta's oil tarsand production either.

The fact that the Tar Sands are financially profitable should be evidence enough.

[quinton]

August1991, yes outlawing ATVs, SUVs, and recreational gas hogs would be a great start.

And throw in leaf-blowers, hedge trimmers, air conditioners also.

But unless population growth is stopped, we cannot hope to stop resource depletion.

Drea, ever heard of shorts or nylon splash pants?

I get around without a car rather easily. I think $1/litre gas is ridiculously expensive and am amazed by how many people still drive cars. I'd rather buy a litre of milk than a litre of gas.

I rode my bike 30 km today around the city and 35 km yesterday running errands. I will be riding a few thousand kms next week on a bicycle tour.

Drea I think "they" want you to buy as big of vehicle as possible as opposed to a hybrid because that supports "economic growth" which is population growth times consumption growth (The goal of every government in the known world). The average car repair costs as much as a new bicycle.

August1991, just because the tarsands in Alberta are profitable doesn't necessarily mean that they don't waste more energy producing the oil than what can be gotten out of it.

It could be that they waste more BTUs of natural gas than the amount of BTUs that are in the end product oil simply because natural gas is cheaper than oil per energy unit.

I know per energy unit natural gas is cheaper than electricity in most cities.

[Drea]

Drea, ever heard of shorts or nylon splash pants?

Ever heard of a sales rep looking like a complete idiot as she goes into the largest car dealer in the city with his soaking wet ad?

LOL

I need my car. Nothing is going to change that. My entire career revolves around going from client to client.

I get around without a car rather easily. I think $1/litre gas is ridiculously expensive and am amazed by how many people still drive cars. I'd rather buy a litre of milk than a litre of gas.

I rode my bike 30 km today around the city and 35 km yesterday running errands. I will be riding a few thousand kms next week on a bicycle tour.

Good for you.

Obviously you do not conduct business meetings etc. Your errands must be much much different than my errands.

Drea I think "they" want you to buy as big of vehicle as possible as opposed to a hybrid because that supports "economic growth" which is population growth times consumption growth (The goal of every government in the known world). The average car repair costs as much as a new bicycle.

I've driven a fuel efficient vehicle my entire driving career (25 years now). I like small cars -- I can zip around the city no problemo.

Not everyone is able to give up their vehicles -- just because you can ride around on a bicycle does not mean everyone can (or wants to).

[quinton]

The party will be over soon.

We're already at or very close to having used up half of the world's oil.

In your lifetime you'll have to give up your gas guzzler.

Like the Atlantic Cod, there won't be a warning, it'll be gone before you have time to react.

[SirSpanky]

So what do you propose Q?

Your ability to ride your bike depends on oil; I will not even try to list all the uses. Some of them have been mentioned already.