I never said that,but we are not running out by a longshot,new technology makes it easier to find and develop new fields and also makes them twice as efficient at getting every last drop then ten years ago.
Oil Sand Myths
- Thread starter Redmonton_Rebel
- Start date
Bakken formation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
An April 2008 USGS report estimated the amount of technically recoverable oil using technology readily available at the end of 2007 within the Bakken Formation at 3.0 to 4.3 billion barrels (680,000,000 m³), with a mean of 3.65 billion.[5] The state of North Dakota also released a report that month which estimated that there are 2.1 billion barrels (330,000,000 m³) of technically recoverable oil in the Bakken.[
Oil reserves in Venezuela - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In addition to conventional oil, Venezuela has oil sands deposits similar in size to those of Canada (approximately equal to the world's reserves of conventional oil). Venezuela's Orinoco tar sands are less viscous than Canada's Athabasca oil sands – meaning they can be produced by more conventional means – but they are buried deeper, meaning they cannot be extracted by surface mining. Estimates of the recoverable reserves of the Orinoco Belt range from 100 billion barrels (16×109 m3) to 270 billion barrels (43×109 m3). In 2009, USGS updated this value to 513 billion barrels (8.16×1010 m³).[10]
An April 2008 USGS report estimated the amount of technically recoverable oil using technology readily available at the end of 2007 within the Bakken Formation at 3.0 to 4.3 billion barrels (680,000,000 m³), with a mean of 3.65 billion.[5] The state of North Dakota also released a report that month which estimated that there are 2.1 billion barrels (330,000,000 m³) of technically recoverable oil in the Bakken.[
Oil reserves in Venezuela - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In addition to conventional oil, Venezuela has oil sands deposits similar in size to those of Canada (approximately equal to the world's reserves of conventional oil). Venezuela's Orinoco tar sands are less viscous than Canada's Athabasca oil sands – meaning they can be produced by more conventional means – but they are buried deeper, meaning they cannot be extracted by surface mining. Estimates of the recoverable reserves of the Orinoco Belt range from 100 billion barrels (16×109 m3) to 270 billion barrels (43×109 m3). In 2009, USGS updated this value to 513 billion barrels (8.16×1010 m³).[10]
Penn West operates many of the largest light and medium gravity oil pools in western Canada. Although primary recovery methods typically extract a relatively small amount of the resource-in-place, application of EOR techniques can often more than double ultimate recoveries. As an industry leader in the application of EOR technology, Penn West is pursuing the following strategies:
Applying emerging technologies such as horizontal multistage fracing to accelerate reservoir pressure maintenance, increase ultimate oil recovery and improve extraction economics.
Optimizing and expanding waterflood programs already in operation at many oil pools.
Ensuring reliable and environmentally responsible supplies of fluids for injection.
Evaluating, piloting and commercially implementing enhanced recovery methods such as low permeability (tight) waterfloods, polymer & chemical floods, and carbon dioxide (CO2) and hydrocarbon miscible floods.
Applying emerging technologies such as horizontal multistage fracing to accelerate reservoir pressure maintenance, increase ultimate oil recovery and improve extraction economics.
Optimizing and expanding waterflood programs already in operation at many oil pools.
Ensuring reliable and environmentally responsible supplies of fluids for injection.
Evaluating, piloting and commercially implementing enhanced recovery methods such as low permeability (tight) waterfloods, polymer & chemical floods, and carbon dioxide (CO2) and hydrocarbon miscible floods.
All the bitumen in Alberta is but a drop when compared to coal. Coal is the real elephant in the climate changing room. The Canadian climatologist Andrew Weaver at UVic recently estimated the impact of Canada's oil sands on climate change (if it were totally and suddenly combusted) and it amounts to a few tenths of a degree. Whatever his definition for commercially viable was, those oil sands would only add 0.03°C. That compares to a whopping 15 degrees from coal.
Don't get me wrong, there's huge environmental costs involved with oil sands extraction, but I think the water issues are far more worrisome than the few hundredths of a degree impact the oil sands will have on the global climate. I don't for one second think it's a coincidence that there are so many changes being announced by this government with respect to water quality and healthy aquatic ecosystems.
