Well, I predicted you'd be back misrepresenting my argument. You didn't disappoint, even truncating my prose to mean something else altogether.
Thank You Captain Obvious. I imagine you also may have a thesis that water will continue to be wet, and the earth will continue to be round. As a non renwable resourse, the depletion of oil has been a given since it was discovered, and anyone could assign its importance to our import requirements.
You should try a thesis that wasn't writ circa 1973.
Wow, you don't seem to know whether you feel my thesis is "worthwhile" or "obvious." But again, you seem to have very selective reading comprehension issues. What I said was it was important to acknowledge U.S. oil depletion (a fact your pal in this thread denies) when considering our ever-increasing IMPORT requirements. Regardless, as you understood it, If US depletion was so "obvious," why then do so many people deny it's true and/or try and inject heavy oil into the equation?
What you said was:
When, in fact, This is PROVEN reserves, just across the boarder, in Canada: NOT a "CRISIS."
Hormonal Much?
Being smarmy like you are here since you began addressing me .... is that what earned you all those reputation points?
If you feel that our 211 billion barrel contribution (most of it bitumen and kerogen) to a global consumption rate of 85 million b/d (and growing) is significant enough to stave off shock, you officially don't know what you're talking about. But then, I was convinced of that fact after your last post.
Yet, oddly, you present nothing as evidence suggesting that production of oil sands is not growing?
And you did, showing the opposite? Reputable links sway an argument. Your alleged personal experience below convinces me of very little. Considering how much of a jerk you've revealed yourself to be in an otherwise civil discussion, forgive me for not trusting you.
Why am I walking into refineries where they use "synthetic oil" (derived from Alberta's oil sands)? Petro-Canada owns and operates the MacKay River in situ facility, where steam separates sand from oil underground.
To fulfill you apocolyptical scenario of "The Falling Sky," you like throwing babies out with the bathwater: I'll readily admit that there obviously is no SUSTAINABLE Oil source; but I disagree with your assumption that heavy oil is only a "desperate alternative."
Very well... Here's some examples of why I believe heavy oil will never sustain our 7% annual growth paradigm:
Tar sands are another example of a process with a very low EROEI. Tar sands are typically mined which requires a large amount of energy to start the process. The tar sands are then heated with hot water or steam to extract the bitumen, which is very heavy viscous oil. The energy to create the hot water or steam usually comes from natural gas. The bitumen then has to be upgraded so that it can be refined. This can be done by adding methane or hydrogen from more natural gas to the bitumen to create lighter oil. The EROEI on this process is about 5. Tar sands are not as energy efficient as drilling for oil, but more energy efficient than oil shale.
A lower EROEI has a direct relationship to the amount of carbon dioxide released by the fuel as it impacts global warming. You have to add in all of the carbon dioxide released by the production process to gauge the total impact a fuel source has on global warming.
By most every estimate, the EROEI for tar sands hovers around 3:1
On top of extraction and refining cost, is environmental costs:
Both mining and in situ operations use large volumes of water for their extraction process, between 2 and 4.5 volume units of water is used for the extraction of one volume unit bitumen (National Energy Board 2006). Currently the mining operations are licensed to divert 370 million cubic meters (equivalent to 2.3 million barrels) of fresh water per year from the Athabasca river. The planned mining projects will push the cumulative diversion with 529 million cubic meter (3.3 million barrels) per year (Alberta Environment 2006). Almost all process water ends up in tailing ponds.
Besides the fresh water diversions, the mining operations have a direct effect on the ground water level. Mining pits are excavated up till 70-80m below ground level, which is often below natural ground water levels as well. To prevent water flowing into the mining pit, the groundwater has to be controlled by pumping it up. As a result, the groundwater level of the surroundings is lowered, and the flows are disturbed.
Even British Petroleum's own definition of proven reserves does not include tar sands:
Bitumen is not suitable as feedstock for oil refineries because it is too low in hydrogen. Condensates from the same local stranded natural gas are available to add to the bitumen to increase the hydrogen content. The result is called syncrude and it is a suitable feedstock for oil refineries. The entire process is energy intensive. The energy costs of producing syncrude may exceed the energy in the syncrude. Large quantities of contaminated water, sulfur, asphalt, and bitumen contaminated sand are byproducts of syncrude production. The resulting environmental mess must be counted as an expense. There is also air pollution and carbon dioxide emission. The availability of low cost stranded gas may be necessary to make tar sand economic. Canada does not have large gas reserves, although Canada is a net gas exporter. It seems likely that Canada will be using most of its gas for domestic heating and little for syncrude production in a few years. Canadian tar sand may not be a useful fossil fuel without natural gas.
