Canadian Tar Sands

[Papa Manual]

A few of you might have heard of the Canadian Tar Sands. For those of you that haven't it is an area of land in Canada which contains petroleum deposits amongst mixtures of other materials which make up the ground. Because oil is becoming more and more scarce these sands have recently been considered to form part of the worlds total oil reserves and, as such, efforts are being made to extract the oil from the sand. This causes massive environmental harm before the oil is even refined as it screws with the local ecosystem and turns an otherwise beautiful area into a shittip. Bad times. To refine it (so that it can be turned into petrol/diesel/plastics etc) has (conservatively) twice as much of a detrimental impact than refining normal oil. Greenhouse gases are released at a massive rate. Energy efficiency is also very low.

Though I've been following what's being going on with the tar sands for some time, I stumbled across this today. I think it's great that students are going out and raising awareness of an issue which sails under the radar for most people, whether kids or adults. Donate to them! The majority of people on TF have a reasonable disposable income and it's your future, so get on it. What's the point in corporations and governments spending a shitload of cash on another venture which just prolongs humanity's illogical dependence on oil when the money could be spent on developing and implementing something more sustainable?

[trialsmax04]

It is bad what's happening over there. For those who wish to do some more research on the subject, look into the Athabasca Tar sands.

Effectively what's going on is there is a large surface seep of oil from an oil well that is not covered by a cap rock. Although this brings it closer to the surface for abstraction, it also means this oil is dirty, very dirty due to containing other minerals (What Papa said). Because of its close proximity to the surface and therefore lower ambient temperature, the viscosity of the oil is very high (Not runny). This means that oil company's are having to inject high volumes of steam into oil wells to lower the viscosity and allow the oil to flow through an escape well. This is normally done in traditional wells around the globe where the oil lies too deep and because of the depth the pore space of the rock is reduced. In both cases the force acting is surface tension, holding the oil to the clasts (Rock grains).

Although the technique is used else where in deep wells for secondary or tertiary recovery, it is almost always deemed financially non-viable to do so (which is one of the reasons why when people say there is no oil its just a load of bull. Its just because oil companys cant make a big enough profit to extract and refine it, they dont bother).

The operation in Canada is massively damaging to the environment as some of the most stunning wilderness on the planet, not to mention the ecosystems that have developed around the tar sands (therefore making them fragile to small changes).

And at the end of this who is to blame? Me, you and everyone Awesome messed up world that we live in.

Sorry for this imput. Starting a geology degree soon, was good to get back into it from the summer off.

Edited September 5, 2011 by trialsmax04

[TrialsGilly]

What's the point in corporations and governments spending a shitload of cash on another venture which just prolongs humanity's illogical dependence on oil when the money could be spent on developing and implementing something more sustainable?

The truth is that we as humans on this planet demand it. I in no way defend the damage it is doing to the environment, but this is happening all over the world due to oil and gas extraction projects. But we force this due to out daily consumption patterns.

There is an obvious lack of sustainable strategy's, and I also agree more should be invested.

From my background I know that in many wells that are drilled, as little as 30% of the extractable oil is actually being taken out the ground. The use of chemicals could reduce the need for drilling new wells, hence reduce to a certain extent the effect on the environment.

In terms of actually running out of Oil, I am personally of the belief that it is at least two generations away and hopefully by then there will be solutions...

Edited September 5, 2011 by TrialsGilly

[Matt Vandart]

Well I disagree, there may be that much oil 'left in the ground' but chucking away the financially viable bollox, which it is by the way, it will get to be 'Energy gain' non-viable before it 'runs out'.

If any one doesn't understand what I am getting at:

It will take more energy to extract they oil than will be gained from the oil.

This is very simple maths.

I don't know where you have got your figure of 2 generations and I am in no way dissing it but I calculated it at lower than that as I have taken into account potential lies by countries on how much reserves they have.

I sincerely hope you are correct.

I may be wrong, you may be wrong we will find out.

Oil contained in sand and shale is very dodgy ground IMO and is yet more evidence that oil is becoming scarcer, whether it is for financial reasons or real life commodity reasons.

Energy Crisis doubters take note.

