[Canuck]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PK', 'I')n order to earn an attractive return on their investments, investors would be willing to invest only if they are convinced that the long term oil price is trading above USD20/bbl (which might not be such a big problem at the moment).

[PK]

Canuck

I think your understanding of the Tar Sands is not complete.

Please see attached link and click on any of the latest presentations:

http://www.cnrinternational.com/investor/investor_presentations.htm

You can also find sensitivity analysis inside, i.e. what happens should oil prices appreciates and so on. You should also note that they plan to produce synthetic light sweet crude.

Meanwhile, Suncor (SU) which is producing synthetic crude oil at approximately 225,000 bbl/day is definitely profitable.

[Scientist]

Rerere,

As pointed out above, production FBRs exist in Japan and in India and China. FBRs feature strongly in Japan's energy strategy. Their main drawback at present is that cheap supplies of uranium make FBRs less competitive vs PWRs.

[Scientist]

PK,

Good reply re: tar sands.

[Scientist]

Trespam,

Back up your opinions with figures, sources etc, rather than saying my figures re: nuclear energy are wrong. (You might also want to do some research first).

[Scientist]

http://www.apioil.net/s/QwikReport.asp? ... 6598,66599

Looks like this refutes a lot of the criticisms of shale and tar sands extractions...

Comments?

[PK]

Scientist

Theoretically, this process appears to work. However, its actual industrial application is largely unproven and might need quite some time before it become proven, if at all. In my opinion, if the process really holds much promise, the Tar Sands companies would be beating a path to them!

There was no actual mention on the speed of extraction but it is probably implied that a large scale project will kick off much quickly than conventional oil sands extraction.

If you observe ASPO depletion curve, you would realise that heavy oils such as tar sands is factored into computation, with increasingly higher contribution post peak. Due to the drawback (ease of extraction) mentioned, it would be years before significant production amounts can make a difference.

[MonteQuest]

Scientist quote:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')ure we use a lot of oil (too much?), and if we changed our ways (as is starting to happen) we could use less, and extract more, and utilise what we have better. Why does this mean that peak oil is definately here now? Where's that proof of that? At what price is oil too expensive to extract? Peak oil is based (to my understanding) on the premise that it will become too expensive to extract enough oil to meet demand - what is that price? is it $52pb, $60pb, $100pb??? We've seen price increases of 25% this year, but no economic collapse...

[Keith_McClary]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Scientist', 'T')he Peak Oil discussion is an important debate, but you should check the figures out there folks. Let me just quote you some:

- At $40pb shale oil can supply oil for the next 250+ years at current consumption rates. We are obviously at $50+bp this week.
- The total size of known shale oil resources represents 5000 years of reserves at present consumption!
- Aside from shale oil, there are other huge untapped energy resources such as deep water oil that have SO FAR been uneconomic to exploit

[smiley]

Scientist,

While tar sands are a economically viable resource we cannot develop them fast enough.

Just do the math. Conventional oil production is going to decrease by 2 mbd after the peak. The average tar sand production yields somewhere between 30.000 and 150.000 boe d per location. That means that you need about 20 startups per year to counter the decline. The costs associated with this are staggering.

The Canadian association of petroleum producers (Capp: www.capp.ca) predicts that the oil sands are going to add 1 million barrels to the total Canadian production in 2015.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')otal Canadian production, including Atlantic Canada, is projected to increase from the current 2.6 million barrels per day to reach 3.6 million barrels per day (b/d) by 2015.

[Kingcoal]

It's very clear to me and a lot of other people around here that our money is based on oil and thus is relative. In other words, your $50 oil becomes $100 oil very quickly as you use more oil than you're getting while recovering and refining.

This has been discussed at length in this forum in the past.

[rowante]

The new catalytic process of producing oil from tar sands sounds at least more environmentally friendly. However, I found this letter written to Wired magazine re the Athabasca tar sands project.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'G')reg Lindenbach
Vancouver, British Columbia


I found your article on the Athabasca "tar pit" interesting but more than a bit misleading. I was a manager for the US Department of Energy on the Synfuels project at the Laramie Energy Technology Center for several years. Koerner had many of his facts correct but was evidently not aware of factors that directly impact the use of tar sand as a source of petroleum (aka sweet crude). First, unlike standard petroleum, the chemistry of tar sand bitumen is nonstoichiometric - the ratios of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen do not come in even numbers. This may seem trivial, but without considerable posttreatment, nearly all petroleum derivatives would be unusable in, for example, cars and planes. Second, all tar sand, both in Canada and the US, contains a small but significant amount of heavy metals, including those that almost immediately stop catalytic converters from operating.

