Whenever you hear the peak oil deniers tout the hundreds of years of supply in North America, remember the pictures in the story below. I’m not an environmental nutjob and I think we should convert oil sands into oil because we have no choice. But oil sands are not going to save us from the impact of peak oil. After seeing what it takes to turn oil sands into oil, you’ll understand why the EROEI is so low for this natural resource. The breakeven price for oil sands to be profitable is in the range of $80 to $90 per barrel. Don’t count on gas prices to ever go back to $2.50 a gallon like Romney is promising.
These Pictures May Give You Nightmares About The Canada Oil Sands
Canada’s economic boom depends on tearing up 54,000 square-mile of pristine Alberta wilderness.
Development of the world’s third largest oil supply is proceeding rapidly. It already represents a $3.5 billion annual paycheck to the Canadian government and 75,000 immediate jobs.
But many are aghast at the project, which is also the fastest growing source of greenhouse gas in Canada.
When you see the pictures, you may feel the same. We’re not saying the project is good or bad. We’re just saying the scale and severity of what’s happening in Alberta will make your spine tingle.
Business Insider sent me to Alberta in early May, when there was still ice on the ground and a bite in the air. I took these shots, trying to stay warm, from about 1,000 feet up, out of the window of a small plane.
The following pictures show oil mining, where the sand is dug from the ground and the oil’s separated through a lengthy and messy process. There are drilling sites in the oil sands, and those are highlighted in the photo essay at the end of this one.
To get a look at the oil sand mines, we rented this Cessna 172 which the pilot was allowed to bring down to 1,000 feet — from there, through the open window and with a long lens we were able to see what really goes on in one of the most controversial places on the planet
The Alberta oil sands are spread across more than 54,000 square miles but we’re taking a look at just a small part of that — the red line is an approximate outline of the entire deposit — the green is where we’ll be flying
But thousands flock here to make real money in the oil sands — where creating synthetic crude begins in the strip mine
This is how the oil sands have been harvested since 1967
There were only two companies working the sands in 1998 and local officials were concerned even those would be forced to close — there are more than 10 times that number here now
That’s because in the late ’90s oil prices rose, the Canadian government restructured its royalty system, and new technology caused a huge boom
From small companies to conglomerates like Shell — each outfit starts off the same way
First they clear the trees from the land
Then they scrape away the shallow layer of leafy, peaty topsoil called muskeg
Then the trucks and shovels come in to scoop up the oil sand — that shovel is electric, runs on 15,000 volts — and scoops up 90 tons in one load — it takes about 2.5 tons of sand to produce one barrel of oil
The Cat 797 dump trucks are the largest in the world and and can haul 1 million pounds in a single load — more weight than a fully loaded Boeing 747
They’re so large people say they can drive over a Ford F-150 like it’s a ‘speed bump’ — with this shot from outside a mechanic’s shop it’s easy to see what they mean
Robert Johnson — Business Insider
And the dump trucks are everywhere out here
Carrying the chunks of oil sand
Often across bridges like these, which are supposed to be the strongest in the world
To crushing plants like this, which break up the chunks into a fine mixture that can be transported along the conveyor belts below
The conveyors take the sand to be conditioned — the first step in separating it from the oil
Conditioning is just mixing the oil sand with water — creating what’s called a slurry — where the oil begins to part from the sand
The slurry is then piped to containers where it separates into three parts: Oil froth on top — sand on the bottom — oil, sand, clay, and water in the middle
The sand and water mixture in the middle is pumped to open storage areas called tailings ponds
The ponds are vast and some look more like lakes
Most ponds are coated in a sheen of oil that can be deadly to waterfowl, like ducks and geese, that land on its surface
To help keep birds away scarecrows like this are all over the ponds
The ponds are used to settle out the solids in the oil-water mix as they slowly fall to the bottom — the chemicals and oil float to the top
The surface chemicals are skimmed across the surface using floating lines like those used in oil spills
To give an idea of the size — that dump truck passing the pond is 50-feet-long
This is what one pond looks like on the ground
And this is what the surface material looks like up close
After it’s skimmed and the surface water is relatively sediment and chemical free — it’s pumped from one pond to another
This clarified water is supposed to provide 90 percent of what the oil companies need to start all over again
The solids left behind will be used to reclaim the land as the operation moves on
As the sand finally dries it turns white — sound cannons still boom to scare birds away though — especially after a 2010 incident where hundreds of ducks landed on a roadside pond and died
Oil companies are required to return the land to its original condition and this reclaimed section, populated with Wood Bison, is not far from the pond
It looks a whole lot different on this side
Once the rough oil is pulled from the sand it will get sent to an ‘upgrader’ like Suncor’s here on the Athabasca River — this is one of the sites where the oil from the oil sands is converted into synthetic crude
This is done by heating the raw oil, called bitumen, in a process called coking and produces the smoke that hovers about the whole area and a smell that fills the cockpit of the plane
Here are some small piles of coke
And here is one very immense pile of coke waiting to be used or sold as fuel for smelting iron
After it’s coked, the oil is ‘cracked’ to break the heavy parts down into lighter more desirable petroleum products
Cracked, coked and lighter, what’s left gets sent to a tower like this, where inside it’s hotter at the top than the bottom, forcing dense material down and lighter petroleum products up
Then everything is exposed to hot, high pressure gas that removes even more impurities like sulfur
The sulfur would normally then be sold
But a glut in the sulfur market is keeping prices low, and in the meantime mountains of it continue to grow
Once the oil is “upgraded” it will go to a storage tank like this one currently under construction
This is Syncrude’s Mildred Lake plant along Route 63
Route 63 is deadly, and a family of 7 was killed driving it the day I got there — this memorial is right across from Syncrude by the side of the road — after taking this photo Syncrude security was dispatched and told me to go
Just north of that tribute sit these two machines some companies used in mining up until 2006 — a dragline on the left, and a gray bucketwheel to the right
Spectacularly immense, this bucketwheel is the largest crawling machine in existence
For scale, that fence post is about six-feet-tall
These bucket teeth that dug into the sand were very effective, but when the bucketwheel broke down, mining stopped — so they were phased out in favor of the shovels and trucks
There are fleets of trucks and if one breaks down another one simply takes its place, but at $5 to $6 million apiece they are not cheap
And they go through tires pretty quickly — the ones for the big dump trucks run about $45,000 apiece
At 13-feet — and 12,000 pounds each — the 797 tires are a burden to dispose of and they’re put to use wherever they can be
To keep vehicles from getting bogged down in the mud, these wooden boards will often be put down
But they’re not always practical, so a nearby gravel mine pumps out stone to layer the roads
The gravel mine produces its own uniquely colored pools of water
But they don’t compare to the deep orange of this oil sand pit we pass in the plane moments later
The companies out here all have their own landfills
Though city officials are building a state-of-the-art incinerator as part of their modernization effort
Most oil workers live in housing like this and are bussed in to the compound from their homes and families in Fort McMurray
There are no public gas stations up by the camps and sadly even this store was closed at noon on a Sunday
Which may have been just as well because the bootie dispenser outside the door was empty
The average dump truck driver makes about $55 an hour plus overtime working the mines and the average family income here is around $190,000
That kind of money prompts many people to settle down and stay far longer than they planned — this is where the pilot lives with his parents — he asked for a photo
And just as you would imagine, the people who live here are very concerned about pollution — this site was fined $275,000 for contaminating the Athabasca River just a year ago
The provincial government tests the area waters constantly
But the locals I talked to all said they’d like to see more transparency and updates on what exactly is being found and what they should watch out for
The oil sands, with its up to 2 trillion barrels of oil sitting in the ground, is a complex place
And despite how you may feel about the immense environmental impact the oil companies may have on the world
You can be sure they’re not going anywhere while there is still oil left to collect
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/photos-destructive-canada-oil-sands-2012-10?op=1#ixzz2A9EplXaW
bluestem says:
wow! John
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
23rd October 2012 at 3:15 pm
AWD says:
Humans are amazing, what they’ll do so they can continue to drive their SUV’s through the McShit’s drive-through and go shopping at Wal Mart.
