The Trillion-Barrel Tar Pit

An anonymous reader writes "The latest issue of Wired has an interesting article about Canadian tar pits that could result in a trillion barrels of oil when processed. It seems just when we think the oil will run out we find new reserves. Now excuse me while I gas up my Hummer."

Comments

Hmm

[Analise]

Makes you wonder, if all the money being put into finding new sources of oil was instead put into new sources of energy, would we all be driving cars that get 80mpg and make almost no emissions? Or, you know, something like that.

Re:Hmm

[be951]

...if all the money being put into finding new sources of oil was instead put into new sources of energy, would we all be driving cars that get 80mpg and make almost no emissions?

It is possible, but not necessarily the case. Along with money, it takes time to adopt new technology. Also, we can build cars that get 80 or more miles to the gallon, zero emission vehicles, vehicles that use non-petroleum power sources, and various combinations of those and other "green" features. There are a number of reasons that "everyone" doesn't have these. First of all, cost is an issue. But there are many other factors -- both rational and emotional -- involved in purchasing a vehicle. Does it do what I need? Does it do what I want? Does it look how I want? Is it better in one of those areas than an alternative?

The short answer to why we aren't all driving super-high mileage vehicles is that we as consumers haven't demanded. We want fast, pretty, luxurious, big, cool, cheap, convenient, etc... cars more than we want highly efficient, enviro-friendly cars.

Re:Hmm

[Analise]

The short answer to why we aren't all driving super-high mileage vehicles is that we as consumers haven't demanded. We want fast, pretty, luxurious, big, cool, cheap, convenient, etc... cars more than we want highly efficient, enviro-friendly cars.

My point was, if all the time, energy, and money that has been spent on finding more oil reserves had been spent on finding other/better energy sources, we might now be driving cars (even larger ones) that perform just as well or better as what we've got now and are much less harmful toward the environment. And, in this fantasy world, since the cars and tech for them would've been around for a while and worked on, it's quite possible that even the cost would be much less prohibitive than it is now.

Of course, that's just all in my head. :)

Re:Hmm

[Fat Cow]

i've got great news for you! you don't have to wonder - you can take your own money and invest in those alternative energy companies. if you're right you can make a bundle. hurrah!

Re:Hmm

[Analise]

you can take your own money and invest in those alternative energy companies

I probably would, alas I am a broke college student.

Re:Hmm

[nelsonal]

Probably not, in the whole scheme of things, very little gets spent finding new, better energy sources. The biggest cost to energy is converting sunlight to a more useful form (usually electric or chemical) the advantage with oil is that is complete you just have to find it, and most of the reserves already found it was either know for eons and was regarded as a nusiance (La Brea tar pits etc) as oil soaked ground is not as useful for travel or crop growing. We have put considerable resources into getting it out of the ground but that amount pales in comparison to the costs of developing a better method (and building infastructure to utilize) of converting energy from sunlight to chemical or electric energy. Besides very few alternate energy sources are as mobile as petroleum products. Ethanol and biodiesel are but batteries aren't close yet.
These oil sands aren't new, prices just finally got high enough to make it cost effective to extract it (profitable at ~$35/barrel).

Re:Hmm

[Zachary Kessin]

The thing is that for all we bitch about oil it does its job quite well. Oil and derived products (gas, jet fuel, Disiel fuel, heating oil etc) have several things going for them:

1) They have a high energy density. The fact is you can get a lot of useful work out of a gallon of auto gas.

2) They are reasonably stable at room tempurture. Yes they will burn but they won't explode for no reason (which some things will).

3) We have an infrastructure for them. From the drill to the pump a lot has been invested in making oil avalable.

4) We have a huge knowlege base. There a lot of people out there who know how to do a lot of useful things out of petro chemicals. From roughnecks to chemical engineers a lot of folks know how to do useful stuff here.

There is a lot of oil in the world. Right now there is a lot of oil that we know about but like the Canadian tar we haven't bothered to go after it because its a lot cheaper to get oil some where else. If for every $100 of oil it costs you $3 in Saudi Arabia but $60 in Canada to extract it which would you use? As the oil that is easy to get to is used up we will get creative about how to get the other stuff.

I imagine the fuel of the future will be Eathanol. You can make it by fermentation of sugars in plant products. But this also has problems, in that corn used for Eathanol can't be used for food or other things.

There is this myth that there is some perfect source of energy out there and if we would only spend 5 minutes looking we would find it. I wish it was so but I'm kind of skeptical. I mean if you did find it you would get quite rich. But so far its not happened. Other energy sources have problems as well.

Re:Hmm

[SpaceLifeForm]

Probably not, in the whole scheme of things, very little gets spent finding new, better energy sources.

Perhaps that is due to the controlling interests not wanting to give up that control.

Re:Hmm

[nelsonal]

Sorry about the confusion, energy==oil and gas in that context. E&P costs are miniscule compared to the amount of energy generated and its mobility. If you applied to alternative power sources the returns are nowhere near as good yet. As we use up more of the "low hanging fruit" althernate sources will become competitive. But when that happens depends on when (if) we hit peak oil. Assuming Hibbert is correct, a rought guess would be most alternate energy becomes competive about a third to half way down the curve (perhaps somewhere near the POI on the downward slope of the curve) wholesale untaxed gas prices in the $3/gallon range and oil in the $70-$90/barrel range.

Re:Hmm

[TykeClone]

I imagine the fuel of the future will be Eathanol. You can make it by fermentation of sugars in plant products. But this also has problems, in that corn used for Eathanol can't be used for food or other things.

That's not entirely true. The corn used for ethanol is not the corn that you eat on the cob. It is mainly used for feeding animals.

Distiling the corn down to alcohol doesn't use up all of the food stock in the corn - what is left (the distiller's grain) can still be used to feed animals, and it has a higher protein content than corn alone.

Re:Hmm

[E_elven]

Geez. No-one can read an if statement correctly anymore. I thought folks here were programmers :)

IF all the time & resources had been spent to research alternatives,
THEN we would likely have nearly-as-effective if not more so vehicles with better emissions
ELSE well, here we are
ENDIF

Re:Hmm

[Christopher Thomas]

Probably not, in the whole scheme of things, very little gets spent finding new, better energy sources.

Perhaps that is due to the controlling interests not wanting to give up that control.

Or just because we don't need them at present, and there's greater return on investment in other branches of development.

Think about it. If we knew we _had_ to switch to, say, hydrogen power storage and nuclear power generation within 50 years, wouldn't the big oil companies invest scads of money to make sure _they'd_ be the big hydrogen/nuclear companies?

Re:Hmm

[nelsonal]

My issue was mainly the efficiency of your first conclusion. We haven't spent all that many resources (relative to the energy we got out) looking for additional oil reserves (it has all been low hanging fruit so far). Certainly nothing near the amount of improvement that would have to be accomplished in alternate power sources. The article mentioned that natives used the oil from these finds to seal their canoes prior to western arrival here. Doesn't take a whole lot of R&D to find that or get it out of the ground. Contrast that with the amount of time and resources required to substantially improve batteries, drive systems, materials and everything else necessary to get energy transfered from the sun into your car (If you don't use waste vegetable oil, bio-Diesel costs about $3/gallon. Ethanol is more expensive. Batteries have a long way to go to match hydrocarbon chains' energy density.

Re:Hmm

[E_elven]

Do you know how much a new drilling plant costs? A new off-shore rig? Probes? OPEC bureaucracy? How much did it cost in the 40's? 50's? 60's? 70's? 80's? 90's? This decade? We're talking billions and billions (of relative value).

Besides, there was an article not too many moons ago about do-it-yourself biodiesel for, what, $0.48 per gallon?

I agree to a point; the alternatives aren't that great right now (certainly much less useful than if they had been researched with proper funding from the 40's on out), but if even a small part of the research costs were diverted, a lot of things could happen. Here's a link to Exxon, who in 2002 spent $0.61 per barrel in research costs. I unfortunately don't have stats for barrel price but from the recent $40/barrel scare we can extrapolate that the cost was somewhere around $30/barrel back then. That means that the company spent around 2% in research. Here you can see the production: 2,400 thousand (2400000) barrels per day; a total of $864 million barrels per year, with a total price of a little over $25 billion, of which 2 percent would be approximately $500 million. For Exxon alone. $500 million. A year.