[StayOnTarget]

Kingcoal that is exactly the key. The big point that economists miss. The fundamental relationship between energy and capital. Whereas capital represents the ability to perform useful work through wages and the purchase of capital equipment etc.., energy IS the ability to perform useful work. In this way energy, also referred to in engineering circles as availability, is more fundamental and as such is the foundation upon which captial is built. Hence cheap, abundant, easily exploitable energy in ever increasing global supply allows for the growth in captial, markets, and economies in the capitalist world. Easy availability (cheap energy) is the pre-requisite for economic growth within this paradigm. There is no easier form of energy available to humanity than the energy potential of fossil fuels.

This has been discussed thoroughly throughout the forum by Monte and others. It is the biggest point I try to drive home to the economically minded. Capital represents all energy, not just fossil fuel derived energy. It represents human power, animal power, nuclear, combustion, every form of energy we can harness to perform useful work. Capital investment does not create availability (energy), it facilitates the exploitation of energy. Of course there must be a profit, not a capital profit, that comes later, but an energy profit first and foremost. It is this energy profit that is the foundation of the system that we in the industrial world are inextricably tied to.

Depletion is incontrovertible. The dearth of new discovery is incotrovertible. The imbalance between reserve growth and consumption is incontrovertible. (incontrovertible = word of the day) When we will peak in production may be debatable, but one thing is not. Without a new easily exploitable (energy profitable) source(s) of energy capable of replacing fossil fuels we will be faced with a world of shrinking capital.

[Kingcoal]

Thank you. In the US we have a lot of shale oil which from what I understand has a lower yield than tar sand oil. I have read that shale oil was mined and refined in the early part of the 20th century.

I'm not completely hopeless, however. A solar powered pyrolysis furnace might be used to "crack" these non-conventional oils without the economic penalty.

[John_A]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'S')cientist quote:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')ure we use a lot of oil (too much?), and if we changed our ways (as is starting to happen) we could use less, and extract more, and utilise what we have better. Why does this mean that peak oil is definately here now? Where's that proof of that? At what price is oil too expensive to extract? Peak oil is based (to my understanding) on the premise that it will become too expensive to extract enough oil to meet demand - what is that price? is it $52pb, $60pb, $100pb??? We've seen price increases of 25% this year, but no economic collapse...

[dsula]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('John_A', '
')Someone please enlighten me.

[John_A]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dsula', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('John_A', '
')Someone please enlighten me.

[dsula]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('John_A', '
')How do we explain to them that there is now so much around that ..... blabla

[Beery1]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Scientist', '.')..if you strongly believe in Peak Oil, then buy huge amounts of crude futures and become a multi-millionaire in a couple of years time and live out your last days in style. Strangely I don't see the Peak Oil theorists doing so...

[ROCKMAN]

“How do we explain to them that there is now so much around that if we are willing to pay a little more”.

Fantastic. I love starting the day off with a good laugh. Pay a little more? Yes….I suppose if one considers paying a few hundred % more is a little bit. I suppose if spending $trillions and thousands of lives protecting ME oil is insignificant. I suppose if the US consumers and businesses spending many 100’s of $billions more on energy in the last several years and the impact that has had on economic growth and unemployment is insignificant.

Again my worn out rant: when oil production levels peak is not very relevant when it comes to how every person on the planet lives. It’s all about the costs of energy along with those little sidebars like various military adventures past and future.

Again it’s all easily explained by the POD. Increasing US oil production is a direct result of the POD. IOW the increase in Bakken and shale production is one of the most obvious proofs of peak oil. And will continue to be so as long as oil prices stay elevated. IMHO the critical metric of PO isn’t the oil production rate but the price of oil and the economic and political responses. IOW the POD. Letting ourselves get drawn into endless debates about rates and reserves just deflects the discussion from THE critical dynamic IMHO: the price of energy and that impact on the lives of the world’s population.