With 2 trillion barrels available, I feel better about getting this shiny new SUV that gets 3 miles to the gallon. And gas prices are plummeting. It’s great to be an American!
Admin needs to get himself one of these
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
11 
4
23rd October 2012 at 3:22 pm
card802 says:
That, is incredibly sad….
Admin, did you see the new Casey report on Putin?
Rosneft may purchase TNK-BP, Russia could soon control a large percentage of the worlds, oil, natural gas, and uranium.
Talk about higher energy costs, and to have Russia control them and not a small Middle East country, that’s a new set of problems.
Wonder if new sanctions would work against Russia?
Like or Dislike:
5 
1
23rd October 2012 at 3:35 pm
Yojimbo says:
Agent Smith in the Matrix was right. Humans are a virus. We colonize until we kill the host, and then we move on.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
13 
2
23rd October 2012 at 3:35 pm
Eddie says:
A picture’s worth a thousand words. Looks like the Land of Mordor. I’m sure all that brimstone,,,I mean sulfur…will be put to good use.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
10 
0
23rd October 2012 at 3:38 pm
Administrator says:
card802
I didn’t see the Casey report on Putin. Do you have a link?
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
23rd October 2012 at 3:51 pm
flash says:
Yep, before crash landing on earth , this is exactly what we did to Mars.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
8 
1
23rd October 2012 at 3:55 pm
Old Sparky says:
On the other hand you could make the point that dear Gaia screwed up and dumped a whole lot of dirty oil in some sand pits up there and these companies are making a valiant effort to reclaim these sandpits by removing the dirty oil and slowly reclaiming the land. Sometimes being green just isn’t appreciated.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
10 
1
23rd October 2012 at 4:00 pm
Stucky says:
Admin
Here is the link card802 referenced;
http://www.caseyresearch.com/cdd/vladimir-putin-new-global-shah-oil
.
Also, here’s an article, “Doug Casey On The Russian Bear”
http://www.caseyresearch.com/editorial/3378?ppref=FRP058ED0510A
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
23rd October 2012 at 4:01 pm
card802 says:
Stuck beat me to it.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
23rd October 2012 at 4:07 pm
Bob says:
So it’s a grim race — either we develop mass energy alternatives before carbon energy peaks and declines, or human living standards regress a number of centuries. Perhaps the coming depression with provide more time for technology to gather itself for another leap forward. After all, a number of technological breakthroughs germinated in the 1930′s. Too bad this seems to be the best case scenario.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
8 
0
23rd October 2012 at 4:16 pm
Boston bob says:
I was looking over this at lunch it ties into Chris Martenson’s theories quite well. Martenson’s talk in Spain is very good and succinct, especially his question and answer at the end. It is well worth an hour for those few who may not have taken the time to listen to him. He is not a true doomer, but has a slightly more positive spin on what looks not to be an “optimal ” outcome for the final use of these resources. A telling line is that of all of the oil used by mankind half of it has been used in the last 22 years. The law of exponents is catching up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_profilepage&v=8WBiTnBwSWc
I am not sure this link work, but it is his talk in Spain at the Gold and Silver meeting.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
23rd October 2012 at 4:18 pm
JIMSKI says:
I am a big science fiction fan and have read all the classics and continue to read new authors that write in the genre. An old and new story line has always been stripping a planet of it’s resources and moving on to the next rock. A book I recently finished talked about how the Imperium of Man left after stripping the resources in 4,000 years. It took place about 100 years after they left.
It is no longer fiction………..
The machines explained on the story line are running in Alberta Canada. They leave nothing useful and destroy down to the m o l e c u l a r level. We are freakin doomed.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
8 
2
23rd October 2012 at 4:59 pm
Chicago999444 says:
The EROEI on this tar sand stuff is something like 1.5 to 1, and for the shale oil, it’s about 1.3 to 1, last i heard. A barrel spent per 1.3 barrels extracted.
When Spindletop was gushing back in the 50s, the EROEI was 100 to 1, or you put 1 barrel in to get 100 out.
We are scraping bottom on oil. As Kunstler predicted, our systems ARE already beginning to wobble, beginning with the most diseased of them all, which is financial. As predicted, every time our oil-based economy starts to “recover” and fuel consumption upticks, prices ratchet up and kill the economic economy.
While no politician is to “blame” for high oil prices, some are guiltier than others of pushing policies that reinforce our oil dependence, such as more highways, more auto dependence, more air travel, and evermore suburban sprawl. And they’re all guilty of omitting to tell the truth to the public, which is that the party of the past 80 years is over.
But that would be political suicide. We WILL kill the messenger. No one wants to hear that we are going to have to steeply downscale and downGRADE our lifestyles.
Please, please get the NRC up to date so that the thorium fuel cycle can go commercial. Alvin Weinberg developed the MSR and other countries, notably Japan and India, are way ahead of us in developing small, modular nuclear reactors using much safer and cheaper technologies, while the coventional uranium fission people here block all new developments in this promising area.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
9 
1
23rd October 2012 at 5:20 pm
IndenturedServant says:
Let’s see, the average family income is around $190,000, (because of the mines) which causes people to stay longer than they planned (because they are greedy) AND they’re worried about pollution! (which they earn $190,000 creating) Hmm? Seems about right.