Re:Hmm

[shadowbearer]

What, and you think that those "controlling interests" wouldn't love to be the ground-breakers in a massive changeover to alternative fuels and have a (temporary) monopoly? Why are they spending billions of dollars researching alt fuels, then?

The main problem is the cost of changing our infrastructure over (to hydrogen, alcohol, or whatever). Half a trillion dollars over ten years (given a real effort) is the conservative estimate.

The other problem, right now, is that the demand for that changeover is simply not there in the automotive industry. Sure, there are a lot of alt-fuel vehicles being demo'd, and sold, but still just a drop in the bucket compared to the traditional vehicles out there.

The really promising long-term switchover (to electric once the storage and solar cell efficiency problem is solved) tech is hydrogen; but as a lot of people are fond of saying, there aren't any hydrogen wells; we need massive amounts of electrical power to produce hydrogen, and the only really efficient way to do so is with fission plants (which are cost-prohibitive to build right now due to various licensing issues which I won't go into here)

So basically, in the US we need a huge "paradigm change" in how the public perceives energy use. Military intervention in the Middle East isn't really helping.

I know this is really short and lacks detail, and some will argue with it, but essentially that's where we stand right now. But the "Petroleum corps are interested in maintaining the status quo" argument has been dead for years now, considering the amount of money all of them are investing in alternatives. Seriously, do some research - I used to think the same way as you do, and found out that I was simply wrong.

SB

Re:Hmm

[iwadasn]

don't be a troll. It's simply a cost thing. The cost per joule of oil today is about the same as the cost per joule of electricity. It has been proven time and again that your average consumer shops on nothing other than sticker price. For insance, clean coal would raise the price of coal power from $.04/KWh to $.05/KWh, while reducing the external costs from $.07/KWh to about $.02/KWh. So clean coal would have a total cost of $.07/KWh, whereas normal coal today has a cost of $.11/KWh.

The ratepayers aren't willing to pay one single red cent in order to have cleaner air, even when that would save them more money in the long run. Likewise, the average consumer will buy SUVs getting 2 miles to the gallon right up until the day when gasoline gets expensive, and then they'll go bankrupt. God forbid anybody might pay one red cent in advance to either help the planet or insulate them from future problems.

That is why we have cars that still run on oil, and we'll have them until oil becomes more expensive than electricity, at which point we'll have cars that run on electricity. Case closed.

Re:Hmm

[prof_peabody]

Also, don't forget that ethanol has high environmental costs. Sure it somes from plants, but you have to grow a lot of plants.

Re:Hmm

[rburgess3]

There's plenty of oil still left on the earth... you know those numbers that the 'death, doom and destruction' crowd keep throwing around, the 'We'll be out of oil in the next 20 years!' stuff? That's based upon an estimate of what's available that is as EASY to get at as what is currently being used. The nations of the world know of vast amounts of oil that can be used, it's just that currently, the Middle East, Russia, Venezuela and a couple other countries have stocks that are far, far cheaper to process.

The Canadiens have known about that oil field for a long time now, decades at least. There's just one problem with it: it's not in caverns that can be overpressured like the Saudi fields, it's locked up in sand, you litterally have to mine it. It's just recently that that field is beginning to look profitable. That's a combination of a) rising oil prices and b) advancing technology.

The oil that is easy to process (read: cheap) WILL be gone in 30-40 years. The oil that's just a little harder to process will take up the slack. We, the world, won't suffer a true shortage of oil for a long, long time.

Does that mean that we shouldn't be searching for alternatives? Not at all. As a matter of fact, as the price of oil rises, alternate energy sources will become cheaper and cheaper by comparison, if not in actuality. For exactly the same two reasons listed above, there will come a time when there is actual INCENTIVE to put large amounts of funding towards finding different ways to power our transportation/electrical systems: a) rising oil prices and b) advancing technology, but this time in fields unrelated to processing oil. Until then, however, most of the monies spent looking for alternatives can probably be better spent on technologies to cheapen refining the more difficult oil reserves.

Please note: I'm completely ignoring what using fossil fuels does to the environment in this post as it's not germane to the discussion. That, and for whatever reason, ecological reasons don't sit well with U.S. consumers. But that too, will sort itself out as oil prices rise.

Re:Hmm

[nelsonal]

I'd make a rough guess that $500 billion (in current dollars) has been spent on finding and extracting oil from the ground (no royalties or other wealth transfers just the economic costs). That same $500 billion would no doubt have improved our automotive technologies considerably, however I firmly doubt that alternate energy sources would be competitive with pulling the stored energy from the ground. Batteries are nowhere near the same energy density, and it requires considerable land, energy, and effort to grow corn or soybeans (or eventually algae) to replace the oil. Also if you go electric, would $500 billion pay for enough dams, solar power grids (and technology improvments), and wind farms to completely replace our transportation system? $500 million sounds like an awful lot of money, but on that scale it's pretty small. The world uses roughly 70 million barrels of oil per day. Each barrel contains roughly 5.8 million BTUs of energy, other than vegetable oil and ethanol, there isn't much that comes close, and I will put dollars to doughnuts (you gotta send krispy kremes if you have one) that it would take well more than $500 million to produce enough corn or soybeans to make the same 400 trillion BTUs of energy we get from the ground.
Assuming Hibbert (and Hoteling) are right (I have almost no doubt either are) we will begin using alternate energy when the extraction costs are similar probably in the next two decades (that is a SWAG). That said you are considerably more long term in mindset than most American's or /.ers. My potential errors are grossly underestimating the productivity of R&D in alternate energy sources.

Re:Hmm

[adeyadey]

Yes.

Even with current technology, the worlds best selling electric car, the Gem, runs at a cost of about 0.25p/mile - compared to 30p/mile for a typical petrol car. (BBC news)

Just needs a bit of a push to get the milage between charges up. My own idea is that batteries be "leased" from garages, so that you drive into a garage and swap for a fully charged one instantly, for some sort of fee. No new technology needed for that, just some basic mechanics.

But electricity comes from fossil fuels you say? The UK has enough offshore wind-power to generate all our energy needs several times over - just use spare off-peak power to charge our cars up. New wind-power farms can supply electricity at 0.03/kw/hour - pretty cheap. (British Wind Energy Association page)

Once people get off the treadmill of buying new petrol cars and realise how cheap electric cars can be, volumes go up and the prices will drop..

It all makes sense - doesnt it?

Re:Hmm

[fluffy666]

Perhaps more like: float oiluse = 1.0; float economy, population = 1.0, standardofliving; float technology = 1.0; try { for(ever) { oiluse = oiluse*1.05; technology = technology*1.05; economy = oiluse*technology; population = population*1.05; standardofliving = economy/population; } } catch(OilRunOutException) { population = 0; }

Re:Hmm

[mikerich]

Just one drawback - the US puts about 8 times as much energy INTO producing crops as it extracts from those crops (by eating them, distilling them whatever). This number is called the Fuel Energy Subsidy and has been increasing through the last century thanks to the advent of mechanisation and artificial fertilisers.

That energy is obtained from fossil fuels.

Corn ethanol is no more than a tax subsidy for farmers, it certainly does not replace petroleum and gas.

Best wishes,
Mike.

Re:Hmm

[qtp]

What, and you think that those "controlling interests" wouldn't love to be the ground-breakers in a massive changeover to alternative fuels and have a (temporary) monopoly?

The problem with your theory is that the newer technologies in renewable energy tend to work rather efficiently on a micro producer scale, and thus would serve to reduce the amount of control that any one company or small group of companies can have over the energy market.

Electricity from solar energy can be that are on the market today.

Biodiesel takes very little equipment to produce in your garage from waste vegatable oil (big plastic drum, litmus paper and/or phenolthalene solution, hydrometer, measuring devices, etc) for pennies. No new technology need be implemented for the use of biodiesel

Natural gas can be efficiently produced on farms and by municipalities using biological processes.

Wind can be harnessed for electric production by windmills ranging in size from small ones that will power the lights in your garage (can be home-made without too much difficulty) to giant towers that can power several city blocks.

The truth is that petrochemical and energy corps are interested in maintaining the status quo, and will shun any technological advances that threaten to decentralize the energy markets. OTOH, the same corporations are showing considerable interest in implementing large scale renewable energy projects that allow market control to remain in their hands, such as large scale wind farms and hydrocarbon fuels produced from poultry processing wastes. The problem is that many people think that these companies are somehow attached to the idea of fossil fuels, when the truth is that they do not care where the money and power come from, as long as it remains in thier own hands.

