black sand-the deus ex machina solution to oil shortage

[ryanwh]

Nothing short of a miracle can get us out of an oil crisis? Here it is:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/20/60minutes/main1225184.shtml

"We know there’s much, much more there. The total estimates could be two trillion or even higher," says Clive Mather, Shell's Canada chief.

The oil sands have been in the ground for millions of years, but for decades, prospectors lost millions of dollars trying to squeeze the oil out of the sand. It simply cost too much.

So basically, oil sands, not unlike modern aluminum, were until very very recently an untappable resource because we didnt have the proper tehnology to extract it. But now we know how to tap into it. Not only does this produce oil, but it also produces clean sand which is better for the environment(nothing can grow in oil sand or oil dirt)

 

[DESIRE]

Here here! Congrats4u. However, I'm still hoping that we will move in the direction away from oil since it won't last forever. I mean, we don't want to have to repeat the process in the future -_-. Of course, however, we probably will.....

 

[ryanwh]

I doubt that. Ethanol is still the better option, but oil sands at least give us the ability to ease into fuels better for the environment. It "eases the bell curve" if I might take a line from rexxz's thread. I mean, there's still the whole global warming thing, but uh we could send the excess water to mars or something :P

 

[rexxzecutioner]

Are you talking about those tar sands in Canada? This is no long term(or short term) solution to our problems, sorry to say it.

The returns on extracting oil from tar sands is approximately 3 barrels of oil for every 2 consumed. This is an EROEI of about 1.5. There are also extreme environmental costs in water pollution and land destruction. And that is only taking current production into account, where the easiest resources are the first mined. This suggests that the Alberta tar sands can fuel the world for less than 5 years, even if you are prepared to pay the vast environmental costs.

 

[ryanwh]

I dont know where your 5 year figure came from, but the figures they give paint a different picture. Also the extraction process is steam, seperating the oil and sand with hot water. Dont tell me steam requires that much power, that's bollocks. Shell wouldnt invest in something that trivial.

 

[rexxzecutioner]

Regardless of any amount of energy put in to extract this, it is simply not worth it. This is a feeble attempt at attacking the symptoms of the problem, not the root. Not only does the tar sands yield such a low output of energy that is laughable, it won't last for long. It can't power the world, much less a single country. And when it is gone, then what? Back to square one.

What is needed is a set of long term plans that will ease the transition from a pre-peak oil world to a post-peak oil world. People will have to realize that their lifestyles will need changing, and adjust them accordingly.

 

[rexxzecutioner]

Try around 70.

 

[ryanwh]

Id like to see some citations from you young man. I was under the impression CBS was a reputable source but seemingly without reading fully through the article you seem to have completely different figures. They never once reffer to this as tar sand which makes me think you might be reffering to something else. I think tar sand might be soil that has been drenched in mined oil, which isnt what this is at all. This isnt oil that was extracted from the ground and saturated in the dirt, the oil was formed on the surface and its everywhere.

 

[ryanwh]

I wasnt talking to you, I was talking to rexxz. You havent made a valid argeument yet so naturally I was only reffering to the person who did. You're just trolling.