Hell, from what I can see the whole operation is simply cleaning that section of Earth up! They’re getting all of that nasty oil out of the ground (where healthy, dense forests formerly existed) and making money as a bonus! Hell, that’s a win for everybody in my book! (unless you were a happy critter living in the former forest)
Here in America you’d be locked up forever on terrorist charges for flying over and photographing such an operation. You Canadians have it so good in Canada!
I_S
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
10 
0
23rd October 2012 at 5:50 pm
Anonymous says:
http://news.yahoo.com/us-may-soon-become-worlds-top-oil-producer-173753430–finance.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
23rd October 2012 at 6:02 pm
Ron says:
Its a good example of what should be happening in Alaska. Take advantage of available resources and provide jobs and energy.
Kunstster is an idiot.Almost every person who compains about oil or energy,uses it.
Hot debate. What do you think?
3 
7
23rd October 2012 at 7:42 pm
hr says:
I think this is an amazing achievement of engineering.
Hot debate. What do you think?
7 
7
23rd October 2012 at 7:58 pm
Davos says:
From page 12 of ‘The Ripple Effect’
“While water is the most abundant substance on the planet (it covers 71 percent of the globe), 97 percent of it is too salty for consumption. Only 3 percent of the world’s H2O is fresh and most of that is frozen: just 0.3 percent of it is accesible and clean enough for people to use.ater, 71% of it is water.
We recycle and reuse water, but the more times we do so, the more our supplies become worn-out and filled with salts, metals, chemicals and other particulate matter.”
And what are we and what will we be doing with our fresh water?
Tar Sands & Fracking, when cancer rates of 1 in 3 women and 1 in 2 men just isn’t enough…
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
8 
1
23rd October 2012 at 8:00 pm
AWD says:
Predictions for a World of Declining Net Energy
Submitted by Chris Martenson of Peak Prosperity,
Living standards are going to fall. Ever-rising gross and net amounts of energy provide the essential building blocks for rising living standards, both directly through the goods and services brought to our doorsteps, such as food and warmth and mobility, and indirectly by allowing lots and lots of people to deploy their talents to things other than securing the basics. In fact, this process has already begun; it will follow the ‘outside in’ model where the weaker elements of society and the weaker nation states will absorb the first effects of ‘less than there used to be.’
Inflation will come. Because of the tendency of humans to try and print their way out of trouble, and because the system is now so saturated with debt that ‘allowing’ it to crumble to meet the realities of a world of less would risk a catastrophic systemic collapse of institutions and ruling parties, there’s not much doubt that sooner or later all this will end in a very scary round of inflation. Some currencies will not survive at all, and the areas served by them will experience hyperinflation first and complete monetary destruction second.
Stocks and bonds will fail to generate real returns. Real returns, meaning positive growth in the value of stocks and bonds after inflation is subtracted, are an impossibility in a world where the economy is not growing in real terms. You have to have real growth in the economy if you want real growth in stocks and bonds (in aggregate, that is). Stripping away all of the gobbledy-gook, real GDP growth is simply not possible without real increases in real things – and those depend, in very large measure, on how much net energy there is to go around. With declining net energy, there will fewer things to sell and do.
Retirements will be postponed, if they happen at all. It is only the very recent generations that have been afforded the reality of this thing called ‘retirement,’ which is the idea that you can live off of one’s prior savings and investments for a decade or three, consuming and not producing the whole time. Not so coincidentally (to me, at any rate), retirement and the exploitation of fossil fuels came along at roughly the same time. That is, with enough ‘green area,’ we humans can do anything at all that we want with all that surplus energy. We can go to the moon, we can take long holidays to distant places, we can host Olympics, we can retire or do any of a billion other things. For many, especially those at the margins of society, retirement will simply not be an option. Retirement as a concept, and these individuals specifically, will be casualties of circumstances.
We’re just going to do fewer things and produce less stuff. What exactly will go away as the green area gets pinched downwards is impossible to predict, as much will depend on decisions that have not yet been made. Perhaps we’ll do something completely surprising with our remaining energy, channel the spirits of Easter Island, and build some huge yet frivolous monuments to ourselves. Perhaps we’ll squander the last bits of good energy on bad wars that end up destroying infrastructure that could only be built when there was enough surplus to go around. Or maybe we’ll get it right and choose a future that we can strive for and use our remaining resources wisely to achieve those dreams. While the exact features are impossible to predict, we can say that the map of our territory will shrink. We won’t be able to do everything, or even very many things as compared to before.
More resources will be dedicated to and consumed by the energy sector. One easy observation to make is that if net energy is declining, then we are going to be spending more of our energy wealth on the process of obtaining more energy. This is one great field to be in, whether in the production side or the efficiency side. If it takes more and more energy to get energy, what does that mean? It means more drilling, pipelines, processing facilities, and all of the thousands of job types and millions of parts and components that are needed to get the energy out of the ground and to market. As prices inevitably rise, the desire (if not the necessity) of using energy more efficiently will skyrocket. Everything in the entire “built” environment, from commercial and residential buildings, to factories, to how we move ourselves around, and the water we drink will be targets for improvements and enhancements. If you are thinking of a career to move into, the energy sector is a great place to start.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
7 
0
23rd October 2012 at 8:40 pm
Kepi says:
It’s stuff like this that makes me say the climate change debate is a moot point. When you’re so unwilling to make due with less that you’re literally squeezing the earth like a sponge to get the last drop out… You’re not going to change your life, so why care about climate change at all.
Also, just want to point out that 60 years ago your average family had 1 car. Now we have dual incomes which requires 2 vehicles on the road, also frequently their 16 year old kid will get a car. It’s not just the wealthier workers with SUVs that are the problem for priustopia, it’s the sum total of all the cars all the time. It’s also not over population, at least not here on the western hemisphere. We have more than enough room. We’re just doing too much, over extending ourselves, and wasting our resources by refusing to act collectively and within concert with eachother and just pulling the me, me, me card.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
8 
0
23rd October 2012 at 9:03 pm
crazyivan says:
JQ has once again dredged up another good teacher.
It takes a good teacher to know a good teacher.
And the likes of both are hard to come by.
“It’s stuff like this that makes me say the climate change debate is a moot point. When you’re so unwilling to make due with less that you’re literally squeezing the earth like a sponge to get the last drop out… You’re not going to change your life, so why care about climate change at all.”- Kepi
And it takes a student ….
Both Kepi and I have come to the same conclusion, not for the first time each, I am sure.
It is from the repeated efforts of people like JQ and his guest poster Robert Johnson that learning is achieved, not to mention the contributions of all mouthy fuckheads on this site.
To teach is to learn.
I really mean that. I know.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6 
0
23rd October 2012 at 10:16 pm
SSS says:
“As the sand finally dries it turns white — sound cannons still boom to scare birds away though — especially after a 2010 incident where hundreds of ducks landed on a roadside pond and died.”