(btw, the "hydrogen energy economy" is a red herring. It takes more energy to seperate the hydrogen from water than can be gained by burning or through fuel cells. The companies know this, and stand to profit from subsidies for building hydrogen plants, and from producing the electricity that will be used to seperate the hydrogen from water.)

Re:Hmm

[iocat]

maybe... and maybe it has to do with the laws of thermodynamics.

Find another group of molecules that holds as much energy in them as hydrocarbons do, and then maybe someday YOU could be one of the controlling interests!

Re:Hmm

[Brandybuck]

My point was, if all the time, energy, and money that has been spent on finding more oil reserves had been spent on finding other/better energy sources, we might now be driving cars (even larger ones) that perform just as well or better as what we've got now and are much less harmful toward the environment.

So are you advocating a world dictator to force people to only direct their research towards areas that you personally approve? I bet you're also one of those people that wants to ban KDE (or GNOME) in the interest of a unified Linux desktop.

If you're wondering why not everyone in the world has signed up with the environmentalist movement, consider that it's because the typical environmentalist solution is the elimination of freedom.

Re:Hmm

[Analise]

So are you advocating a world dictator to force people to only direct their research towards areas that you personally approve?

Uhm, no. I never said that "hey, we should go do this right now and everyone else can just forget about", I was trying to say that the possibility exists that that could be so. My original post was a simple, "hmm, i wonder what things would be like if we'd done them differently." Not a, "Hmm, I wonder what things would be like if there was a world dictator to force people to only direct their research towards areas I personally approve."

I bet you're also one of those people that wants to ban KDE (or GNOME) in the interest of a unified Linux desktop.

I can definitely say that I am not one of those people in any way, shape, or form. No cookie for you.

If you're wondering why not everyone in the world has signed up with the environmentalist movement, consider that it's because the typical environmentalist solution is the elimination of freedom.

How so?

Re:Hmm

[Brandybuck]

How so?

Because most (but not all) environmentalist solutions involve the application of government force: "pass a law and arrest people who don't follow it." A typical example is "let's ban Hummers!" This violates the freedoms of the people who build, sell, buy and drive Hummers. Perhaps you don't care about them, or that the price is necessary, but it is an example of environmentalists wanting to curtail liberty.

Of course, environmentalists are hardly alone in this regard. You're just the ones apropos to this topic...

futurama

[Spudley]

If they drain all the oil out of the tar pits, it'll really mess up the plot for that episode of Futurama.

Re:futurama

[christopherfinke]

You're forgetting that those tar pits were on a burnt out sun just past Teddy Bear Junction. Duh.

Re:futurama

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that's where the Fountain of Aging was. The tar pits were on earth.

Re:futurama

[Anonymous Coward]

Dang it; I knew I shouldn't have tried knowing something.

Re:futurama

[GTRacer]

The tar pits were on earth.

They were indeed, but not in Canada. The tar pit Leela parked in was the La Brea tar pit in Los Angeles.

That aside, it was the best acting I've seen from Stallone lately!

GTRacer
- Will work for DVD box sets

Re:futurama

[DaveJay]

That wasn't the tar pits -- that was the Fountain of Aging. The episode was on the Cartoon network last night. ;)

oil running out?

[Slowping]

The world has always had big reserves in many places, especially around Alaska and Canada. Why burn up your own reserves when you can eat away at others first?

For countries like US and Canada to open up their own reserves would just drive down oil prices and make the oil worth less. Wait until the global supply is lower and then you can get some real bang for the buck.

Re:oil running out?

[Baron_Yam]

The tar pits aren't fully exploited because it's much harder to extract oil from them than to buy it from the Arabs, Russians, South Americans, etc...

Re:oil running out?

[Anonymous Coward]

Another issue is cost of extraction. Oil shale deposits could power the world for a thousand years, but when you work out the numbers, you end up spending much more energy processing it to a useable form than you get out of the final product.

A trillion barrels of oil is useless if you burned two trillion to get it.

Re:oil running out?

[prof_peabody]

Oil shales and oil sands are two very different beasts. Oil sand is currently economic to recover whereas oil shales are generally not. Look at the success of the MacMurray oil sands that the wired article is reporting on several years too late. Tar sands is also a misnomer; it's really a low API oil in the sand.

You can't hide from us.

[Anonymous Coward]

I hear the Canada is harboring terrorists. Quick to the F14...mobile

Re:You can't hide from us.

[orthogonal]

I hear the Canada is harboring terrorists. Quick to the F14...mobile

Bur when Bush/Cheney invade Canada, where will the draft dodgers run to?

Eh, anyway, so much for the longest undefended border in the world.

Re:You can't hide from us.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bur when Bush/Cheney invade Canada, where will the draft dodgers run to?

Mexico, my friend. Mexico.

Mmmmmmm, tacos...

haha

[truffle]

I learned about this years again in grade 10 geography class. We canadians have 70% of the world's drinking water too. Bow down and worship us Americans!

Er wait

I mean, please don't invade us :/

Re:haha

[denominateur]

Fallout intro anyone?

Re:haha

[Will2k_is_here]

It would be nice to see a surge in resources like this give us more say in U.S.-Canada trade relations. You know, U.S. blocks trade for Canadian beef, we block trade to the U.S. for oil. Canada wouldn't be pushed around by the U.S. as much as we are now. That would be nice to see. Force America to patch up relations with us, rather than the other way around.

Re:haha

[zhiwenchong]

It will be a while yet before the oil from Alberta's tar sands are as economical to extract as conventional crude.

Things are looking up though with new extraction techniques. Kudos to those guys at the University of Alberta and University of Calgary.

Re:haha

[MarsDefenseMinister]

I wonder about the global warming that this new oil will cause. But on the bright side, if it warms up enough you might not find a nicer place to be than Montreal in January!

Re:haha

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry about the beef ban, but if you would stop making cannibals out of your cattle and spreading mad cow, perhaps it could be lifted.

Re:haha

[isa-kuruption]

In the words of the great Homer Simpson:

"Canada? Why should leave America to visit America Junior?"

Re:haha

[YU Nicks NE Way]

Naah -- we'll just move in from the south and reform your government. No, wait, Reform is no more, right? It's the Liberals and the NDP this week?

Hell, never mind -- we don't understand your government, so we'll fix it. But good.

Re:haha

[Christopher Thomas]

Sorry about the beef ban, but if you would stop making cannibals out of your cattle and spreading mad cow, perhaps it could be lifted.

You do realize that the US does exactly the same thing, and that there was a reasonable chance the Canadian cow came from a US herd, right?

Re:haha

[pyrrhonist]

You do realize that the US does exactly the same thing,

No we don't. It's illegal.

and that there was a reasonable chance the Canadian cow came from a US herd, right?

And no other cows in the herd had mad cow, IIRC.

Re:haha

[prof_peabody]

It's economic right now. They are producing oil from the oil sands.

Re:haha

[sudog]

Prions occur naturally and not necessarily through cow byproduct feed; so, while that seems to be the most popularized transmission method, it is apparently not the primary cause of the spread of mad cow.

Re:haha

[zhiwenchong]

Sure but it's not really ready to replace conventional crude yet.

Re:haha

[chaosmage42]

Note that every time the US has tried to invade Canada they failed. Miserably.

Re:haha

[mikerich]

What a tremendous technology - consume huge amounts of energy and water to get the stuff out of the ground. Then use even more energy and produce biblical amounts of carbon dioxide to make the muck actually usable. THEN create even more carbon dioxide when you burn it.

Thank goodness the profligate use of fossil fuels and carbon dioxide pollution aren't causing long term problems for humanity.

Oh...

Best wishes,
Mike.

Re:haha

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh so wrong. As a biochemist, I am telling you it is the primary cause of the spread. De novo formation of prions is, however, how the "epidemic" originally started (obviously).

Re:haha

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, America does stuff like this all the time.

Here's a hint - if you don't think the US puts incredibly sick cows into the American food supply, do a google of "downer cows".

The Beef Association in the US is still fighting the ban, and may get it revoked. It was only put in place last year (and I'm not sure if that was nationwide).

The US is far from innocent when it comes to these sort of things.

