When will the world reach peak fossil fuel production?

[nismaratwork]

Then take it up with the Economist, not me.

Yeah, from someone else I might buy that... not from you. You're way too bright to slip and fall into that one. I'd say, support the post you made with 'The Economist', and find a new source, or remove it. If the problem really is that you can be so easily gulled by this magazine, it may be best that you don't use it as a source.

This discussion over the last two pages has been driven by that piece of misinformation that you're not even willing to support. I find that a bit frustrating from someone as experienced and knowledgeable (according to Gokul, and you... and Russ, and others). Can you think how you might handle this if the situation were reversed... and yeah, I already know how you often have in the past; post records are great.

I'd add, that the Saudi Government ceases to be a meaningful authority in a country of international importance once those resources dry up. Obviously that process, and the possibility of annexation or war, increase as that peak and drop-off approach. I think you could argue that the entirety of Saudi oil production, and the house of Saud in general IS "Machiavellian", and they NOW require that approach. Having painted themselves into a corner politically, and socially with Wahabi Islam... I'd guess the greatest fear of anyone with a stake in SA is in fact that the oil-horizon appears.

 

[apeiron]

A little more on the near-term view on peak oil and conventional reserves.

1) Does Saudi have a lot more up its sleeve?

Here you can contrast the views of two top former Aramco staff. Here is a good WSJ analysis.

http://saudioilproduction.blogspot.com/2008/06/saleri-and-husseini.html

Husseini is sticking to his guns as recent interviews already cited show. And here from his own company website he still emphasises this key quote.

Husseini expressed a negative view about the world's proved oil reserves—
“[World] reserves are confused and in fact inflated. Many of the so called reserves are in fact resources. They’re not delineated, they’re not accessible, they’re not available for production”. By [Al-Husseini's] estimate 300 billion of the world’s 1200 [billion] barrels of proved reserves should be recategorized as speculative resources.
http://www.husseinienergy.com/Press_Releases_Details.aspx?Id=6

You can also check actual production figures for Saudi, which have bumped along at under 9.5 mbd for some years.
http://earlywarn.blogspot.com/2010/07/latest-saudi-arabian-oil-production.html

This does not tell us much I agree. The Saudi's claim to have the capacity as the world's swing producer to pump 12.5 mbd if needed (and Husseini says that's a fact). But with the oil spike/credit crunch/recession, the claim has not had to be tested.

But remember also the US wants Saudi to push production up to 15 mdb this decade. Which is what will show whether Saudi is actually mature as a producer or is stiil sitting on a hidden stash.

2) The actual big hope that Mheslep did not mention is Iraq. The obvious reason for effecting regime change was to get Iraq up from a measely 2 mbd to the 12 mbd where it "should be" for US economic interests and to fully exploit its reserves.

If everything goes smoothly and production gets ramped up in six years (an unparalleled increase in drilling, terminal building, etc) then Iraq could delay peak oil about a decade some say.

http://earlywarn.blogspot.com/2009/12/iraqi-oil-production-history.html

 

[mheslep]

I'm inclined to think CERA's estimates are most reliable. That is, if the demand is there and I don't think it will be.

http://www.cera.com/aspx/cda/imageDisplays/imageDisplay.ashx?PK=16152&t=Image&f=gImageData&n=iImagePK

http://www.cera.com/aspx/cda/public1/news/pressReleases/pressReleaseDetails.aspx?CID=8444

 

[apeiron]

I'm inclined to think CERA's estimates are most reliable. That is, if the demand is there and I don't think it will be.

I'm inclined to think Cera is at least as reliable as the Economist . But anyway, shouldn't you really be citing their most recent revised version of this graph?

https://www.cera.com/aspx/cda/client/report/reportImageDisplay.aspx?KID=5&CID=10720&IID=21246

Or the full report download...
https://www.cera.com/aspx/cda/filedisplay/publicfiledisplay.ashx?KID=5&CID=10720&PK=38356

Your earlier Cera graph shows plenty of growth in conventional oil production yet. The latest one looks to, err, have peaked, sorry to say. Average across all the spurious bumps of their undulating plateau and the line looks pretty flat at 85 mbd to me.

Unconventional oil still does roar away. But not nearly to the same extent as in the earlier graph.

Things overall look flat from 2020 at around 110 mbd. Then compare this current prediction to the one you cite which says supply will soar in a straight line to 135 mbd by 2035, only then peaking and flattening out.