[Greetings]

The main reason why oil is being extracted from sands is the current price of oil. Unless something has changed, the cost of extracting 1 barell of oil from the sands in Canada is between 25 and 30USD. 12 years ago that was the cost of 1 barell of oil, pretty sure it's now well over a 100, haven't checked in a long time. So it's very profitable to dig up the sands.

I get slightly pissed off at all this eco talk. We pay for oil in every item we purchase - be it bread, electronic equipment or furniture. All the goods have to be transported and most transport involves the use of oil in one way or another. So unless you grow your own food and live in a bush, you have no right to complain about companies extracting oil at a high cost to the ecosystem. Essentially, you're generating demand for oil with almost every purchase you make.

[casualjoe]

Complacency will never end without consequence

[Sam Nichols]

I get slightly pissed off at all this eco talk. We pay for oil in every item we purchase - be it bread, electronic equipment or furniture. All the goods have to be transported and most transport involves the use of oil in one way or another. So unless you grow your own food and live in a bush, you have no right to complain about companies extracting oil at a high cost to the ecosystem. Essentially, you're generating demand for oil with almost every purchase you make.

So what you're saying is that we have two options; f**k up the world or live in a bush.

There are no alternatives?

[Greetings]

I can't see extracting oil from sand f**king up the world? It's just turning a small area of it into what seems like a wasteland.

[Sam Nichols]

When you said "all this eco talk" I got the impression you making a sweeping statement, not just this specific example.

[casualjoe]

We could, ban any uninformative advertising. Get rid of unnecessary roads, like the ones going to the front door of every house in the western world, maybe make the areas children grow up in a little nicer. We can't do anything about the people behind oil companies without protesting in MASSIVE numbers and in a completely unified and peaceful way.

[Greetings]

When you said "all this eco talk" I got the impression you making a sweeping statement, not just this specific example.

My bad, could have worded that a bit better. While eco mentalists often get on my nerves talking about CO2 emmisions and global warming, I meant this specific example (oil sands). There is merit in protesting about the damage this is doing to the local ecosystem but honestly, protesting about that is about as pointless as trying to get every single non-electric car off the road to reduce emissions - it's just not going to happen.

Edited September 9, 2011 by Greetings

[Dr. Nick Riviera]

My bad, could have worded that a bit better. While eco mentalists often get on my nerves talking about CO2 emmisions and global warming, I meant this specific example (oil sands). There is merit in protesting about the damage this is doing to the local ecosystem but honestly, protesting about that is about as pointless as trying to get every single non-electric car off the road to reduce emissions - it's just not going to happen.

I don't want to be that guy, but it's thinking like this which will stop it from ever happening.

[casualjoe]

I'm not preaching 'go electric' or anything like that, it's just we don't need millions of cars, they sit around most of the day doing jack. Yes everything will slow down, this would be a good thing I think. And yes we could start growing our own fresh food like civilised animals again. Basically, who the hell do we think we are?!?

[trialsmax04]

Excuse the pun, but oil company's and governments are burying there heads in the sand ( ). Due to the global economy being centred around oil, oil company's are bound to exploit every recourse they can lay there hands on. Weather that's f**king up a native's house, a town, or hundreds of square km's of wilderness. All the windfarms and wave power is also pissing into the wind, as there is no way a small advance in appallingly low efficiency equipment, will sustain nations like our's forever.

Solar panel's should be law on every building in country (Really world, but that wont happen), or fit a domestic wind turbine in the gardens of houses, or property's that can accommodate them. Bring back nuclear. And advance in Geothermal power.

But of course what's the point when we can still drink oil?

Don't get me wrong, Im not a environmentalist. I do respect nature, and its beauty. That ^^ is just hindsight.

Edited September 9, 2011 by trialsmax04

[JD™]

As humans, we use.

We WILL continue to use oil until it has run out. It will never become financially unviable to process oil, it'll just become available to less people and through it's scarcity become a indicator of wealth and 'success' and it will become more and more scarce until it is no longer around.

The price of oil WILL continue to rise. We will only use less when it effects the roofs over our heads, even then I imagine some would prefer their car to their house.

It's not a 'good' thing when you think about it logically, but since when has anything that humans do been logical? Quit whinging, drive your car (or don't whatever), and worry about things a little closer to home.