Re:haha

[sudog]

If the original cause is the spontaneous formation of prions, then the primary cause of infection is the spontaneous formation of prions in cattle and not the subsequent transmission by feeding them their own dead bits. I.e.: bad habits are bad, but fixing them won't eliminate mad-cow, as many people wrongly believe. That was more my point.

How does this solve the problem?

[kawika]

There is no lack of oil at reasonable prices. Even with the recent price spike, US gas prices are lower in inflation-adjusted terms than they were during the "Oil Crisis" of the late-1970s. Prices would be a lot higher if we were running out of oil.

The problem comes if China and the Third World follow in the footsteps of our oil-wasteful economy. The planet's atmosphere is not going to like that. Although there's a lot of concern about the Three Gorges Dam in China, I would rather see them submerge some local Chinese history than throw tons of hydrocarbons into the world's atmosphere.

Re:How does this solve the problem?

[hal9000]

It's not only submerging history, it's fucking up the ecosystem of the entire region. Just like every dam does.

Re:How does this solve the problem?

[kawika]

Yep, hydroelectric power can do a lot of local damage. But it doesn't poison the whole world. Also, the floods it controls have killed thousands in the past, so there is a benefit. Unless the dam breaks--there are legitimate concerns about that.

Also, China is making an important strategic and economic decision by using hydroelectric. Their economy will not be dependent on foreign oil, and won't need to become involved in Middle Eastern politics to protect their country. Now there's a real tar pit.

Re:How does this solve the problem?

[b-baggins]

A CHANGED ecosystem does not mean a DESTROYED ecosystem. I am so sick of this ignorant environmentalist prattle about some utopian static, eternally unchanging mythical ecosystem that exists nowhere except their deluded fanaticism.

Re:How does this solve the problem?

[hal9000]

Hey pal, I never said ecosystems are static, unchanging, or utopian, so point your vitriol hose somewhere else.

Re:How does this solve the problem?

[mmortal03]

There is no lack of oil at reasonable prices. Even with the recent price spike, US gas prices are lower in inflation-adjusted terms than they were during the "Oil Crisis" of the late-1970s. Prices would be a lot higher if we were running out of oil.

Ah, but the problem with oil is that it is not priced with the knowledge of how much is still in the ground, like other limited resources. So far, we have only been given educated guesses as to how much available oil is still in the ground. To give an example of the worst case scenario, the price could stay the same right up until the the wells start drying up, because we just don't know how much is really left.

Re:How does this solve the problem?

[Drakin]

Actually, I think the greater worry is the possibility of the dam collapsing.

Re:How does this solve the problem?

[b-baggins]

Yes you did. The moment you accused damns of messing up ecosystems, that's exactly what you said. Either you're being dishonest by trying to backpedal, or you're too stupid to realize what the environmentalist manifesto crap you regurgitate actually means.

Re:How does this solve the problem?

[hal9000]

Dude, are you saying dams DON'T fuck up ecosystems?
Of course different ecosystems develop after the dam, but the existing one is fucked. That is ALL I'm saying.

Re:How does this solve the problem?

[pyrrhonist]

so point your vitriol hose somewhere else

Hey, watch the language, pal.

Re:How does this solve the problem?

[iwadasn]

Their economy is already dependant on foreign oil, and hydro power won't stop that. We get basically none of our electricity from oil (just like china) and yet we depend on middle eastern oil.

In any case, china is also pondering nuclear, which is by far the smartest choice around, if you ask me.

Re:How does this solve the problem?

[RedWizzard]

Of course different ecosystems develop after the dam, but the existing one is fucked. That is ALL I'm saying.

But you say it like it's a bad thing. That's where the debate is.

Re:How does this solve the problem?

[mdielmann]

Why are you comparing "reasonable prices" and "Oil Crisis" prices? I'd think that you could say the prices are lower than when we were really restricted in accessing oil, but that wouldn't be "reasonable", now would it?

Re:How does this solve the problem?

[doudou42]

Since _we_ are throwing tons of hydrocarbons into the world's atmosphere, why wouldn't they ?

Re:How does this solve the problem?

[mikerich]

Yep, hydroelectric power can do a lot of local damage. But it doesn't poison the whole world.

They can seriously screw up international relations. Turkey's enormous Ataturk Dam brought it and Syria and Iraq to the brink of war after the Euphrates dwindled to a trickle as the reservoir filled. Israel has threatened Jordan with attack if the Jordanians build a dam on a tributary of the River Jordan. Egypt has threatened Sudan if they dam the Blue Nile.

China is now engaged in an internation dispute over its damming of the Upper Mekong which has disrupted flow on the lower part of the river, causing fisheries to crash.

Dams have caused river bank erosion in Egypt, the Nile Delta is crumbling and the soil is becoming degraded. The fisheries of the Eastern Mediterranean are in serious trouble and Egypt now suffers from increased prevalence of illnesses such as bilharzia. Mexico does not receive its international ration of water from the Colorado and what it does get is contaminated with salt and pesticides from irrigation runoff.

Oh and they also cause increased seismic activity. A bit of a problem when you whack a monster dam through a seismically active region such as the Three Gorges.

Best wishes,
Mike.

Re:How does this solve the problem?

[mikerich]

There is no lack of oil at reasonable prices. Even with the recent price spike, US gas prices are lower in inflation-adjusted terms than they were during the "Oil Crisis" of the late-1970s. Prices would be a lot higher if we were running out of oil.

The oil crises were all political events caused by the taps being turned off. It's not really a fair comparison.

We are almost certainly at, or very close to, the peak of oil production - from here on it is a short plateau before oil production goes into an irreversible decline.

Most major provinces outside of the Middle East are (such as Venezuela or Nigeria) all now at their peak or past their peak (North America, and the North Sea). Countries like the UK which have been self-sufficient in oil are soon going to be looking to top up dwindling domestic reserves with imported fuel.

The Caspian, for all the excitement it raises has not actually transformed the world. Talk of 200 billion barrels in the region are at the far end of expectations, so that isn't going to bail us out.

There aren't many more big fields left to discover, what's left is in smaller fields, deeper down, harder to drill and with commensurate higher costs.

But at the same time, China and India have turned their growth to maximum. Both countries need to import oil and gas to maintain economic growth and both have plenty of hard cash to spend on fuel imports. Both are becoming major players in the Gulf where they are signing agreements to drill and produce oil for export to their own markets.

So even if oil isn't in immediate risk of vanishing from our lives, the World's addiction to the stuff is getting worse - not better. There may be plenty of oil down there - but will we be able to afford it?

Best wishes,
Mike.

Re:How does this solve the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah the Three Gorges Dam! The thought of it gives me chills, just imagine the devistation we can cause with a few missles! TE HE! MY GLEE IS OVERFLOWING!!

Re:How does this solve the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

The probability (inevitability?) of an intra-Middle-East war over water supplies as this century goes on is one of the most under-reported items I can think of.

its really sad

[drfrog]

that people still want to keep our oil based economy

why not stop and look at other choices?

the hunt for oil is one of the main causes of international violence currently

isnt it time to look for better solutions?

Re: its really sad

[Black Parrot]

> the hunt for oil is one of the main causes of international violence currently [...] isnt it time to look for better solutions?

Imagine a world where people invade Holland to take over their windmills...

Re:its really sad

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, get started!

Re:its really sad

[ConceptJunkie]

Well, we're going to need oil until those other choices are viable. It's not like we can wave a magic wand and declare "energy independence" and we suddenly have alternative energy sources to replace oil, despite what certain presidential candidates might think.

What we need to do is pursue other source while we look for more oil. They've been looking for other solutions for 100 years. The problem is the consumers will not want to trade their gasoline-powered cars for something else that will cost them a lot more. The problem with arguments like yours is that it assumes money just magically appears out of thin air.

THe main cause of international violence is corrupt governments that keep their people in abject poverty even though it isn't necessary, and then convincing them it is someone else's fault (the U.S., Israel, etc, etc).

Re:its really sad

[drfrog]

well its not like people arent trying,

look at the current items on slashdot even

methane reclaimation on animal farms,

turing biowaste into oil

solar panels are getting cheaper and more efficient

these solutions have been around for years

how do we get everyone turned onto these other sources , how does one take everyone who is non complacent and apathetic about this issue and get them thinking environmentally?