So Cera may be reliable. It also seems to have changed its tune drastically in the space of a few years.

Like the IEA recent conversion to peak-ism, everyone's views are converging as they should. You would not be able to tell this just from Cera's rhetoric of course. So thanks for bringing attention to the graphs.

 

[nismaratwork]

I'm inclined to think Cera is at least as reliable as the Economist . But anyway, shouldn't you really be citing their most recent revised version of this graph?

https://www.cera.com/aspx/cda/client/report/reportImageDisplay.aspx?KID=5&CID=10720&IID=21246

Or the full report download...
https://www.cera.com/aspx/cda/filedisplay/publicfiledisplay.ashx?KID=5&CID=10720&PK=38356

Your earlier Cera graph shows plenty of growth in conventional oil production yet. The latest one looks to, err, have peaked, sorry to say. Average across all the spurious bumps of their undulating plateau and the line looks pretty flat at 85 mbd to me.

Unconventional oil still does roar away. But not nearly to the same extent as in the earlier graph.

Things overall look flat from 2020 at around 110 mbd. Then compare this current prediction to the one you cite which says supply will soar in a straight line to 135 mbd by 2035, only then peaking and flattening out.

So Cera may be reliable. It also seems to have changed its tune drastically in the space of a few years.

Like the IEA recent conversion to peak-ism, everyone's views are converging as they should. You would not be able to tell this just from Cera's rhetoric of course. So thanks for bringing attention to the graphs.

Wow, that's a real 180 turn in their graphs. How the hell did you miss that mheslep? First the Economist, now this... I thought the idea was that we didn't have to fact-check each other.

 

[mheslep]

I'm inclined to think Cera is at least as reliable as the Economist . But anyway, shouldn't you really be citing their most recent revised version of this graph?

https://www.cera.com/aspx/cda/client/report/reportImageDisplay.aspx?KID=5&CID=10720&IID=21246

Or the full report download...
https://www.cera.com/aspx/cda/filedisplay/publicfiledisplay.ashx?KID=5&CID=10720&PK=38356

Thanks

Your earlier Cera graph shows plenty of growth in conventional oil production yet. The latest one looks to, err, have peaked, sorry to say.

Why are you sorry?

Average across all the spurious bumps of their undulating plateau and the line looks pretty flat at 85 mbd to me.

So?

Unconventional oil still does roar away. But not nearly to the same extent as in the earlier graph.

Things overall look flat from 2020 at around 110 mbd. Then compare this current prediction to the one you cite which says supply will soar in a straight line to 135 mbd by 2035, only then peaking and flattening out.

So Cera may be reliable. It also seems to have changed its tune drastically in the space of a few years.

About resources? If you read the report you'd know that, no, they have not. The changes in production are due to changes in other factors, primarily demand. In neither the older or the newer report to they show any calamitous decline in production. As I said above about the earlier CERA production estimate, "if the demand is there and I don't think it will be." As CERA says in the recent report:

Supply evolution through 2030 is not a question of resource availability.

there should be more than an adequate inventory of physical resources available to increase supply to meet anticipated levels of demand in this time frame. Post-2030 supply may well struggle to meet demand, but an undulating plateau rather than a dramatic peak will likely unfold. Moreover, if the “peak demand” now evident in the OECD countries is a precursor of later developments in the emerging markets, world demand itself could eventually move on to a different course.*

But much will happen before then that will affect demand—from changes in the automobile engine and the electric battery to changes in demographics and values. That is why the concept of “peak demand” is so important. Ironically, it may come to be viewed in retrospect as the main driver of peak supply. In that case what happens aboveground will have set the tempo for what happens belowground.

 

[apeiron]

About resources? If you read the report you'd know that, no, they have not. The changes in production are due to changes in other factors, primarily demand. In neither the older or the newer report to they show any calamitous decline in production. As I said above about the earlier CERA production estimate, "if the demand is there and I don't think it will be." As CERA says in the recent report:

But the problem here is that you are asking us to trust people like the Economist and Cera when these are not transparent sources. You call them reliable. On what basis?

Cera is a private firm that keeps its data to itself. The report is a gloss. We don't know the methodology and we don't have the raw figures. And the fact their own projections can jump around so much should ring alarm bells. Why are you so unconcerned?