[Matt Vandart]

It may not become financially unviable to extract oil, but it will be energy unviable to extract it.

[MonsieurMonkey]

It may not become financially unviable to extract oil, but it will be energy unviable to extract it.

I don't quite understand this? If what you're saying is, the energy expended to extract it will outweigh the possible energy gains from it's use, then that's purely a financial concern. If someone's willing to pay to have it extracted, then it doesn't matter how much energy is spent.

Oil will become, like JD said, a symbol of wealth. When the rest of us drive eco cars, those with money may still be able to have a petrol driven car for the weekends. Same way horses used to be the vehicle of choice, now they're a play thing for those with money.

[Greetings]

Yes everything will slow down, this would be a good thing I think.

The entire economy is based on growth - if there is no growth (if things slow down like you say), we'll all be f**ked. In a sense, all the cars that are standing on the streets doing nothing have allowed many people to get a job in the automotive industry, earn money and feed their families. I really can't see slowing down to be an option. Recessions result in the economy slowing down, less money is spent, less is invested and as a result less is earned - can't say that's a good thing seeing as what's been going on in the world since 2008.

The whole oil crisis is a bit scary, we've still got at least 40 years of driving ahead of us and already fuel is incredibly expensive comparing to what it was 10 or 15 years ago.

[Fish-Finger-er]

Oil will become, like JD said, a symbol of wealth. When the rest of us drive eco cars, those with money may still be able to have a petrol driven car for the weekends. Same way horses used to be the vehicle of choice, now they're a play thing for those with money.

Yea, I do wish I could of kept my horse for cantering to work on, but he was just soo expensive to run.

[MonsieurMonkey]

Yea, I do wish I could of kept my horse for cantering to work on, but he was just soo expensive to run.

So right now, between a car and a horse, for both cost and viability. What would you rather do 30 miles to and from work in?

[Greetings]

So right now, between a car and a horse, for both cost and viability. What would you rather do 30 miles to and from work in?

Canadians seem to have got the hang of it:

[casualjoe]

The entire economy is based on growth - if there is no growth (if things slow down like you say), we'll all be f**ked. In a sense, all the cars that are standing on the streets doing nothing have allowed many people to get a job in the automotive industry, earn money and feed their families. I really can't see slowing down to be an option. Recessions result in the economy slowing down, less money is spent, less is invested and as a result less is earned - can't say that's a good thing seeing as what's been going on in the world since 2008.

The whole oil crisis is a bit scary, we've still got at least 40 years of driving ahead of us and already fuel is incredibly expensive comparing to what it was 10 or 15 years ago.

The economy is a joke at the moment. It's just that the current competition between a lot of companies drives them to do such selfish and heartless things, such as sourcing cheap labour in sweatshops, making cheap disposable products out of the cheapest materials which break and are just shit, lying to their customers saying their product is healthy or environmentally friendly when most of the time it really isn't, messing children's head's up with mindbending advertising techniques (you know the type I mean) making them feel like they need this crap to be happy. We're quite a few generations into this now so to us it seems normal and 'the done thing'.

There are a few genuinely sound companies of course I'm just regurgitating stuff we all hear about. There's so many things to consider about how the future could turn out it's a fascinating subject!

So what if instead of competing with each other, companies worked together to produce the highest quality version of that good or service as well as work to mechanise 100% of the production process. The only people remaining will be the highest skilled scientist and engineers who generally just love what they do. Everyone else can do what they please with full access to use the best stuff we can possibly make, (that would include travelling and trackdays you know) the possibilities of this to me is more exciting than 'we need to use more and more and more....AND MOAR! We've discovered all the land now, lets just enjoy our technology, like bicycles and stuff

If we were put in this fortunate position of wealth and opportunity by God, that must make it ok to use our (corporations) intelligence to lie to people? We're only human, we make mistakes and we're gonna die a bunch of mugs.