According to BP, Canada's Proven Reserves are second only to Saudi Arabia, but only if you count tar sand. Tar sand certainly does not fit BP's own definition of a Proven Reserve.
Then there's the natural gas limitation issue, a component for heating the sands, which presents a whole other hurdle. From that "liberal" bastion, Wikipedia:
... since natural gas production in Alberta peaked in 2001 and has been static ever since, it is likely oil sands requirements will be met by cutting back natural gas exports to the U.S.
More on the natural gas shortfall:
Production growth at the tar sands slowed considerably in 2007. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that natural gas availability at the tar sands is a disaster waiting to happen. Investment continues to pour in, but it seems that few analysts or reporters have taken a hard look at future tar sands production in light of declining natural gas production in the WCBS. Alternative energy sources such a nuclear or bitumen gasification are a long way off. Look for this emerging story to appear in press accounts within the next few years. Production of synthetic crude at the tar sands is not likely to provide the much longed for salvation that will keep American drivers on the road.
You're drama will sell to anyone that would rather not give your thesis much thought.
Now there's some irony.
How long have you been shovelling the "everything will be well" mantra based on the assumption of technology and dirty oil? Did anyone counter your prose, or did "m'k?" slam it shut for you before now?
Did I say the USA would hoard all 211 BILION bbl of PROVEN North American Reserves for its own use? No.
Then why did you offer the math that suggested it represented a 30 year supply for us?
But given the fact that both the reserves and the 20 million bbl/d consumer are adjacent to one another, I think its safe to say the USA will buy most of it.
So, you're not SAYING it's all ours. Just most of it.
Your grasp of Algebra I is impressive, and I commend you for what appears to have been an excellent 9th grade year. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that you've learned much since then, and that there are many economic models that don't follow an exponential curve until reaching inflection, which could easily last for decades while alternative energy sources are substituted for oil.
Oh, good... So, a civilization dependent upon 5-7% annual growth has something lined up and ready to go to seamlessly maintain stasis? This despite facing a 7-9% annual decline in the very commodity they've attained their system of growth upon for decades? What alternative source is this, exactly? And, why hasn't it kicked into gear while U.S. states and foreign governments grow insolvent with each passing week? This global meltdown is only temporary then, right?
Of course, since this doesn't fit the "Falling Sky" thesis, we must use our imagination, and consider anything but catastrophe a "mirage;"
Open your eyes. Do you think 15-20% unemployment and decaying infrastructure all around us is just the result of shady banking practices and fiat currency?
The only thing more pretentious is your dogmatism: scholorship is based on seeing BOTH sides of an issue. Your Thesis Has A Blind Side.
Wrong again. My thesis has considered ALL sides, including the same tired arguments trotted out by "everything is fine" pundits much like yourself. "Yeah but, you're overlooking (x)" arguments that don't tread water under any semblance of critical analysis.
Since you mentioned straw men: "Flawed Monetary System?" I'll readily admit its flawed, but have no idea how this is relevant to this thread. Why don't you conjure up something from your fevered imagination to explain how this fits into the "Falling Sky" thesis and Oil.
It's very simple, actually. Energy IS the economy. And the economy IS energy. Printing up money, and creating astronomical amounts of consumer debt based on the assumption of infinite growth (limitless energy) later is a fundamentally flawed monetary system. In fact, I would say our system has been flawed since 1914, but certainly since the early 70s when Nixon scrapped the Gold Standard.
Well, isn't this "Peak" your entire thesis? You think that exponential curves all continue to a peak, then reach a maximum, then invert, declining in some neat inverse exponential that will fit your catastrophic economic model: Why are you even discussing a "Stall?"
When did I say that? Of course there are blips here and there, like when Alaskan oil came online in the late 70s and offered a very brief upturn in U.S. production. Didn't result in much; We still have plummeted ever since.
Iraq's largely untapped 11% of the world's remaining crude will yield the same. A short-lived flat-line or upturn, followed by the return of global decline. We knew it was there, it wasn't a new discovery.
Your pap has been put in perspective on this topic at each turn. You really shouldn't attempt to speak for the forum at this point. It's hubris.
If you just represented my argument accurately, and spoke to me with some measure of respect, we wouldn't be here.
Because even you realise that the castostrophic model is the least likely scenario given the realities
I said nothing of catastrophic. My point is that times will get much much tougher due to the (undeniable) global energy crisis, and there is no recovery to come any time soon. Not before a profound change in the current paradigm. I said nothing of die-off, or war.
Speculating on "end times" or any such ramifications of peak oil is not my interest. I focus on the arithmetic, the physics, the geology, and the doublespeak that tries desperately to deny all of it.