When you have one projection that says the world will produce a total of 3.6 trillion barrels by 2070, then a second one that says it will be now 2.4 trillion, well that is quite a gap.

Surely something must have changed even if, as you agree, Cera's rhetoric hasn't .

Cera's position is that we can ignore oil reserves because they are effectively unlimited. But as said, the data that might justify that view is not being made public by Cera and is contested by, among others, the recent head of production at Aramco.

Given that stance, then of course Cera's argument becomes that we will produce as much as the market demands. We can model some demand damping due to the rising cost of unconventional production, or due to more conservative pumping to eke out fields for the longest, etc.

But assuming no constraint on actual reserves is such a big leap that it needs to be properly sourced here.

 

[nismaratwork]

...And again, there are compelling reasons for people with a great deal of money and influence to make "peak oil" a surprise... you know... like the housing crash. Ultimately oil is a kind of Ponzi scheme at the highest level, with principalities and wealth awarded to some, diffusing down the line. When that goes, it's going to go all at once, and given the stability of the region:weapons...

 

[mheslep]

But the problem here is that you are asking us to trust people like the Economist and Cera when these are not transparent sources. You call them reliable. On what basis?

I am not asking you trust them apeiron, these are forecasts after all. Make up your own mind, as you will certainly do anyway without my encouragement. I list them here only as mainstream sources, which is the habit of this forum. That is, they're not crackpot or conspiracy or "myoiltruthblog.org" sources, but they're no more the final truth on a subject than an article from the NYT or the WSJ. CERA is different in that it is not a news source but a private consulting firm. I find them more reliable than the numerous other forecasters out there because they are a longstanding professional organization, with an excellent reputation, including numerous experts in economics, the energy industry, and scientists. Its founder is a world famous pulitzer prize winner on energy.

Cera is a private firm that keeps its data to itself. The report is a gloss. We don't know the methodology and we don't have the raw figures. And the fact their own projections can jump around so much should ring alarm bells. Why are you so unconcerned?

When you have one projection that says the world will produce a total of 3.6 trillion barrels by 2070, then a second one that says it will be now 2.4 trillion, well that is quite a gap.

Surely something must have changed even if, as you agree, Cera's rhetoric hasn't [...]

Yes indeed something has changed! As the report says, and I'll say one more time before moving on, demand has changed; demand forecasts are changing drastically in OECD countries from five years ago. World petroleum consumption did not increase, it actually dropped in 2008. US oil consumption in particular has declined every year since 2005. That doesn't mean it will continue to do so, but the recent consumption history facts certainly are a large change from the ever increasing oil consumption forecasts of a few years ago.

Cera's position is that we can ignore oil reserves because they are effectively unlimited.

That's a strawman, they say the opposite.

Of course looking further ahead, it is important to recognize that oil is a finite resource ...

 

[nismaratwork]

I am not asking you trust them apeiron, these are forecasts after all. Make up your own mind, as you will certainly do anyway without my encouragement. I list them here only as mainstream sources, which is the habit of this forum. That is, they're not crackpot or conspiracy or "myoiltruthblog.org" sources, but they're no more the final truth on a subject than an article from the NYT or the WSJ. CERA is different in that it is not a news source but a private consulting firm. I find them more reliable than the numerous other forecasters out there because they are a longstanding professional organization, with an excellent reputation, including numerous experts in economics, the energy industry, and scientists. Its founder is a world famous pulitzer prize winner on energy.

Yes indeed something has changed! As the report says, and I'll say one more time before moving on, demand has changed; demand forecasts are changing drastically in OECD countries from five years ago. World petroleum consumption did not increase, it actually dropped in 2008. US oil consumption in particular has declined every year since 2005. That doesn't mean it will continue to do so, but the recent consumption history facts certainly are a large change from the ever increasing oil consumption forecasts of a few years ago.

That's a strawman, they say the opposite.

re bold: Hardly; it's just an observation that the CERA model has plentiful oil long after we're all dead... hence "effectively.

Oh, and I'd be much happier of the founder was a Nobel rather than a Pulitzer winner.