Re:its really sad

[ConceptJunkie]

how does one take everyone who is non complacent and apathetic about this issue and get them thinking environmentally?

When the cost and hassle are not significantly more than the status quo. I would have considered a hybrid if Honda had had the 5-seater in 2001, but it would have cost significantly more to do so (I know the Toyota Prius was around back then, and Toyota makes good cars, but I was afraid that would be that much more expensive).

All the solutions you suggested are great, and we should pump more research money into them. I understand that the Bush Administration is trying to get through an Energy Bill that includes a lot of research money for that purpose, but it's being held up for political reasons... probably something about ANWR. The problem is that none of these alternatives come close to energy density and low cost of gasoline, and are unlikely too any time soon. Plus with the byzantine environmental regulations across the U.S. different regions require different formulations, meaning gas isn't fungible acorss states, creating regional shortages (e.g., $3/gallon in parts of CA while the rest of us pay around $2).

Add this to the fact that the auto manufcturers are reluctant to invest in expensive new technologies that people aren't going to want to buy. California can dictate quotas on alternative energy vehicles until it's blue in the face, but the consumers won't buy what they don't want. However, with the incredible breakthroughs happening in materials engineering and other technoloogies, I'm sure it's only a matter of time before something good to replace the gasoline engine is invented and adopted, but that could still be decades away. We need to keep up the idealism and look for alternatives, while at the same time ensure our economic security in the short term. You can't do just one.

Maybe we could convert all those disposable DVD's that companies insist on inventing into a fuel source. That's gotta be about 50 years worth of fuel right there.

Re:its really sad

[Anonymous Coward]

No, MUSLIMS are a main cuase of international violence.
They require a final solution.

True

[Mark_MF-WN]

The problem comes if China and the Third World follow in the footsteps of our oil-wasteful economy. The planet's atmosphere is not going to like that. Although there's a lot of concern about the Three Gorges Dam in China, I would rather see them submerge some local Chinese history than throw tons of hydrocarbons into the world's atmosphere.

True. It sometimes seems like environmentalists wont be happy until we all live in caves. I care about the environment, but I also recognize that something has to give somewhere. Hydroelectric dams provide bountiful, clean electricity, at a fairly reasonable environmental cost. If China is embracing hyrdoelectric, I say more power to them.

Re:True

[Anonymous Coward]

The only sustainable solution is thinning the herd. I'd rather have 100M hominids living in comfort in a paradise than 10G barely subsisting in a spoiled world.

And no, I don't need to be part of that select 100M. I'm willing to go, anonymous and forgotten, if need be.

Re:True

[Anonymous Coward]

Please, don't let anyone here stop you from taking that first step.

Re:True

[DAldredge]

Then buy a gun and kill yourself.

Re:True

[Monkelectric]

Hydroelectric dams provide bountiful, clean electricity, at a fairly reasonable environmental cost. If China is embracing hyrdoelectric, I say more power to them.

Know much about china? They have tons of dams that protect 10's of millions of people from chinas natural state, which is merciless flooding. I used to know a lieutenant colonel and we talked military strategy alot (it was better then working :-)) and he told me were we ever in a serious war with china, the first thing we would do is blow up their dams killing 10s of millions of people, crippling them. Which is why we'll probably never get in a war with them. Their dams are indefensable from a tactical perspective (say from a long range missle).

tarpit... oil... hummer...

[dpilot]

On /. a reference to 'tarpit' usually means something other than the type that holds oil, or at least petrochemicals.

Accept for a moment, the premise that hummers (and other gas-guzzlers) are generally undesirable, and then put that together with 'tarpit' in the normal /. sense.

We need to replace a stretch of road with a tarpit that'll look like a road, and be sufficiently stiff to support lighter vehicles, but swallow hummers and SUVs - like a /. tarpit swallows evil packets. If that fine a selection on stiffness/surface tension is too hard, how about making it the road to a gas station, "Cheap Gas - $1.50/gal - minimum purchase 20 gallons!"

Re:tarpit... oil... hummer...

[Anonymous Coward]

Accept for a moment, the premise that hummers are generally undesirable...

Said by someone who clearly doesn't know what a hummer is... then again, this is Slashdot, so what do I expect?

Re:tarpit... oil... hummer...

[dpilot]

I would normally call it a humvee, but it looked like the more normal /. term was hummer, so I used that. A friend of mine at work has a humvee.

Re:tarpit... oil... hummer...

[nelsonal]

I think humvee refers to the military version of the vehicle (I'd guess that it is the pronunciation of an abreviation). The (AMC?) company that produces civillian versions of the vehicle is branded Hummer, and the vehicles were known as H1 (really close to the military version) and H2 (a bit smaller--still a monstrosity) the H2 is far more popular as it costs about half as much and most folk do not seem to know or care that there is a difference. I think humvee would be more accurate in reference to a military version or H1 civillian vehicle and hummer includes H1 and H2s.
That said if I were gonna blow six figures on a car that measured efficency in gallons per mile, I'd get one of these. Getting two tons of metal from 0 to 60 in under 5 seconds pretty impressive. And you could probably drive the thing to an environmentalist rally. Odd considering it's only 1 mpg better than the hummer, I guess we are visual creatures.

$10 to produce?

[4of12]

Canadian tar pits that could result in a trillion barrels of oil when processed.

The oil locked into the Athabascan tar sands have been known for a number of decades; experts in the 1970's were trying to figure out economical ways of extracting the oil.

The article claims extraction is now possible for $10 per bbl.

I'm skeptical. The figure probably assumes some economies of scale in production to arrive at a cost that, if compared to recent prices, would make it a no-brainer to go forward.

Then, too, there's always the issue of how much sulfur is in this oil, which can affect the downstream price at the refinery.

Re:$10 to produce?

[theslashdude]

The extraction prices are probably accurate. The problem is that after the $10 per bbl, you still end up with what the industry considers crappy oil compared to the light sweet stuff flowing out of the midddle east. This means it requires much more refining with it's associated costs. So this option has to be significantly cheaper before refiners start buying it.

Re:$10 to produce?

[nelsonal]

I think that doesn't include any royalties, refining costs, or transportation costs. For a reference I've heard that extraction costs are $2-$3/barrel in the middle east. Which (combined with their operation at 60%-70% capacity) is the actual reason Saudi Arabia exerts so much leverage on world oil prices. They can continue producing after it is no longer economical for others to produce and keep enough slack capacity to ajdust in either direction.

Re:$10 to produce?

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, sweet is a technical term indicating the sulfur content of the oil, I think it means less than 1%, sour is anything higher (which is why brent oil carries a market price lower than texas light sweet crude-my understanding is that West Texas oil pretty much looks like 5W-30 you pour in your car, the rest looks more like the sludge you have after 5,000 miles).

Re:$10 to produce?

[sapbasisnerd]

$10 sounds lower that what they are actually achieving but at $35/bbl market price they are making money. Keep in mind also that the current extraction technology used for turning tar sand into what they call synthetic crude, uses a lot of natural gas, if methane prices keep going up too so will this.

Re:$10 to produce?

[Rauser]

The oil sand that is mined at Syncrude is refined into "synthetic crude oil" that Syncrude produces at its Mildred Lake facility north of Ft. McMurray. The costs to produce this syncrude were in the $13-14/barrel when I was there in 2002. Compare this to the ~$35/barrel market costs for oil on the open market and the Canadians are making money hand-over-fist!

there's always the issue of how much sulfur is in this oil, which can affect the downstream price at the refinery.

The sulfur is removed at Mildred Lake, where they are compressing it into blocks and using it as a building material. It is too expensive to transport down to "civilization" so they are just stockpiling it.

The "synthetic crude" is pipelined down to Edmonton where it is further refined into gasoline, diesel, etc. These products are then distributed further, including by pipeline to the USA.

EROEI

[AndrewHowe]

Energy Return On Energy Invested.

Middle East oil has an EROEI of something like 30. That is, you get 31 barrels out of the ground, and you get to use 30 barrels of it for useful work. The other barrel is used to pump it out of the ground, refine it, ship it to your neighbourhood and pump it into your tank.

Oil from tar sands has an EROEI of about 1.5, so you waste 2 barrels for every 3 you get to guzzle. That's utterly shite, basically. Perhaps that figure has been improved recently with newer techniques, but it's not going to be competitive with M.E. oil until the latter has pretty much dried up.

