Tar Sands On 60 Minutes Sunday

[Strelnikov_]

Preview here:

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/60minutes/main3415.shtml

<video of large earthmovers> They’re called oil sands. And if you’ve never heard of them, you’re in for a big surprise, because the reserves are so vast, <cut to video of crowded freeway> they will help solve america’s energy needs for the next century.

Maybe someone should educate them about EROEI and global warming.

And the easy motoring goes on and on and . . .

[Viva_La_Revolution]

1. if only....

it didn't take MORE energy to process the sand than we will get out in the end.

They use natural gas to process the tar sands. What will they do when the natural gas runs out?

Idiots.

[rfkrfk]

7. steam from coal or nuclear

good payoff here,
the product is a liquid, very desireable

[Strelnikov_]

9. Neither Makes Sense From An EROEI/Environmental Standpoint

Why burn coal to create process energy to produce a liquid fuel with a EROEI of 2 or 3 when you can make a liquid fuel from the coal directly with an EROEI of 5-6, all for double (or more) the global warming gas generation and terrestrial environmental costs?

Why crash atoms to create process energy to produce a liquid fuel with a EROEI of 2 or 3 when you can use the nuclear energy generated as process energy in ethanol production to make a liquid fuel with a similar EROEI, with nearly neutral global warming impact?

I have yet to see a compelling reason to consider tar sands or pre-oil shale as an energy source. Maybe as petrochemical feedstock source, but not an energy source.

[megatherium]

12. Makes sense not from an energy EROEI, perhaps. But you need petroleum to

power automobiles and aircraft. You can't run these on coal. The tar sands make sense if oil remains above $40/barrel, i.e., they're profitable at that price. Too bad about global warming.

[Strelnikov_]

13. No, But You Can Run Them On Syn Petrol MADE FROM COAL

with a proven, scalable process having an EROEI more than twice that of petroleum derived from tar sands.

Tar sands make absolutely no sense over the long run. The energy input for processing of the tar sands can be better used in it's
'native' form.

I laugh every time I see the word 'profitable' applied to energy. Processing tar sands is profitable now because there is currently access to relatively cheap natural gas. In the energy starved world of 10 to 15 years from now, the thought of throwing away an energy source with an EROEI of 5-6 to produce an energy source with an EROEI of 1-2 will be laughable.

[megatherium]

15. That makes sense. But they're talking about using nuclear energy.

The sad fact is we have plenty of tar sand, plenty of coal, and also plenty of oil shale. Our climate is pretty much screwed, isn't it?

[Strelnikov_]

17. Sadly, I Have To Agree

Even if it does not make sense from an energy or environmental standpoint, they will continue trying to mine petroleum, because that is where their vested interests lie. However, once the cheap process energy is gone, the impacts of EROEI will make themselves felt.

One thing I have always wondered about crashing atoms for the process energy is the 'portability'. Natural gas lends itself well to mobil/dynamic operations. Run a gas pipeline, hook up the burners, you have heat. I just don't see that flexibility with nuke plants, unless they plan to simply generate electricity and use resistance heat.

Maybe wind for the process energy. The in-situ oil shale process could use wind, in an area with great potential but little demand for said energy, to produce a 'portable' liquid fuel.

[aquart]

2. How did sand become permeated with oil?

[Strelnikov_]

3. Lighter Hydrocarbons Volatilized, Leaving Behind Bitumen

My understanding is that the Tar Sands are the end product of ancient petroleum deposits that are relatively close to the surface.

[aquart]

5. We've used what dating techniques to determine their age?

[nine23]

4. My mommy said it was dead plants and dinosaurs...

[htuttle]

8. Older than dinosaurs

Most petroleum dates back to plant matter from the Carboniferous Era, a long, long, long time ago.

[Odin2005]

11. You,re thinking of coal.

Oil comes from dead algae. The major deposits are mostly Jurassic and Creataceous in age.

[hatrack]

16. Oil fields that got pushed to the surface by uplift - much evaporated . .

. . . leaving behind the thicker residues.

One way to think of it - tar-sand formations used to be oil fields long ago.

Conversely, oil-shale formations are oil fields that never were (that is, the rocks containing kerogens were never subducted and compressed to form liquid oil and/or natural gas).

[nine23]

6. I like how they just "assume" another soverign nation's oil...

..."will help solve america’s energy needs for the next century."

[philb]

10. Saudia Arabia has lots of oil reserves also; whats the difference

in importing fuel for Canada vs Saudia Arabia or etc.??

Will Canada join OPEC? Seems good for Canada, but whats the benefit to U.S., other than as a constraint on world
oil prices?

But it should be clear that the main constraints on fossil fuel use are environmental, not supply.
We are already using too much.
The fact that people in most countries of the world have a desire for more energy means that people had
better be looking at other alternatives, energy efficiency, CHP, etc. since its clear that Global Warming and
the Gulf Stream pump changes and worldwide mercury pollution mean we have to cut back on fossil fuel use in
past methods. Reforming and conversion to hydrogen, fuel cells, CHP, etc. should be the main focus of energy
policy relating to fossil fuels throughout the world. And encouragement of other more benign sources.

[rfkrfk]

14. the more sources, the better

Keep in mind, that just having Canada a net exporter,
instead of an imported, loosens up supply for everyone else