 

[apeiron]

This should be a thought provoking graph. It shows the close relationship between oil prices and food prices. So for anyone arguing for energy substitution scenarios, one question here is whether there is a substitute for oil when it comes to food production. And also what are the prospects for political stability in the world's poor and populous countries if oil prices must double, treble, etc, as they would do if we have to move heavily into unconventional sources of petroleum.

http://www.paulchefurka.ca/Oil_Food.html

http://www.paulchefurka.ca/Oil_Food.png

 

[PhilKravitz]

It all seems to be unfolding just as projected in "The Limits to Growth" book from 1972(?).

 

[mheslep]

This should be a thought provoking graph. It shows the close relationship between oil prices and food prices.

Yes, and it shows why oil prices and not necessarily corn based ethanol production should be the place to look for as a cause in the spikes in food prices.

So for anyone arguing for energy substitution scenarios, one question here is whether there is a substitute for oil when it comes to food production.

Why not? Food is not literally made from oil; it is the ancillaries - transportation, etc - that need alternatives.

And also what are the prospects for political stability in the world's poor and populous countries if oil prices must double, treble, etc, as they would do if we have to move heavily into unconventional sources of petroleum.

Treble? Tar sand oil is making money at $40/bbl. Why must unconventional fossile fuels, renewable liquids, and electric transportation reach an equivalent of 3X current $/bbl costs?

 

[PhilKravitz]

Why not? Food is not literally made from oil; it is the ancillaries - transportation, etc - that need alternatives.

The primary energy input is human made fertilizer.

 

[apeiron]

Why not? Food is not literally made from oil; it is the ancillaries - transportation, etc - that need alternatives.

As Phil says, fertilizer is a major input. Agricultural machinery and world transport rely on a portable liquid fuel source. So petroleum is behind the green revolution - in a way that nuclear or wind can never be directly, and indirectly, well that quickly becomes expensive.

But an aside you might quickly be able to answer. What about the fact that both commodities are denominated in US dollars here, so the correlation could merely reflect currency fluctuations - dollar against a world average?

I didn't think this was a factor, the dollar being the de facto world currency, but maybe it is?

Treble? Tar sand oil is making money at $40/bbl. Why must unconventional fossile fuels, renewable liquids, and electric transportation reach an equivalent of 3X current $/bbl costs?

Do you have a good analytical paper to back up the $40 figure? I know it is widely quoted. But history also shows that the oil industry goes for the cheapest, easiest development first, so what is break-even for early fields is not going to be the cost when production is in earnest.

If Canadian voters force producers to factor in the cost of environmental degradation, then again, the numbers will not seem so pretty.

The simple EROEI means that tar sands can never match the cheapness of sweet crude. The Canadians might accept wafer profit margins instead of extracting an Opec style profit on each barrel. Or then again, in a free market, they might sting the US for all it is willing to pay eventually.

 

[PhilKravitz]

"Tar sand oil is making money at $40/bbl." I do not support or deny this statement. But one of the major inputs to making tar oil is natural gas to cook the sand. So we have to modify the statement to say "at X $ per cubic foot for natural gas tar sand is profitable at $40/bbl" I do not know what X is assumed by those making the statement.

 

[apeiron]

More on tar sands...the criticisms run along the lines of too much carbon produced, too much water consumed, and even just physically scaling up the production is a major constraint.

http://www.ceres.org/Page.aspx?pid=1251

Shrinking profit margin: The costs of producing oil sands - already the world's most expensive source of new oil - are rising and will continue to do so due to the onset of carbon pricing, higher input commodity prices, and rising costs for water treatment and land reclamation. As a result, global oil prices will need to remain high - possibly approaching $100 per barrel - to ensure a competitive rate of return on $120 billion in planned expansion projects. Oil sand operators must also be mindful that if global oil prices get too high, between $120 and $150 a barrel, it will likely reduce global oil demand and shift markets in favor of alternative fuels.

Water and Other Resource Constraints: Oil sands production is highly water intensive, with up to four barrels of freshwater consumed for every barrel of oil produced from surface mining extraction. Water withdrawals from the Athabasca River watershed are already restricted during winter months to protect fish habitat. If oil sands production volume grows according to companies' estimates, some oil sands mining operations could exceed their wintertime allowances as early as 2014, causing possible production interruptions. Climate change may also exacerbate this situation; glaciers feeding into the Athabasca River watershed are already shrinking.