—-from the article
Who gives a shit? We’re ass-deep in ducks to start with. Amazing some of the dip shits who commented above didn’t complain about Peak Ducks.
Hot debate. What do you think?
4 
8
23rd October 2012 at 11:09 pm
crazyivan says:
Peak ducks.
Now there’s a thought.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
23rd October 2012 at 11:21 pm
SSS says:
hr says: “I think this is an amazing achievement of engineering.”
Ding, ding. Hr wins first prize for the wisest comment on this thread.
Hot debate. What do you think?
2 
6
23rd October 2012 at 11:23 pm
SSS says:
Chicago 999444 says: “Please, please get the NRC up to date so that the thorium fuel cycle can go commercial.”
Ding, ding. Chicago 999444 wins first prize for the dumbest comment on this thread.
Ask yourself one simple question, Chi-town. If thorium is the key to the energy castle, then why haven’t those geniuses in Japan and India, which you specifically cite as trying to develop thorium reactors AND DON’T HAVE TO ANSWER TO THE NRC, failed to develop a commercially viable thorium molten salt reactor after decades of trying to do so? We’re waiting for your wisdom.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2
23rd October 2012 at 11:34 pm
SSS says:
“Canada’s economic boom depends on tearing up 54,000 square-mile of pristine Alberta wilderness.”
—-lead sentence from the article
Boo fucking hoo. I’m touched and torn by the verb “tearing up” and the adjective “pristine,” two favorites of eco-terrorists. First the author cites 54,000 square miles of Alberta, then slickly provides a Google map showing a tiny green dot inside a red-outlined 54,000 square miles which constitutes the area where all of those “ghastly” photos are taken. Our eminent, critical thinking Admin adds to the panic-stricken vocabulary with his title “A True Picture of Blah, Blah, Blah.”
But let’s go with that 54,000 square miles of “pristine wilderness.” Sounds pretty big, doesn’t it? Save for the fact that Alberta is damn near the size of Texas and hardly anybody lives in the area under discussion. We’re talking about land that nobody uses and doesn’t amount to a hill of beans in the grand scheme of things.
But here’s the real kicker, and it was never mentioned in the article or brought up by all the critical thinkers on TBP, except me, of course …….. the amount of oil available in those 54,000 square mile of tar sands in Alberta is enough to provide the ENTIRE GLOBE with oil for the next 68 years.
Hot debate. What do you think?
1 
9
23rd October 2012 at 12:10 am
Kill Bill says:
The SSTAR [thorium] reactor uses lead to cool it. What do you think of this design SSS?
http://www.thorium.tv/en/thorium_reactor/thorium_reactor_1.php
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
23rd October 2012 at 12:18 am
SSS says:
Before Admin jumps into my shit, here’s a quote from the article, from which he failed to do any critical thinking.
“The oil sands, with its up to 2 trillion barrels of oil sitting in the ground, is a complex place.’
The GLOBAL daily consumption of oil is 80 million barrels. Divide 2 trillion barrels by 80 million barrels per day, and how many days do you get? 25,000 days, which equals 68.49 years.
Is there a crack in the Peak Oil theory somewhere in this math?
Hot debate. What do you think?
1 
7
23rd October 2012 at 12:25 am
Kill Bill says:
he amount of oil available in those 54,000 square mile of tar sands in Alberta is enough to provide the ENTIRE GLOBE with oil for the next 68 years. -SSS
We need to invade Canada!! Plus they have really good bacon!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
7 
0
23rd October 2012 at 12:26 am
Kill Bill says:
No problem with the math SSS but can the tar sands produce 80 million barrels a day?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
7 
1
23rd October 2012 at 12:30 am
SSS says:
Kill Bill
Thanks for the article on possible thorium reactors, of which I was not aware. People on this site have so much good knowledge to share, but I extract this from the article.
“The primary limitation with nuclear reactors, as always, is containment of radiation. ….. We will be able to make reactor vessels which are crack-proof, water-proof, and tamper-proof, but we will have to use superior materials. We should have those materials by 2030 at the latest.
2030 won’t cut it. We need to press on with what we can do now. We can’t wait. The demand for energy will not decrease by 2030. Once something new comes on line, we can take the outdated stuff off line. That’s how it has to roll.
And no, the tar sands of Canada cannot produce 80 million barrels of oil a day, and you knew that, smartass. My point was that the tar sands are a whopping potential source of oil. Really big. And if you couple that with the potential of the undersea oil off the north coast of Alaska and other such projects, then Peak Oil may not look as bad as presented by its advocates.
Like or Dislike:
1 
6
23rd October 2012 at 1:01 am
Kill Bill says:
And no, the tar sands of Canada cannot produce 80 million barrels of oil a day, and you knew that, smartass
I wasnt trying to be a smartass. I was wondering what Canadas output actually was and how long those tar sands would actually last.
As for the lead cooled thorium reactor…yes containment is a problem with any thermonuclear reactor be they salt cooled, pressurized water cooled or liquid salt cooled.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
23rd October 2012 at 1:22 am
Kill Bill says:
The Tokamak reactor uses magnetic fields to contain the plasma.
As I posted a bit ago, on this site, DOE has granted Princeton 12 million to find ways to contain that plasma by controlling the magnetic fields.
Its not really a new ‘material’ but will it be ready by 2030?
I dont know. But if that high energy field does decay for any reason without a backup it could be a disaster.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
23rd October 2012 at 1:27 am
crazyivan says:
I think that the only actionable question on this whole thead is…
can you start a fire without a match
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
23rd October 2012 at 1:40 am
Kill Bill says:
Ivan, if I were to freeze your brain would it create order?
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
23rd October 2012 at 1:50 am
Anonymous says:
If the forest burns from a lightning strike does anyone hear it?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
23rd October 2012 at 1:53 am
backwardsevolution says:
The True Cost of Oil – very good 17-minute video showing the valleys, the wetlands, the beautiful boreal forests surrounding the Tar Sands. The speaker, Garth Lentz, is passionate about this area, and he gives some astounding stats re the amount of fresh water on the planet (not a lot), the carbon emitted, etc. It’s a good watch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84zIj_EdQdM
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
23rd October 2012 at 1:54 am
backwardsevolution says:
From the video:
“And the tailings ponds range in size up to 9,000 acres. That’s two-thirds the size of the entire island of Manhattan. That’s like from Wall Street at the southern edge of Manhattan up to maybe 120th Street.”
“And of course these tailings ponds…you can’t see many ponds from outer space, and you CAN see these, so maybe we should stop calling them ponds.”
“The boreal forest sequesters more carbon than any other terrestrial ecosystem.”