The other bummer about tar sands oil is that it's really low quality, full of sulphur etc.

Re:EROEI

[cpeterso]

Oil from tar sands has an EROEI of about 1.5, so you waste 2 barrels for every 3 you get to guzzle.

3 - 2 = 1.5 ??
2 + 2 = 5

Re:EROEI

[computer_chacham]

3:2::1.5:1

Re:EROEI

[Alsee]

3 - 2 = 1.5 ??

No, three DIVIDED by two is 1.5.

The original poster's math was correct.

-

Re:EROEI

[p3d0]

No, I think it's still wrong. He claimed that a 30:1 ratio meant that if you extract 31 barrels, you consume 1 in the process. Thus, for a 1.5:1 ratio, which is 3:2, that means if you extract 5 barrels, you consume 2 in the process.

Re:EROEI

[Alsee]

Thus, for a 1.5:1 ratio, which is 3:2, that means if you extract 5 barrels, you consume 2 in the process.

Yes. That's exactly what he said, he just phrased the second example a bit differently than first example.

He said you get to guzzle 3. That's 3 usuable, not 3 total pumped. The guzzlable 3 plus the wasted 2 implied the 5 total pumped.

-

Re:EROEI

[p3d0]

Ah, that's true. Thanks.

Re:EROEI

[pjkundert]

That's true, if you don't install a Nuclear Power Plant to assist in the extraction...

Of course, this begs the question -- why not just develop clean nuclear power in the first place, instead of fixating on developing more economical extraction processes? Vitrification of nuclear waste for long term storage is probably superior to suffocation, freezing or frying to death after destroying our environment. Unless you're ecologically minded, evidently...

Could it be that the public has bought into the anti-nuclear fear campaign, and would rather strangle to death on carbon dioxide, monoxide etc., than breath clean air and drink clean water?

A Trillion? Is that a lot?

[merockhold]

At the current worldwide rate of consumption of about 80 million barrels a day, a trillion barrels would last almost 35 years. (That said, I've seen conservative estimates of growth in that rate to something like 140 mbd within 30 years. Whatever.) Anyhow, that puts us near the end of my personal life expectancy, so I'm OK with whatever the rest of you nuts do after that. You might check with my kids before you completely wreak the environment and run the world's tank down to the dregs, though.

[OT] Re:its really sad

[Mick Ohrberg]

the hunt for oil is one of the main causes of international violence currently

The other main cause being religion.

That would be so sweet.

[base3]

Canada as leader of OPEC :).

Re:That would be so sweet.

[MachDelta]

Yeah, imagine the looks on the faces of the rest of the world when we announce oil is "gonna be worth a loonie, eh?"

Better watch your back

[Anonymous Coward]

Cause the minute you are worth something guess where the next couple of states are coming from?

No surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that most Canadians have known about the Alberta tar sands since grade school.

(For those who haven't read the article: basically, Canada has one of the largest oil reserves, but it's tied up in a sandy, tar-like muck. This makes the oil too difficult to extract, and less economically feasible compared to, say, invading an entire middle east country. :)

Canada also has very large supplies of drinking water (which may one day become an even more important resource), not to mention some of the world's largest reserves of uranium, potash, natural gas, and several precious metals.

Re:No surprise

[Keybase]

In Alberta those "large supplies of drinking water" come mainly from the melting glaciers in the Rocky Mountains. The glaciers are disapearing at such a rate that soon our river flows will only be a fraction of that in the past. Oil companies are already being restricted as to source and amount of water they can use to extract oil because they are depriving communities and farms of adequate supply.

Re:No surprise

[RedCard]

In Alberta those "large supplies of drinking water" come mainly from the melting glaciers in the Rocky Mountains. The glaciers are disapearing at such a rate that soon our river flows will only be a fraction of that in the past.

Alberta? Are you guys still there? We out east don't give a flying f... OH WAIT, I mean we love the west! We really care about ... those things ... that are going on ... out there. Good luck with them. Whatever they are.

(Kidding! Kidding! Just playing the eastern stereotype!) I have some friends who just moved out there there to lake louise, btw, and they're liking every minute of it. Well, actually they're not. They got suckered into one of those work-at-a-hotel-for-the-summer-and-get-paid-zilch jobs.

They do nothing but wash dishes.
For eight hours a night, from 10pm to 6am.
For minimum wage.
Six nights a week.

The province is beautiful, but they never get to see any of it. I guess they learned a lesson: look before you leap.

I am definitely afraid

[Anonymous Coward]

of whoever modded this tripe insightful.

Just for the record, foreign opinion of US elections is worth approximately its weight in dog turds. You may hate us, be afraid of us, or just hide your envy of us. Don't worry, you can still cross the border and join up. We'll let you, even if we don't like you very much. This is still a great place, despite your half-baked, Michael Moore forcefed opinions.

Also, for those of you who claim dissent is dead in the US, does 'f911' do anything to change that, or are you happy being internally inconsistent?

Re:I am definitely afraid

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't hate you, we're not afraid of you, and we certainly don't envy you. We just want a just and peaceful world.

Peace.

Re:I am definitely afraid

[Anonymous Coward]

Why was this racist rant modded Interesting?

Re:I am definitely afraid

[Anonymous Coward]

Just remember that to achieve that "just and peaceful" world sometimes war is necessary. Sometimes war IS the answer; sometimes the ONLY answer.

To insure peace, prepare for war. (paraphrased)

Re:I am definitely afraid

[Anonymous Coward]

Prepare for war, but don't go to war for no reason.

Fossils

[GreyOrange]

Maybe I'm mistaken, but aren't there fossils in tar pits? I mean if we process this stuff, could we lose valuable information about previous life forms that would not be found in the other types of oil reserves?

Re:Fossils

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you joking?

Re:Fossils

[DigiShaman]

If anything, fossils might be FOUND through tar extraction. Obviously they haven't found fossils now. What makes you think they will find them in undisturbed tar pits? For all we know, bones are resting at the bottom of the pits.

Re:Fossils

[WalksOnDirt]

"...aren't there fossils in tar pits?"

Fossils are found in the La Brea tar pits because they got trapped in the sticky tar. This started happening a few tens of thousands of years ago, after the tar was exposed on the surface. The tar was formed millions of years ago, but the extreme conditions that change buried organic matter to tar don't preserve fossils.

The tar sands have had no opportunity to acquire fossils except for the surface layer; and, since they are not sticky like real tar pits, not a large number even there.

Re:Fossils

[Anonymous Coward]

I have heard from people who worked with oil companies, that when a fossil or something is found, they have to stop digging or whatever they're doing and call in an archeology team to extract the item. I always found it funny that a giant multi-million dollar oil extraction gets held up by a bone or arrowhead. I'm not sure how stringently the companies follow these rules, but those are the rules.

Re:Bomb shelters in Canada

[0x0d0a]

Oh, c'mon. It'll be fun. You can pretend that you're the 51st state. You just have to give up your liberal drug law and immigration law and TV copyright law and you get to be part of the last world superpower! Won't that be great?

Re:Bomb shelters in Canada

[adamshelley]

HEHE,

It would be great!

I can't believe i got trolled tho. Well, it doesn't really surpise me. I wasted my good karma on that comment tho :(

Annex Cannukistan

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Next on the list: Canada.

The Prime Minister of this so-called nation flies in a government-jet with the word "LIBERAL" in five-foot-high RED letters!

How long can the United States endure this antagonism to the world's freedom?

51 States Now! -plus Israel, U.K. and Puerto Rico, maybe Iraq.

But what about emissions?

[Via_Patrino]

But what about emissions? You keep having cheap gas but CO2 emissions go skyhigh the same way.

My money == government money ?

[Via_Patrino]

My money == government money ?

I belive it's a task of the government to invest in research of "products" that are not of economic interest for companies (at the point they have reasons that don't justifies their investment) but may bring positive results for the society as a whole.

Re:My money == government money ?

[freqres]

Yep, it's called taxes.

Oil dependence

[SofaMan]

You know, we are, at some point, going to need to wean ourselves off of mineral oil, Middle Eastern or otherwise. It will get more expensive.

Many people have raised the quite legitimate concern about changing over to new automotive technologies, and I've got to tell you, biodiesel is looking better and better.