[Greetings]

The economy is a joke at the moment. It's just that the current competition between a lot of companies drives them to do such selfish and heartless things, such as sourcing cheap labour in sweatshops, making cheap disposable products out of the cheapest materials which break and are just shit,

Personally I don't see anything wrong with sourcing cheap labour so long as it meets the regulations in that country. As a result, I don't see anything wrong with much of the clothing we wear being made in China or India for close to nothing - these companies are giving uneducated people jobs which they otherwise would not have thus stimulating the economy. This is also something which we won't be able to benefit from much longer since the standard of living in those countries is growing rapidly and so is the pay. I agree with cheap and disposable products, it seems that few things are made to last nowadays. But with day to day products, companies must take into account that by creating a disposable product they are hurting their image and in the long run, loosing customers. It's just a matter of filtering out the cheap OEM crap from the proper stuff backed up by a strong brand and research.

messing children's head's up with mindbending advertising techniques (you know the type I mean) making them feel like they need this crap to be happy.

Yeah, that's pretty annoying.

So what if instead of competing with each other, companies worked together to produce the highest quality version of that good or service as well as work to mechanise 100% of the production process. The only people remaining will be the highest skilled scientist and engineers who generally just love what they do. Everyone else can do what they please with full access to use the best stuff we can possibly make, (that would include travelling and trackdays you know) the possibilities of this to me is more exciting than 'we need to use more and more and more....AND MOAR!

Surely working together will never produce a better outcome than competing against each other? It's just like with riding, if someone does a good line you'll want to do something better or at least try to repeat it. Competition drives companies into designing better and better products in order to keep sales up. And because research is becoming easier and quicker as a result of CAD and other tools, product life cycles become shorter and shorter. This in term makes them more disposable and we're back to square one.

It sounds to me that you're leaning towards communism which isn't a bad thing because in theory it's a brilliant idea. It's just that it will never work because people always want more.

[casualjoe]

Personally I don't see anything wrong with sourcing cheap labour so long as it meets the regulations in that country. As a result, I don't see anything wrong with much of the clothing we wear being made in China or India for close to nothing

You don't? Do we really need to be in their country getting them to make us stuff?

Competition drives companies into designing better and better products in order to keep sales up. And because research is becoming easier and quicker as a result of CAD and other tools, product life cycles become shorter and shorter. This in term makes them more disposable and we're back to square one.

This is another thing, the way companies have the technology to make a really good item straight away, but they are forced to release many crapper versions first in the name of maximising profit.

It sounds to me that you're leaning towards communism which isn't a bad thing because in theory it's a brilliant idea. It's just that it will never work because people always want more.

It's not communism and communism is not a brilliant idea at all way to much government/political intervention. It's just applying a scientific/technological solution to today's problems. You wouldn't have to work if you didn't want to you could enjoy yourself every day if you wanted, people wouldn't want more because everything could be free. It's a case of embracing the technology that has already replaced most of the mundane jobs people used do do.

[Greetings]

You don't? Do we really need to be in their country getting them to make us stuff?

Surely you can see the corelation between manufacturing costs and the final price of the product? What's the point of making a mass hand made product in Europe when frankly speaking someone in a 3rd world country making a shoe can produce the same result for a fraction of the cost? You seem to be forgetting that workers getting pennies for their job are not forced to work, they do it out of their own free will.

This is another thing, the way companies have the technology to make a really good item straight away, but they are forced to release many crapper versions first in the name of maximising profit.

Maximising profit = more spent on R&D. 3Dfx is a case in point here - very long design and production cycles, slightly bad management and as a result the company went bust despite having products which were well ahead of their time. They always released the best product they could, but a few months later when they were hard at work designing the next chip to be released in a year or two, Nvidia would come along with something slightly better and much cheaper than what 3Dfx was currently selling.

It's just applying a scientific/technological solution to today's problems. You wouldn't have to work if you didn't want to you could enjoy yourself every day if you wanted, people wouldn't want more because everything could be free. It's a case of embracing the technology that has already replaced most of the mundane jobs people used do do.

What you're saying is we should all design AI's and robots which will subsequently serve our needs so that humans don't have to do anything. I just can't see that happening. It's ambition to improve our/others' life that drives us to be who we are. Don't you think that with such an attitude to just enjoy ourselves and have machines do everything else for us, humans will become obsolete? Look at the drug addict stereotype, it's a similar story - all he wants is to get his fix, he's of no benefit to the society whatsoever. I would never give away my job for a life of pleasure and having everything for free because it's having to pay for pleasures that drives me to perform better.

Edited September 18, 2011 by Greetings