But don’t worry, boys and girls, there’s 40 more tar sands operations coming on stream.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
7 
0
23rd October 2012 at 2:06 am
Kill Bill says:
Thanks for the link BE.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
23rd October 2012 at 2:18 am
Douchbag Sally says:
SSS is my kind of douche.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
23rd October 2012 at 2:56 am
Goldorack says:
CES
SSSES
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
23rd October 2012 at 4:44 am
card802 says:
Heard it on NPR this morning.
America could become the next Saudi Arabia.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=163481930
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
23rd October 2012 at 6:52 am
card802 says:
And add this from Maudlin:
“In recent years Venezuelan oil production has fallen due to poor maintenance, low investment
and the loss of key workers. Plans to open new fields have been repeatedly delayed. The stateowned oil company PDVSA says the holdups are over. Last week its joint venture with Russia’s
Rosneft and Lukoil pumped its first barrel. Another operation, with a Vietnamese firm, has also
reportedly begun.”
Russia seems to be extending help to other countries to gain control of their oil, while we send warships to take their oil.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
23rd October 2012 at 7:30 am
Administrator says:
SSS, as usual, missed the entire point of the post. His critical thinking skills have evidently declined from their already miniscule level. The concept of EROEI is one that he conveniently ignores. When you observe the pictures in the post, even a retarded shit eating monkey should realize the amount of energy required to turn these tar sands into oil is immense. There may be 2 trillion barrels of oil trapped in those sands, but the only question that matters is how many barrels of oil will it require to extract the 2 trillion barrels and at what price.
SSS again proves his lack of mathematical skills by saying daily consumption TODAY is 80 million barrels when it is 90 million barrels. Will it be your static 80 million for the next 68.49 years or will it rise?
Time for another nap to recharge that pea brain.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
8 
1
23rd October 2012 at 7:59 am
Stucky says:
54,000 square miles is about the size of New York state. Hardy a blip!!
SSS has 2 trillion neurons trapped in his brain, but the only question that matters is how many more years will it be until they produce a cogent thought.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
9 
1
23rd October 2012 at 8:19 am
efarmer says:
Just an interesting side note. Since the EPA has cleaned up the air from the pollution from manufacturing in the US our crops have run short of sulfur and several other pollutants that were falling with the rains on our fields.
Now we have to add them to the fields. Nice to see we won’t run out.
EF
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5 
0
23rd October 2012 at 8:27 am
Welshman says:
Great article, wow that is a messy and expensive extraction process. I have some investments in the oil sands through ENY Canadian Oil Income ETF Fund.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
23rd October 2012 at 9:05 am
TeresaE says:
Return on investment is a concept foreign to many in the US as evidenced by our “education” system and drug wars.
Not shocking that it is completely misunderstood in energy production.
Funny, this equates back to our country’s general feelings about businesses. MOST people seem to operate from the belief that when Walmart – or Mom & Pop – sell something for one dollar. They pocket one dollar.
They absolutely REFUSE to see that the one dollar sale could either represent riches (high profit margin) or the poor house (negative profit margin).
Same with energy. When the energy cost to produce eats up 70% of the energy produced, your net gain is 30% of extraction, NOT 100%.
The ONLY true “fix,” which NO ONE wants to admit, would be to make energy so costly that alternatives become viable. Additional benefit is that our usage drops off the chart thus prolonging the inevitable day when it takes more energy to produce energy than we get back.
The end of cheap energy is drawing to a close. In my opinion, it is inevitably going to end either via the constrains of the earth herself, or through government intervention, or the complete destruction of our fiat money system.
No matter what, our future reality will be as ugly as that land has become. No one is willing to give any luxury or toy willingly. The future looks more ugly by the minute.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
23rd October 2012 at 9:53 am
Kill Bill says:
IKEA IZ GONG TEW SABE US AWL!
(Phys.org)—Furniture giant IKEA has announced plans to produce as much energy as it consumes by the year 2020. To achieve that goal, the company will install solar panels on all its stores and warehouses, and invest in wind farms. The announcement comes as part of a three-pronged initiative the company is calling its “People and Planet Positive” campaign. The initiative will also focus on reducing the company’s overall energy use, and growing enough trees to replace the wood used in its products.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
23rd October 2012 at 11:13 am
Administrator says:
KB
All hype and bullshit. When I was there, they got caught producing our cheap rugs with child slave labor in India. The Nazi owner is trying to convince people he’s really a nice guy. Seig Heil. He joined the Nazi Party in 1946. Good timing.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5 
0
23rd October 2012 at 11:36 am
Eddie says:
@TeresaE
I often wonder whether all the affordably extractable oil left in the world can be pumped and sold before a true price discovery process can occur. I’m afraid the answer is “yes”.
I think about …the Passenger Pigeon.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
23rd October 2012 at 11:41 am
ThePessimisticChemist says:
@SSS
“The GLOBAL daily consumption of oil is 80 million barrels. Divide 2 trillion barrels by 80 million barrels per day, and how many days do you get? 25,000 days, which equals 68.49 years.
Is there a crack in the Peak Oil theory somewhere in this math?”
It doesn’t quite work out that way, worldwide consumption of gas increases by ~1.26% per year (data = 1981-2010).1
It actually works out to be at 44 years, assuming the average rate of change for oil consumption remains the same, and that they actually manage to extract 100% of the 2trillion barrels of oil.
Source: http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx
All numbers were extrapolated using the data from this website.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
23rd October 2012 at 12:21 pm
Administrator says:
TPC
Based on the EROEI chart it will require approximately 1 trillion barrels of oil in energy expended to extract the oil from the 2 trillion barrels in the ground.
SSS may be too dense to get this simple fact.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
23rd October 2012 at 12:42 pm
ThePessimisticChemist says:
Lets just halve the number of barrels produced then and call it EROEI adjusted (I’m learning from the BLS here):
~25 years of oil gained from the oil shales
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
23rd October 2012 at 12:46 pm
Ron says:
Alaska was puchased for its vast resources.As alaskans have pointed out to me,its the folks in the lower 48 that dont want oil exploration done.I remember reading about oil companys sitting on large tracts of oil rich land for years in alaska.Theres lots of oil in Alaska. Add in North Dakota and enough natural gas for over a hundred years.All the peak oil stuff is like hearing about y2k.Crap.
An easy baby step would be to just only sell pickup trucks to contractors.And only with diesel or natural gas power.The oil savings in the usa would be enormous.
I read up some on Thorium,its development is mostly stifled by our government.Fast reactors were pushed.
How you like those stock markets?Weeeeee.
Like or Dislike:
2 
3
23rd October 2012 at 12:53 pm
Christopher Harrison says:
When I see stuff like this I’m reminded of the story of the Easter Islander who chopped down the last tree, just to roll another statue around.
“It’s a shame, but I have to do it…”
And then their progeny were condemned to deal with the consequences of those choices.