1. There's no significant change that needs to be implemented to current diesel automotive technology.
   
2. There's no significant change that needs to be implemented to current fuel distribution infrastructure.
   
3. Burning biodiesel is carbon-neutral i.e. all the carbon being released by it is carbon that was trapped by living plants in the first place, not carbon that was sucked out of the atmosphere and trapped millions of years ago when the climate and ecosystem was completely different. And we can start to use up a bunch of carbon that's already in the atmosphere causing problems.
   
4. It mean we can actually use huge areas of unusably salinated land again - certain types of oil-rich algae grow amazingly in shallow super-salty water.
   
5. You can make it yourself if you want (unless you live in Australia, where they have just declared that biodiesel attracts fuel excise, so by making your own you basically become a tax evader).
   

It won't replace the use of mineral oil for some time, but would be an important step on the way, by reducing the environmental, technological (combustion technology is still fairly inefficient, now well over a century old, with no significant changes in the basic principle in that time) and economic urgency for finding other energy alternatives. If we started talking about diesel electric hybrids, then we might be getting somewhere!

Re:Oil dependence

[Kurayamino-X]

tax evader? *hides the barrels*

Re:Oil dependence

[AragornSonOfArathorn]

those had better be barrels of moonshine...

Oh we know ;)

[/dev/trash]

We're just waiting.....

Damn!

[msouth]

Now we'll have to start taking them seriously.

middle east

[will.murnane]

if the current me conflict died out, wouldn't that be nice? I realize there are other reasons, but let's face it, economic is a big one. if we switched tomorrow to a different fuel source, it would be a good thing both for the environment but for thousands and thousands of Iraqi citizens and our soldiers, who would get to come back. There wasn't stability in 1849 in California until they ran out of gold. There won't be stability in Iraq until they're out of black gold or until noone cares about it.

Re:middle east

[sydres]

no the poverty just increases

Extraction and coal mining

[Latent Heat]

Oil, more or less, flows out of the ground (sometimes it gushes under pressure, other times you have to inject brine or steam to recover it). The Canadian heavy oil has to be dug out of the ground just like coal.

There may be some special considerations in Canada -- the cold weather, the gritty sand that wears out mining gear. But the actual mining of coal is not the expensive part -- the biggest cost of Wyoming coal (you can Google for their promo Web site) is rail transport to power plants.

I think that what you do to it to turn it into gasoline, Diesel, and lube oil is probably a much more serious concern than the actual extraction. A big concern is water consumption and waste water disposal.

An alternate fuel that looks great on paper is coal bed methane. The story there is that you consume water for injecting to get the gas and then you have some pretty rough waste water, making you not such a popular neighbor in the desert West.

One thought came to mind on the large size of the Canadian tar sands. I heard that oil drilling extracts perhaps 20 percent of the oil in the ground, depending on extraction methods, water injection, and so on. If you are digging it up, it seems you can get close to 100 percent, and that may account for why the tar sands seem like such a bonanza. I suppose most oil fields are too deep to simply strip mine and get near 100 percent recovery.

Re:Extraction and coal mining

[prof_peabody]

I'll just ignore the fact that this slashdot is about news that's over 10 years old. I'm not too optimistic about coal bed methane until gas prices increase substantially. The rate of return on these investments appears to be very slow at best. There have been interesting developments in extraction strategies, but it's likely that mthane hydrates are the hydrogen source of the future...

Re:Extraction and coal mining

[fluffy666]

I'm not too optimistic about coal bed methane until gas prices increase substantially.

Actually, CBM already accounts for 8% of US natural gas production (and this increase came before the price run-up of the last 3 years).

Gas Hydrates, on the other hand, have the problem that they don't appear to actually exist in any usable form, which is a problem.

Re:Government?!?

[Will2k_is_here]

Since when did Canada get a government?

Re:Bomb shelters in Canada

[Anonymous Coward]

your opinion changed to due to a FICTIONAL movie

its by a biased obnoxious jerk, who will do anything to get HIS truth out.

Re:Government?!?

[Loadmaster]

About 60 years ago. The same time Canada was working with their American and British allies planning the invasion of Norway and liberation of Europe. Hope this helps. Sincerely, Paul Martin. P.M. Canada

New cars

[phorm]

There's also the idea that not everyone wants/can afford a new car. I drive a 91 Accord: decent milage, fairly reliable. I definately couldn't afford a 2004 and I wouldn't drive a domestic as I find them less reliable.

If we wanted really efficient cars, even if we made them today a lot of people couldn't afford one until 10+ years from now.

oil independence - closer than you think

[alizard]

The numbers for replacing foriegn oil are:

• $169 billion to build the algae farms
• $33B/year operating costs

what comes out can be processed in conventional oil refineries.

You can look at them for yourself at the University of New Hampshire site here This is largely based on research successfully completed at DOE in the mid 1990s and shelved because cheap oil looked like forever back then.

Other than that, remember $250/ton shipping to LEO? Follow the links from the slashdot article, to JP Aerospace and to evaluations by experts. From what I saw at the JP Aerospace site, the only reason why it's going to take 7 years for them to get to orbit is lack of funding. They're getting DOD experimental contracts for high-altitude transportation, but even with this, they're bootstrapping. The NASA space power satellite system was planned on a basis of $400/kg shipping cost. $250/ton is a lot cheaper than $400/kg.

The only thing keeping these technologies from becoming a viable alternative in the very near term is bad habit on the part of what passes for our business and governmental leadership. They're obsessed with the idea that the only way to get oil is the traditional methods. Even if the cost estimates for biomass oil and the SPS are off by a factor of 10, they look awfully good next to the projected $16T (yes, that's $16,000 billion) dollar cost of "business as usual"... based on an unproven and unlikely assumption that "enough" oil is there to be found. (see below)

Hint: The Bush Administration defunded the Space Power Satellite project.

Concrete steps to get this running? For the oil side, how about government loans, tax credits, and temporary price supports in case the oil cartel gets desperate enough to try to put the new energy replacements out of business by dropping their oil prices to cost of production? A promise to the rest of the world that the algae oil biomass production technology will be freely exported as soon as it is ready to go? These are the first things that occur to me.

For the space side, direct government funding, and or payload guarantees (e.g. the government will guarantee payment for X-million pounds per year of payload to any vendor(s) who can prove the ability to get it to LEO for, say, under $10/pound?) would be a good start. Or start contracting for lots and lots of solar cells and designate JP Aerospace as the prime contractor to get them to orbit.

The alternative: The International Energy Agency wants $16 TRILLION DOLLARS to be spent on new oil exploration and development and facilities to "prevent" energy crisis. This makes the happy assumption that there's enough oil to solve the problem. A few minutes spent googling on "peak oil" will convince you that there isn't.

The $16T does NOT include the military costs of dealing with the Middle East.

Personally, I'd rather see $16T spent on something useful.

Re:Bomb shelters in Canada

[freqres]

Friendly fascism, having so much fun, what else do you need?

practicalities

[zogger]

it's hard/expensive to make gasoline out of that stuff. It's better suited for asphalt for road building. Not saying it's impossible, obviously they can and do do it, just it's not the same as light sweet crude. Same deal with oil shale, etc. Ya, we got a lot of the stuff, but it ain't the same. It also is still dirty, like all other petroleum products. I think it's better in the long run to develop cleaner renewable liquid fuels like ethanol and methanol from fast growing trees or algae,hemp,kelp, etc.

Re:practicalities

[Anonymous Coward]

You're only half right. It is in deed more expensive to process fuels from tar oils. It also more expensive to extract tar oil from ground. The ground must be heated with steam to liquify the oil from the sand.

Your wrong about moving to biofuels such as ethanol, methanol, and biodiesel. These fuels require more energy to produce then the create when consumed. Ethanol and Methanol require distillation, and Bio-diesel must be refined using a heat source. Currently, oil is used to distill or refine these fuels. Perhaps coal could be used as replace heat source fuel. but its highly unlikely these fuels ever be produced economically.

Currently these fuels are heavily subsidised by US taxpayers. Without the tax payers money all of these bio-fuels companies would be out of business.

The bottom line is that when the oil production begins too fall (arount 2010-2012 google "hubberts peak") lifestyles will have to change. The global economy will be forced to adapt to be less energy centric. Meaning an end to Urbanal sprawl, large reduction personal transportation (cars), and more reliance on public transportation.

