PeakOil is You
The Oil Drilling/Extraction Tech Thread (merged)
Re: Oil sands extraction without using water + using less en
by Oil-Finder » Fri 01 Feb 2008, 22:38:01
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pisser', 'I')t is impossible to increase 'technology'. We can increase physical equipment, we can refine tools, we can even increase the efficiency with with we do both. Unfortunately as we cross over the peak of our primary energy, it will be impossible to increase equipment. The resulting economic retraction will steal money and energy from innovation. Furthermore your precious technologies turned out to be gimmicks. SAGD is 25 years old and has ever succeeded. There are so many reasons why THAI remains a silly investment scam. Several contrived 'trials' does not translate into a production system. You have a religious faith that it does. I do not share your beliefs.
Perhaps "increase" was a poor choice of words. What I meant was that the use of more advanced technology increases efficiency.
You're dismissing THAI out-of-hand, in spite of the fact that several in the other thread tried to tell you it's worked just fine in the tests, and likewise in The Oil Drum thread. Any new technology to you is automatically a failure.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pisser', 'T')his is another of your distractions. Regardless, such population reductions are a function of education, entrance into middle class, and general security--qualities lacking in all but the most prosperous societies. With world wealth quickly concentrating into the hand of a few the chances of this reduction is quaint and farfetched. Regardless, birth rate in 3rd world countries are booming because of access to food and medicine produced with and by petroleum. There is little evidence UN predictions will hold.
On the contrary, there is abundant evidence UN projections will hold. In fact, their recent history is that they keep having to adjust future population projections downward.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pisser', 'O')il sands production will not scale up, and will probably end due to equipment cost increases, shortages of natural gas, water, and cheap energy for extraction. This environmental nightmare and industrial boondoggle is doomed. You have not done your homework and you post company press releases and tainted science.
Once again we have someone complaining about water use in the oil sands in spite of the article posted at the outset of this thread. Somebody isn't reading. But then, since you dismiss this technology out-of-hand, perhaps it shouldn't surprise me.
What are you going to do when oil sands production doubles? Or triples? What are you going to do when one or more oil companies up there adopts this THAI technology on a large scale? I feel kinda sorry for you, because the mental contortions you'll have to go through to continue your denial will be painful.
-
Oil-Finder - Tar Sands
- Posts: 630
- Joined: Tue 11 Dec 2007, 04:00:00
- Location: Seattle
Re: Oil sands extraction without using water + using less en
by Oil-Finder » Fri 01 Feb 2008, 22:53:40
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('peripato', '
')Ok oily give us an example of when and where this has happened?
')Ok oily give us an example of when and where this has happened?
Wow, I could go on forever.
- The telegraph, and then the telephone, solved the problem of communicating instantly over long (or short) distances.
- How about the Green Revolution? Because of it, millions who would have starved, didn't.
- You typed that on a computer and communicated your message across a worldwide network. This was not possible 30 years ago. This solves many communications problems.
- Automobiles solved the problem of getting from Point A to Point B quickly and easily. Airplanes solved the problem of doing the same over longer distances.
Etc., so on, and so forth. Do I really need to go on? All you need to do is read a history of inventions. It is the history of technology solving problems.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('peripato', 'Y')ou can’t
I just did.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('peripato', 'b')ecause you’d have to run the perpetual growth engine experiment until the end. Only when all extractable finite resources are used up, the majority of other species eliminated, and industrialization has filled the world with man-made objects, and we can still survive, if not the breakdown of natural systems, then at least the inevitable breakdown in mechanical ones, only then oily can your case be proved. But you know the experiment can only be run once, if the artificial world fails then there is no natural one left to fall back on.
Wow, this could be a whole thread. But I'll keep it simple: Look at Europe: It is densely populated, wealthy and highly developed. To be sure, some species there have gone extinct or are greatly reduced in number, and the amount of wilderness is incredibly reduced compared to, say, Roman times. But has nature disappeared entirely? No. Do Europeans have to walk around wearing gas masks all the time because the air is so polluted? No. Do they have clean drinking water? Yes. Do they even have some resources left? Yes. In spite of centuries of intense development, Europe has not turned into some sort of dystopian nitemare. No reason why the rest of the world can't follow the same path.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('peripato', '
')So long as the population keeps growing (Booming U.S. birth rate defies world trend, National birth rate hits record high) conservation measures are futile.
Dude, that was just for the US. We were talking about the entire world, now all of a sudden you have to change the topic to just the US.