We have learned nothing.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
23rd October 2012 at 12:58 pm
ThePessimisticChemist says:
“And only with diesel or natural gas power.The oil savings in the usa would be enormous.”
I’ve been saying the same for quite awhile now.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
23rd October 2012 at 12:59 pm
GJH says:
I have yet to hear someone make an intelligent argument against peak oil.
In case it hasn’t sunk in yet: EROEI
Like or Dislike:
5 
1
23rd October 2012 at 4:27 pm
GJH says:
I’m a pretty serious environmentalist. But someone tell me, why is SSS wrong?
What’s so special about all that tundra? What harm is it going to cause to humanity, or nature in the big picture exploiting tar sands?
Species extinction? I doubt it–boreal systems have fairly consistent biodiversity over vast expanses.
Ground water contamination? Could be, would need to know the specifics…
Climate change? Maybe, but I’m still agnostic on this one. Anyone got any sources that might help make up my mind?
Anything else?
I don’t think tar sands are an answer to our energy issues, but I’m not convinced it’s easter island either.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
23rd October 2012 at 4:33 pm
Kill Bill says:
KB
All hype and bullshit -admin
Yeh, I figgerd as much. Like IKEA put a giant wind turbine in the strip center they are in to reduce their electrical costs.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
23rd October 2012 at 4:50 pm
crazyivan says:
” don’t think tar sands are an answer to our energy issues, but I’m not convinced it’s easter island either.” – GJH
The Easter Islands?
Do you mean the ones that boat people/fuck it, lets just stay here on land for a while people, started the biggest fucking party on Earth. First of all, START A BONFIRE…..then we will all fuck like bunnies.
Get a grip GJH
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
23rd October 2012 at 5:34 pm
Kill Bill says:
SSS isnt really wrong, IMO, The US imported 2.7 billion barrels from Canada in 2011.
I was asking how long the tar sands would last. Turns out much longer than 67 years at current production rates.
It is what sh!t tossing simians do =)
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
23rd October 2012 at 5:39 pm
SSS says:
“Based on the EROEI chart it will require approximately 1 trillion barrels of oil in energy expended to extract the oil from the 2 trillion barrels in the ground. SSS may be too dense to get this simple fact.”
—-Admin
Wrong, moose breath. First of all, the EROEI chart is for the USA, not Canada. And the energy returned versus energy invested in the USA for tar sands is a factor of 3.0, not 2.0. And the EROEI for oil shale is even higher, 5.0. You can look it up.
Furthermore, the key factor in this whole discussion is not EROEI, it’s cost, something which you fleetingly mentioned. Right now, as long as the price of WTI crude remains above $75-80 a barrel, it’s PROFITABLE to go after that oil in tar sands and oil shale. But if the price of oil drops below that level, then it won’t be.
This is easier than shooting accountants in a barrel of oil.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
23rd October 2012 at 5:52 pm
SSS says:
“SSS has 2 trillion neurons trapped in his brain, but the only question that matters is how many more years will it be until they produce a cogent thought.”
—-Stucky
Good one, Sticky. I was still chuckling when I hit the thumbs-down button.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
23rd October 2012 at 5:59 pm
Kill Bill says:
Looks like its time to heat up the popcorn oil =)
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
23rd October 2012 at 6:05 pm
SSS says:
“I don’t think tar sands are an answer to our energy issues.”
—-GJH
Tar sands can be PART of the answer. How anyone can ignore or try to shut down a potential 2 trillion barrels of known and accessible oil in the face of increasing global demand is beyond me.
And this stuff is sitting right next door, inside our very best friend on the planet, who is more than willing to sell it to us. Geo-politically, it doesn’t get any better than that.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
23rd October 2012 at 6:16 pm
SSS says:
“The EROEI on this tar sand stuff is something like 1.5 to 1, and for the shale oil, it’s about 1.3 to 1, last i heard. A barrel spent per 1.3 barrels extracted.”
—-Chicago999444
Well, you heard wrong. See my above tutorial to the sadly misinformed Admin.
But do you know what has an EROEI of 1.3? Ethanol and biodiesel. No surprise that the dumbass greenies are behind the least efficient methods of producing energy. And not far behind is solar at 2.0.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2
23rd October 2012 at 6:21 pm
crazyivan says:
“Wrong, moose breath. First of all, the EROEI chart is for the USA, not Canada. ”
On a differant topic…… thank god……
If you, as a loyal TBPer, and can spare a dime to offset some of the costs of our behind the scenes efforts to find suitably affordable ( and humane) housing for SSS, please donate:
Box 474
Black Eagle, MT
59414
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
23rd October 2012 at 6:23 pm
GJH says:
SSS – Well, we’re kinda on the same side on this one. But here’s where I think you are utterly mistaken:
“the key factor in this whole discussion is not EROEI, it’s cost”. Give me an F’ing break. That’s economist logic, not engineer logic.
Try using oil for energy when it’s EROEI is 1, and see how you prosper. Yes, for other, more valuable uses than burning for energy, oil will be used for the foreseeable future. But for transportation and heating homes? Not. Slight caveat: rich and powerful people might still use them for transport, but the masses will not.
This is so obvious, I’m scratching my head. Am I missing something here, or was your statement full retard?
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
23rd October 2012 at 6:25 pm
GJH says:
To elaborate a little more.
One guy has a million barrel oil well on his ranch with an EROEI of 100. His neighbor has a million barrel well with EROEI of 5.
Who’s richer?
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
23rd October 2012 at 6:29 pm
crazyivan says:
The oil companies you dipshit.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
23rd October 2012 at 6:35 pm
GJH says:
Crazy Ivan – The strange logic of your comments gives me a kick, even when I don’t quite understand it.
Look, I’m not saying we aren’t heading in an Easter Islandish direction. But I don’t take it as a foregone conclusion.
What we need to do is get a clue as a species. If we did, tar sand oil could be part of a transition to a more sustainable system.
We need a plan.
Even if we don’t get one, lots of things could happen. The elite could kill 90% of us off. We could have a nuclear war. A plague could take out the industrial world, almost all of whom’s inhabitants are immune-impaired by their terrible diets and lifestyle. One way or another, I think there’s good odds of a major die off in the next century.
But probably some will still be around to live out a humbler existence. One version of the meek inheriting the earth.
I love the topic and would go on, but I have to go. I wish these posts didn’t scroll by so quickly.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
23rd October 2012 at 6:40 pm
Kill Bill says:
Tar sands take alot of energy to produce. True.
Luckily Canofduh has plenty of natural gas in the area they are excavating tar sands and producing this fuel.