What you are doing is akin to propagating an oil sand myth! You can't blame unavoidable climate change on the oil sands! :lol:
I have worked in both coal and oilsands strip mines,they are very similiar and use the exact same equipment and mine the exact same way.
Burning coal creates higher GG than conventional or oil sands- China 2 years or so ago was putting 2 coal burning plants a week online.
The world will do little to combat climate change- people will not accept a lower standard of living in the west - and the emerging economies will not sacrifice an increased level of wealth.
That is also a myth. Not that people won't accept a lower standard of living. But that combating climate change means a lower standard of living.
People love their electricity,they cant get enough and it comes from Coal and oilsands generators,the demand is rising at an unreal rate.We cant plant wind turbines or powerlines here in southern Alberta fast enough to keep up with demand,as of now Alberta and B.C. share power,it can flow both ways.The market is wide open.
Lots of folks in B.C. are probably posting here right now with power from the oilsands power plants running their computer and dont even know it.
Lots of folks in B.C. are probably posting here right now with power from the oilsands power plants running their computer and dont even know it.
I amended my comment after posting to clarify that the myth is combating climate change means a lower standard of living.
And yes there is ample evidence that combating climate change does not mean a lower standard of living.
Germany committed to cutting their greenhouse gas emissions by 21% from 1990 levels when they signed onto the Kyoto protocol. To date, they've cut over 26%. Compare that to Canada's paltry target of 6% below 1990 levels, to which our emissions have grown by over 24%.
Not only have they not suffered in terms of standard of living, but they are bailing out other European economies. If you want to compare Canada and Germany again, Germany's Human Development Index score increased by 13% from 1990 to 2010, while Canada's Human Development Index score only increased by 5% over the same period.
Here's a link to the greenhouse cuts:
German greenhouse gas emissions off 2.1 pct in 2011 | Reuters
And the HDI scores:
Therefore, it's a myth that combating climate change means a lower standard of living. The context and circumstances matter.
Kyoto sucked,it was a carbon credit scam engineered by Mo Strong and a few other higher up liberals at the time*koff* Paul Martin comes to mind.I was in the strip mine when Kyoto was first mentioned,shell I think but they had a plan for meeting kyoto obligations 5 years before it was to be implemented,they spent millions and pulled out when it was shown to be a scam.
Cheaper to clean up your own backyard then paying extra to pollute it right?
Cheaper to clean up your own backyard then paying extra to pollute it right?
It did. It's a toothless tiger. Notwithstanding, it's still a myth to say fighting climate change means a lower standard of living.
It's a lie that has been repeated often enough that many people accept it as being true.
In fact lots of other European nations have made progress. It's interesting to note that Ireland, Greece, Portugal, and Spain have all increased emissions, between 13% and 27%. All nations facing significant uncertainty over their economic future.
Last edited:
Fighting it is a waste of time,you cant fight mother nature,she will balance things out,like allways.
Yes, but the balance can change. There is such a thing as causality. She's balancing out right now. Adding gases opaque to the infrared means a warmer planet. She is balancing out in response to what we are emitting.
Now from what i can gather the EU - many countries are or have abandoned wind, solar power- massive subsidies that they can no longer afford -
We are also a northern country - longer distances to move materials- and transport does contribute a significant amount of GG -
They also have a higher tax rate per person. So would the average Canadians income - standard of living increase or decrease
We are also a northern country - longer distances to move materials- and transport does contribute a significant amount of GG -
They also have a higher tax rate per person. So would the average Canadians income - standard of living increase or decrease
Yes,global warming is coming,and another ice age.Nothing new there.Why would you want to change it?
Eventually of course there will be another ice age...I never said it was new. Death isn't new either, doesn't mean we shouldn't try to mitigate what we can, does it? We should try to stop our experiment because our infrastructure and way of life has developed with certain things taken for granted.
After flying over the NWT I realized we are but a fart in a windstorm on this earth,so much land,so few people.Spending taxpayers dollars on trying to fu*k with mother nature is a waste of time IMO