[algOnline2]

This is directed to anyone who can help ...

My neighbor who worked for a considerable time in the oil
development industry has told me that the Canadians have
developed a new low heat, shallow triple shaft extraction
technique that comes in at well under $20/b and takes 14
months to develop. This would imply a potentially signi-
ficant delay in the impending oil shock if true, on
schedule and all the other qualifiers.

Having searched on the open net, I don't come up with
anything but the orginal article was supposedly in the
SPE (Society of Petroleum Engineers?) member journal
which I don't have access to.

Having read a small chunk of the forum, I am very leary
of news this positive. The message seems clear that the
combination of physical and political inertia is going
to create a severe shock, when being the only question.

If anyone can enlighten me on this technique, I would
much appreciate it. Apologies for the vagueness of the
description. I've been digging in the areas where I can
get to and would appreciate any help to finish off the
issue one way or another.

==> Now the standard cynicism ....
Food. Shelter. Clothing. Self Deception.

[EnviroEngr]

Logged.

[Mark049]

As I understand it, there is a huge amount of "oil sands" in Canada. Apparently it isn't economically feasible to extract the energy out of it at this point, or only very marginally so.

However, if oil prices increased to, say, $80/bbl, it would turn out to be worthwhile (I'm just making up the number).

Of course, $80 oil would still have a huge impact on industrial economies, but it could be that the price would then stabilize at $80 for a good long time.

Even the oil sands would be depleted someday, but it sounds like this could stave off the point of peak oil production for many years.

What do you think? Am I wrong?

Thanks,

Mark049

[Cool Hand Linc]

Interesting Idea. I would not say you are wrong.

What I will say is that the tar sands are currently being harvested at $60 per barrel. An increase in price could cause more refining of tar sands.

It is believed that increased price will have a cause and effect such as what you are suggesting. The more money to be made the more desire there is to produce the product.

The importance of light crude's in the future is most important. Tar sands are not light crude's. Canada is already producing a non-light crude oil. So basically isn't the cause and effect already set into play? Already the more expensive and energy intensive oil is being produced at 60 dollars per barrel and was being produced at lower dollar figures than 60 per barrel.

It would seem to me the stabilizing effect is already occurring.

[Cool Hand Linc]

I should say a little more about light crude.

Light crude yields a higher ratio of the energy in/ energy out.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'E')NERGY "RESOURCES" MUST produce more energy than they consume, otherwise they are called "sinks" (this is known as the "net energy" principle). About 735 joules of energy is required to lift 15 kg of oil 5 meters out of the ground just to overcome gravity -- and the higher the lift, the greater the energy requirements. The most concentrated and most accessible oil is produced first; thereafter, more and more energy is required to find and produce oil. At some point, more energy is spent finding and producing oil than the energy recovered -- and the "resource" has become a "sink".