When oil hits a 100 bucks a barrel sequestration from coal, how Hitler made synthetic fuel (Fischer Tropsch), becomes doable.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
23rd October 2012 at 6:47 pm
Kill Bill says:
Crazy Ivan – The strange logic of your comments gives me a kick, even when I don’t quite understand it. -GJH
Crazy Ivan has some entropic problems as he defrosts and his order becomes disordered.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
23rd October 2012 at 6:50 pm
crazyivan says:
“We need a plan” -sounds like you need a rubber room
Humans are collecivly incapable of collaberating on anything.
.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
23rd October 2012 at 7:13 pm
crazyivan says:
“Look, I’m not saying we aren’t heading in an Easter Islandish direction. But I don’t take it as a foregone conclusion”
Look at this statement folks’
Word by word, for long as you can stand it.
.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
23rd October 2012 at 7:22 pm
SSS says:
“SSS – Well, we’re kinda on the same side on this one. But here’s where I think you are utterly mistaken: “the key factor in this whole discussion is not EROEI, it’s cost”. Give me an F’ing break. That’s economist logic, not engineer logic.”
—-GJH
Maybe I’m really off base on how private companies operate, but the last time I looked, every one of them operate from a standpoint of costs versus revenues, eg. “It cost us $80 million to make $90 million. Profit, $10 million.” The company doesn’t go to the engineering department to get those figures, it goes to its accounting department.
The above doesn’t apply when it comes to biodiesel, ethanol, and solar. Many of those companies get government subsidies and special tax breaks. And many of them still fail.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
23rd October 2012 at 8:13 pm
SSS says:
Time to check in, Admin. I set a trap for you. There’s a hook in the water with a huge piece of tasty bacon on it. Please bite.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
23rd October 2012 at 8:17 pm
Administrator says:
SSS wakes up from his nap to get kicked in the balls again. The breakeven price for a new Tar Sands plant in Alberta is between $80 and $100.
Please provide your source for EROEI of 5 to 1.
So how many years of supply do we have in Canada? Is your original dumbass 68 years still your contention?
Get that calculator out Mr. Spook and then give it to someone who can multiply and divide.
We await your new calculation.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
23rd October 2012 at 8:42 pm
Kill Bill says:
*time to salt the kernels*
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
23rd October 2012 at 8:48 pm
SSS says:
I’ll grant you one thing, Admin, you semi-sniffed out the trap, ie. EROEI on Canadian oil sands and NOT the Wiki chart on U.S. oil sands, which is 3.0 (the 5.0 figure you cited is for oil shale deposits, not oil sands). So, here’s the chart. Canadian oil sands, which presently amount to over 80% of the known world deposits, come in at 5.2 to 5.8 EREOI. Ergo, your math is totally fucked up. I accept your white flag of surrender.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
23rd October 2012 at 9:03 pm
Administrator says:
SSS you ignorant slut. I’ve uncovered a slight flaw in your bullshit thesis. Please have a 3rd grader interpret it for you.
“Most of the oil sands of Canada are located in three major deposits in northern Alberta. These are the Athabasca-Wabiskaw oil sands of north northeastern Alberta, the Cold Lake deposits of east northeastern Alberta, and the Peace River deposits of northwestern Alberta. Between them, they cover over 140,000 square kilometres (54,000 sq mi)—an area larger than England—and hold proven reserves of 1.75 trillion barrels (280×109 m3) of bitumen in place. About 10% of this, or 173 billion barrels (27.5×109 m3), is estimated by the government of Alberta to be recoverable at current prices, using current technology, which amounts to 97% of Canadian oil reserves and 75% of total North American petroleum reserves.”
OUCH!!!!
Your 2 trillion barrels is actually 173 billion of recoverable barrels.
Please calculate how many years we have at an EROEI of 5 to 1.
I’ll await your answer.
I’ll give you a hint. It isn’t 68 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_sands#Input_energy
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
23rd October 2012 at 9:19 pm
SSS says:
“The breakeven price for a new Tar Sands plant in Alberta is between $80 and $100.”
—-Admin
Well, holy shit, Sherlock. Did you think I wouldn’t notice the word “new”? Damn, anyone with half a brain would know the capital-intensive costs of a new mining project, even in mining-friendly Alberta.
I cited current prices of $75-80 a barrel for oil sand and oil shale projects to be profitable, and YOU throw in the red herring of the costs of a NEW mining operation jacking the price up to $80-100. How stupid do think I am?
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
23rd October 2012 at 9:24 pm
llpoh says:
Oooh! Oooh! I will play!
Admin’s numbers directly above subject to the disclaimer of “at current prices”. So, dependent on the price at the time, all the oil is (and will be) recoverable. Total amount recoverable will vary by price. All of it will be recovered when prices get high enough.
I also guess 6.8 years (10% recoverable times 68 years if fully recoverable.).
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
23rd October 2012 at 9:28 pm
Administrator says:
Pretty stupid.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
23rd October 2012 at 9:29 pm
Administrator says:
At $500 per barrel, I bet most of it will be recoverable.
I can’t wait.
Considering the world plunges into recession every time oil nears $120 per barrel, SSS’ 2 trillion estimate sure seems valid.
SSS is scrambling to his CIA factbook to try and recover from this epic beatdown.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
23rd October 2012 at 9:33 pm
Llpoh says:
SSS exposes nuts, Admin delivers kick.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
8 
1
23rd October 2012 at 9:34 pm
Administrator says:
Our super spook only missed by this much
Like or Dislike:
5 
1
23rd October 2012 at 9:35 pm
SSS says:
Admin
This is fun. Back later to answer your latest unhinged reply. The Missus has rung the 6:30 dinner bell, and the ranch hands had better not be late, or there will be hell to pay.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
23rd October 2012 at 9:36 pm
Administrator says:
SSS goes airborne
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
8 
0
23rd October 2012 at 9:38 pm
Kill Bill says:
Wait. Oil will hit 500 a bbl?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
23rd October 2012 at 9:38 pm
Administrator says:
Alzheimers is a terrible disease
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5 
0
23rd October 2012 at 9:43 pm
Kill Bill says:
Yanno, our [usa] main import is oil
Yet our main export is fuel.
Obviously we produce more fuel than we use.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
23rd October 2012 at 9:51 pm
Kill Bill says:
Whats wrong with a free shoe shine in a FEMA camp?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
23rd October 2012 at 9:52 pm
Administrator says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
8 
0
23rd October 2012 at 9:56 pm
llpoh says:
When SSS said “how stupid do you think I am” I kept hitting the refresh button furiously waiting for the response. Even with all of his experience on TBP, SSS makes a rookie mistake. It could happen to any of us, sure, but damn, that was an opening the Admin was always going to drive a truck through.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
23rd October 2012 at 9:58 pm
Kill Bill says:
Im still waiting to see if admin loses his wager that Obummer will open up the srategic reserve.