Growing Land Reclamation Costs/Liability: After 40 years of production, no oil sand companies have yet fully reclaimed the extensive tailings ponds used for holding polluted wastewater. This is because the fine tailings in these ponds take decades to settle out. These tailing ponds, already covering an area the size of Washington D.C., pose risks of contaminating adjoining lands and water resources, and present health problems in downstream communities. Alberta's Directive 74 requires oil sands miners to speed up remediation of existing ponds – an order that creates especially large liabilities for the industry's legacy miners such as Suncor and Syncrude.

 

[PhilKravitz]

I am sure Canada will be left just as clean as Nigeria.

 

[apeiron]

Reflecting the difficulties of ramping up production to "commercial scale", the actual goals are quite modest anyway.

Oil sands companies in Alberta are already producing 1.3 million barrels a day, and their goal is to triple production by 2030.

http://www.globe-net.com/articles/2010/may/24/financial-risks-of-oil-sands-greater-than-bps-gulf-oil-spill.aspx?sub=12

 

[nismaratwork]

I am sure Canada will be left just as clean as Nigeria.

When has Nigeria ever been anything like Canada in terms of geography, population density, or social and religious divisions? I don't see Canada being worried, but rather pleased as they sit on something that is more and more valuable: fresh water. We CAN live without oil, however it might set us back; no water = dead. Oil and fuel have started wars, but they're open to a lot of economic room too... water often leads to conflict.

So, I guess Canada might be terrified that they'll make lots of money, unless you think the USA is going to follow the script of a South Park movie?

 

[PhilKravitz]

. water often leads to conflict.

Yes water from the Canadian northwest is important to continued development of the US southwest.

 

[nismaratwork]

Yes water from the Canadian northwest is important to continued development of the US southwest.

...And how does that lead to Canada as Nigeria?

 

[PhilKravitz]

...And how does that lead to Canada as Nigeria?

it addresses the question of water needs can lead to conflict.

Nigeria has oil and is being exploited by the global corporations (no clean up), Canada has oil (oil sand) and is being exploited by the global corporations. Already the government is unhappy with the slow rate of clean up. How will they force clean up? They have failed to do so over the past 20 years according to a previous post not mine.

 

[Evo]

it addresses the question of water needs can lead to conflict.

Nigeria has oil and is being exploited by the global corporations (no clean up), Canada has oil (oil sand) and is being exploited by the global corporations. Already the government is unhappy with the slow rate of clean up. How will they force clean up? They have failed to do so over the past 20 years according to a previous post not mine.

Please post links to the valid sources that prove your statements to be facts.

You have been making a lot of statements of *facts* in a number of threads without ever providing evidence when asked. Do not post here again until you furnish proof.

 

[nismaratwork]

it addresses the question of water needs can lead to conflict.

Nigeria has oil and is being exploited by the global corporations (no clean up), Canada has oil (oil sand) and is being exploited by the global corporations. Already the government is unhappy with the slow rate of clean up. How will they force clean up? They have failed to do so over the past 20 years according to a previous post not mine.

I'm going to do this, because I suspect you've never been taught about causal vs. casual relationships. Beyond that, would've just asked what Evo is: where do you get this stuff?


So: Here it is...

I found a good version via 'teh googlez..zuh':

Probably the single most important concept that I learned in a college class was the importance of the having the right comparison information when evaluating the importance of a statistic. The question should always be: relative to what?

Example: Someone says 90% of serial killers drink milk. People instinctively think milk somehow causes serial killers. Putting aside the fact that correlation is not necessarily causation, the statistic is only one of four pieces of information you need to evaluate the significance of the claim. What you really need is below:
Serial Killers Non-Serial Killers
Drink Milk 90% 89%
Don't Drink Milk 10% 11%

Now the claim is seen for the more or less trivial thing that it is. But so often just one of those numbers is given, and people assume the rest.

@http://www.metafilter.com/99598/What-scientific-concept-would-improve-everybodys-cognitive-toolkit


Note, that's not a citation, but it's a good example of a logical principle you need to get on, right away.

 

[apeiron]

Please post links to the valid sources that prove your statements to be facts.

You have been making a lot of statements of *facts* in a number of threads without ever providing evidence when asked. Do not post here again until you furnish proof.

It twas I that cited the Ceres study...