Economies based upon overseas manufacturing (Asia) will decline, as it becomes too expensive to produce and ship good half way around the world.

US Private housing will decline as people relocate into large cities, since they well no longer be able to afford to heat their homes and drive there cars into work. Cheap oil created the American sprawl, and the end of cheap oil will end the sprawl.

Re:practicalities

[IBX]

Anything organic can be turned into gasoline. During WWII, german industry made petrol from soft brown coal. The coal-derived gasoline was expensive, about double the price of regular gasoline from oil.

Anyone know seen Hubbert's peak?

[Anonymous Coward]

I hear its only a 6 year trip from here.

some ramblings

[zogger]

They just aren't using the correct crops, or techniques. they should be using low maintenance, high yield crops like hemp, or poplar trees, etc, and only harvesting a portion and plowing back under a significant amount to replenish the soil cheaply and easily, and using solar power for the distillation rather than burning fuel. Heliostats or solar trough methods would be adequate to get to 160 F for the distillation in big quantities. I agree though that the corn and soybean efforts as being done now are unsustainable, and the tar sands efforts require too much fresh water.

Brazil is doing better with the renewable liquid fuels right now, it's a major part of their vehicle energy useage. I believe they are using sugar cane, but I could be wrong on that. It helps they are tropical and have a huge land mass and plenty of rain, it's hard to NOT grow stuff there.

We don't have an easyreplacement for easily extracted oil, and I don't think we WILL have one either, but I think we can get by with what we can make, and use what is left for lubrication. The big one no one ever talks about hardly is in manufacturing though, I think we will see the effects of dwindling oil supply there, and once they start hitting will hit faster. Vehicle traffic will adjust, even if we have to drop to two cylinder cars, which is quite possible. People won't like it, but they'll put up with it if the alternative is being a pedestrian.

Me, I keep leaning towards getting a horse, really. I live in the country, got access to a barn and pasture and the space to grow some grain. We have some solar power and a wind genny, and burn wood for heat, and could switch to cooking with wood as well as we already have a solar cooking oven. And we have a huge garden, and not much need for much more manufactured stuff. i got enough computers,tvs,radios, vacuums, yada yada yada to last for quite a while, even if we didn't buy a single new "thing" for years. We don't use the solar oven much but we have it, and it's easy to cob job one if you need one. Easy to cob job a solar hot water system for that matter. I have access to huge quantities of chicken litter, and I built a methane digester before, I know that is easy, so we *could* run say a stove from that fuel, or a lantern, etc.
I'm just thinking for the future, the good old days of cheap everything are about over, because ALL of it was based on ridiculously cheap oil. cheap as in dollars, cheap as in BTU's in to get BTUs out. both of them things are long gone, and ain't coming back. My first full tanks of gas I use to fill 'er up ran around me around 2.00$,when I was making a scosh over a dollar an hour, then I hit 18 years old and started making triple that, but it still seemed cheap, never thought about it. So the gas we have now is cheap *relatively speaking*, BUT everything else is so much higher you - I mean anyone generic you - can't see it I think.

All in all canada and russia are sitting the prettiest for the next century, near as I can see. Canada in particular is still natural resource rich as can be, and has a small well educated population to spread it out to, and they have an integrated economic system with a good blend of manufacturing, agriculture, etc. The middle eastern countries I think are screwed. Their cheap oil is the worlds richest stash left, BUT, it's also the most volatile area of the world, so when the nukes go off, and they will,just a matter of when, not if now, the planet will lose a lot of that oil. Pity, but there ya go.

Crud oil.

[Anonymous Coward]

Crud oil. 'nuf said.

Re:Bomb shelters in Canada

[Scrameustache]

a FICTIONAL movie

Really? Fareignheigt 9/11 is fictional? I could have sworn it was for real. I mean the papers have it listed as playing in numerous theatres, there's even reviews in all major news outlets.

its by a biased obnoxious jerk, who will do anything to get HIS truth out.

But, wait. You said it was fictional...

Message to whoever modded that up: You are an idot.
Can we discuss technical inovation in fossil fuel production now without retarded moderators polluting the thread with their political views on off-topic anonymous trolls?

First of all, its really off topic in a thread about tar pits and oil production (which is only economically feasable now that oil prices are so damn high, it won't drive them down, it needs prices to be high to be sustained).

Secondly, the post is just plain stupid.
I guess its part of this idiotic "its not a documentary because I disagree with the opinion it promotes" mindset, so obviously the moderator was modding it up for that.
Its stupid. Its a documentary because it uses archive footage and interviews. The fact that it is not politically neutral does not make it fiction (not fictional, fiction. But I guess if you don't know what a documentary is, there's no reason why you would know the diference between fiction and fictional).

Because I do find it interresting, the whole "fuel from tar" thing. There are political aspects to it, but Moore-bashing isn't part of it. Politically, the fact that for this to work it needs the other oil producers to willfully restrict oil production, artificially inflating oil prices. But then, they'll loose profit from this new competitor, and all they'll have to do to drive 'em out of buisness is increase productin long enough to shut them down due to lower prices...
I don't think this will work. There's too much money riding against it.

Extraction Methods

[Invidious the Evil]

A classmate of mine, Vladic Lavrovsky, has won several awards for his project entitled "Enzyme Catalysis Methods for In-Situ Hydrocarbon Recovery". Designed with the tar sands in mind, his project outlines the usage of microorganisms with the Alcohol Dehydrogenase enzyme to assist in extraction of heavy bitumen from deeply deposited oil sands. More details here.

Car Costs : Repair vs Replacement

[SeanDuggan]

Given that the current trend towards lighter, more advanced cars to comply with emissions standards had resulted in current cars being more expensive to repair than to replace, I'm not sure I'm all that thrilled about these supposed cars of the future. Is it me, or have we lost something from those days when a kid could buy his first car with the wages of a summer job and repairs could be done in the garage?

there was another technique as well

[zogger]

that I thought was fascinating in a geeky cob job way, and that was what the civilians did during the war in occupied europe. They made "wood gas"(methane) generators to run vehicles. I have seen some pictures of them. They built smoky fires in enclosed/ducted home made furnace things, then piped the partially burnt smoke through oil bath filters into the carb intakes. It worked well enough for them to get from point A to B.

I believe south africa was big on gasoline from coal as well, and got some good R & D advances with it.

Re:Government?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Paul Martin, PM? Wow. In Canada, you can be known just by your initials. It must be nice living in such a cozy small town^H^H^H^H country.

Re:just a thought

[cbelt3]

Sorry, the logic there escapes me. Why the F*sck should any one work in an organized fashion to make their economy / industry / civilization totally dependent on a limited natural resource for the sole purpose of eating it all up 'so the poor countries can't have any' ? Helloooo ! Anyone remember the 'starving children in China' reason for eating your vegetables when you were a kid ? guess what ? Those starving kids are eating your economy and your jobs, without using as much of that nasty old oil as you do ! 100 years from now we're going to be back to being an agricultural society in the old "US of A". And those 'poor countries' who learned to work with less resources are all going to be laughing their collective asses off at us.

That was supposed to be a secret

[Anonymous Coward]

We have no oil, none at all, nothing to see here, please move along... hey look isn't N. korea doing something bad?

Re:Government?!?

[ceoyoyo]

Um... the latest you could argue that Canda wasn't really an independent country would be the end of WWI when Canada was granted full independence from Great Britain for our part in the war.

Of course, Paul Martin apparently didn't know what his department was doing with it's advertising budget, so you might be right about him writing such things.

Re:Government?!?

[Loadmaster]

Actually that quote doesn't have anything to do with Canadian independence. It's a quote from one of Martin's speeches to Canadian WWII vets. Yes, he said Norway instead of Normandy twice. However, it's only fair if everyone can make fun of Bush for slips ups. Martin isn't nearly as bad as Bush, but he has his moments.

Yes, but it doesn't mean anything.

[clv101]

There's loads of potential oil in them there tar sands but it's not going to help. It's too expensive (in energy terms) to get it out. It's only just positive and the maximum rate of extraction is low.

It's not going to be much to help this imminent problem:
This article is a good introduction.
A statement on Peak Oil.
Home of the association for the study of peak oil and gas (ex senior geologists and academics). The monthly newsletters are very good.
Some coverage from their recent conference.
A rather extreme America's take on it.
Peak Oil news portal with a good forum.