Begiin Countdown
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
23rd October 2012 at 10:03 pm
SSS says:
Take a look at this map of Alberta’s oil sand deposits. Now, take a look at that so-called 54,000 square mile map posted with the article. Can you spot a teensy-tiny discrepancy in the area claimed by this bullshit article and reality? Stucky and Admin can’t, but I bet you can.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
23rd October 2012 at 10:44 pm
SSS says:
Take a look at the map I posted above. Do you see Ft. McMurray in the middle of the Athabasca Oil Sands deposits? I know you do. Now, take a look at this aerial photo of Ft. McMurray. Do you see the horrible environmental damage this town has suffered because of oil sands mining, just like the article Admin posted wants you to believe? I know you do. Even I can see it.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
23rd October 2012 at 10:52 pm
SSS says:
Admin reliably posts the worst case, enviromentally-slanted scenario, an old standby by doomers. To wit, “173 billion barrels (27.5×109 m3), is estimated by the government of Alberta to be recoverable at current prices, using current technology.”
Current prices. Current technology. Hmmm. What’s wrong with that picture? Well, to answer his question using those absurd fences he built around the framework, 173 billion barrels of oil is only good for 5.2663621 years of GLOBAL oil supply.
But let’s go with that 173 billion barrel bullshit and assume, as is the case today, that the U.S. will consume some of that oil to the tune of a 1 million barrels a day at current, whatever that may be, market prices. Well, that means that for a mere 479 years, the U.S. will have a reliable source of 1 million barrels of oil per day.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
23rd October 2012 at 1:07 am
llpoh says:
SSS – I will try not to use my 2/3 quart of oil per day share all at once. I will save up for the week and maybe then I will be able to make it down to the grocery store and back.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
23rd October 2012 at 1:13 am
crazyivan says:
“Well, that means that for a mere 479 years, the U.S. will have a reliable source of 1 million barrels of oil per day.”-SSS
Yes. Yes. Yes.
And I crazyivan will personaly provide the other 19 million bpd that the US burns.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
23rd October 2012 at 3:01 am
Administrator says:
SSS must have eaten too much. His pathetic response to my facts confirms his advanced stage alzheimers diagnoses.
WORST CASE?????
The fucking government of Alberta is the one who says there are 173 billion barrels of recoverable oil. As I pointed out, and you conveniently ignored, whenever oil prices rise above $120 per barrel the world economy crashes and demand is sapped. Therefore, the 173 billion barrels is a HIGHLY likely actual amount of recoverable oil.
Your final point is pathetic and weak. Do you think Canada may use some of that oil? Do you think China might want a few gallons? How about Japan? You actually think the U.S. is entitled to that Canadian oil? Do a little google search SSS. China has been buying up the Canadian tar sands. So Solly. You won’t be getting those 173 billion barrels.
Final kick to the balls applied.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
23rd October 2012 at 8:10 am
SSS says:
After destroying Admin for the zillionth time, I’ll give him a breather and take another vacation from my vacation. I’ll be back in the middle of next week. That should be plenty of time for his wounds to heal. I’ll depart with these classic words …..
“This was easier than shooting accountants in a barrel of oil.”
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
23rd October 2012 at 10:16 am
Administrator says:
SSS trying to remember where he’s going on vacation.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
23rd October 2012 at 10:29 am
Kill Bill says:
The popcorn was delish!
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
23rd October 2012 at 11:01 am
Stucky says:
SSS Logic 101 — Course Introduction
The picture below is Fukushima Farmland … a mere five miles from the melted nuclear power plant.
See how PRETTY everything is?? Conclusion: there is NO problem there!! Thus endeth my course in logic.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
23rd October 2012 at 11:08 am
Kill Bill says:
For GJH and Crazy Ivan
The successful demonstration at Kualoa Ranch in Hawaii with a three metre tall, 4.35-tonne concrete replica moai, captured on video by Nature magazine, offers an alternative to the traditional hypothesis that the 887 statues, which stand as high as 32 feet and weigh up to 80 tons each, were rolled across the island, now know as Rapa Nui, on wooden logs.
A team of 18 people attached three ropes to the replica moai’s head, with two groups pulling forward on either side and one group at the rear steering the statue and preventing it from toppling over. Chanting “heave-ho”, they managed to shuffle the statue 100 metres in under an hour.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
23rd October 2012 at 11:33 am
EmBar says:
RE: SSS says:
“… NRC, failed to develop a commercially viable thorium molten salt reactor after decades of trying to do so? We’re waiting for your wisdom.”
As far as I know, the work on the molten salt, liquid fueled reactor technology in the U.S. was halted by the Nixon Administration in the early 1970′s to focus all work on the liquid metal cooled, fast breeder reactor project. This was done at a time when natural uranium was assumed to be in extremely short supply.
Dr. David LeBlanc (Ottawa Valley Research Associates) has pointed out that the only reason for using thorium would be a non-existent shortage of uranium. He also points out that the ability of liquid-fueled reactors to burn all inserted nuclear fuel as opposed to solid fueled reactors, which must have their rods removed due to the buildup of waste products, would greatly extend the life of existing sources of uranium and be far more tolerant of high ($500/kg) uranium costs.
Dr. LeBlanc is proposing that the first generation of fluid-fueled, molten-salt reactors be simple uranium burners rather than the more complex and technically challenging dual-fluid uranium breeding thorium reactors. All the advantages of safety and greatly reduced transuranic waste production usually quoted for the thorium breeders would also apply to his simple molten salt uranium burner reactors, one example of which has already been built and tested at Oak Ridge, 40 years ago.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
23rd October 2012 at 11:55 pm
AKAnon says:
One important consideration re EROEI: Energy is measured in Btus or watts, not in barrels. Not all energy has the same cost or value, and to some extent, energy sources are interchangeable. Right now, natural gas is a veritable steal compared to petroleum on a per Btu basis. Some of those “barrels” invested in mining tar sands are, in fact, petroleum products, but the energy to process & refine that tar sand may well be (and arguably should be) natural gas. Is exchanging natural gas for petroleum a wise decision in the big scheme of things, environmentally? Maybe, maybe not. But it does go to SSS’ point that as a business, the Canuck oil miners could arguably make a profit (and continue producing oil) with an EROEI even less than 1. Petroleum is a relatively high value energy source, and consumers will pay a premium (pun intended) for gasoline.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
23rd October 2012 at 2:44 am
En forbrytelse du kan se fra verdensrommet | Sammenbrudd eller Kommunisme 5.0 says:
[...] Disse bildene vil gi deg mareritt! Robert Johnson som er redaktør for militære spørsmål i Business Insider har publisert et sett med bilder som viser hvordan dette ser ut på nært hold. [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
23rd October 2012 at 10:06 pm