Growing Land Reclamation Costs/Liability: After 40 years of production, no oil sand companies have yet fully reclaimed the extensive tailings ponds used for holding polluted wastewater. This is because the fine tailings in these ponds take decades to settle out. These tailing ponds, already covering an area the size of Washington D.C., pose risks of contaminating adjoining lands and water resources, and present health problems in downstream communities. Alberta's Directive 74 requires oil sands miners to speed up remediation of existing ponds – an order that creates especially large liabilities for the industry's legacy miners such as Suncor and Syncrude.

The WWF has a campaign going...

Oil sands extraction uses significant amounts of water (2-4.5 barrels per barrel of oil produced), which ends up in toxic tailings lagoons that have never been successfully reclaimed. An analysis using industry data estimated that these lagoons already leak over a billion gallons of contaminated water into the environment each year.
http://dirtyoilsands.org/thedirt/article/quick_facts/

More detail from the actual Ceres report...

In 40 years of oil sands production, no tailings ponds have yet been fully reclaimed. That is because, while mature fi ne tailings settle out after three to fi ve years, the fi ne tailings remain suspended. As a result tailing ponds could substantially alter the surrounding ecosystem by contaminating soil and water sources, presenting both health problems to downstream communities and the potential of a catastrophic breach. This issue is one of the oil sands industry’s biggest long-term environmental challenges, especially for legacy oil sands miners like Suncor and Canadian Oil Sands Trust.

As discussed in Chapter 2, Alberta’s Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) is tightening oil sands tailings management under Directive 74. Th is directive requires mined oil sands producers to remediate existing tailings ponds, where disposal has been completed, within fi ve to eight years, and progressively recycle more tailings in the future. Because fi ne tailings (FT) take as long as 40 years to settle, and current technology is not yet able to expedite this process, companies may be forced to use alternative processes such as bioremediation or Suncor’s proprietary MFT drying and accelerated dewatering process to meet the schedule set by the ERCB.

..If bioremediation were used to treat new tailings production, our analysis indicates that Imperial Oil could see a 6-17% increase in its debt-to-capitalization ratio, and Canadian Oil Sands Trust (COST) could see a 10–26% increase, in order to cover the added asset retirement obligations for existing tailings sands projects.

..Taken together, water management and land reclamation are major issues that get minimal attention on oil sands producers’ balance sheets.

Nigeria = Canada might be hyperbole, but - along with the Nafta arrangement I cited in #245 - Canada does seem surprisingly compliant about doing what it takes to get oil sands up and going. Compare for instance US reaction to a little spillage in its gulf.

“What is happening at the moment in the oil sands of Alberta is kind of like the Gulf spill, but playing out in slow motion,” [said] RiskMetrics study co-author Doug Cogan.

 

[PhilKravitz]

Please post links to the valid sources that prove your statements to be facts.

You have been making a lot of statements of *facts* in a number of threads without ever providing evidence when asked. Do not post here again until you furnish proof.

I was citing post #264

"Growing Land Reclamation Costs/Liability: After 40 years of production, no oil sand companies have yet fully reclaimed the extensive tailings ponds used for holding polluted wastewater. This is because the fine tailings in these ponds take decades to settle out. These tailing ponds, already covering an area the size of Washington D.C., pose risks of contaminating adjoining lands and water resources, and present health problems in downstream communities. Alberta's Directive 74 requires oil sands miners to speed up remediation of existing ponds – an order that creates especially large liabilities for the industry's legacy miners such as Suncor and Syncrude."

if you do not like post 264 please tell him/her to also stop.

 

[nismaratwork]

I was citing post #264

"Growing Land Reclamation Costs/Liability: After 40 years of production, no oil sand companies have yet fully reclaimed the extensive tailings ponds used for holding polluted wastewater. This is because the fine tailings in these ponds take decades to settle out. These tailing ponds, already covering an area the size of Washington D.C., pose risks of contaminating adjoining lands and water resources, and present health problems in downstream communities. Alberta's Directive 74 requires oil sands miners to speed up remediation of existing ponds – an order that creates especially large liabilities for the industry's legacy miners such as Suncor and Syncrude."

if you do not like post 264 please tell him/her to also stop.

Oh don't do this... it's not a fight you could win if you were RIGHT, and you're not. You drew some link between the fate of NIGERIA, which has been a basket case for longer than we've needed their oil, and Canada! One is a poor african nation ruled by a small elite, and the other is an advanced nation with international allies and a good military.

The US shares a HUGE border with Canada... they would be INSANE to ever attack them outright, and besides, why fight for what you can just BUY? We provide extra security from those who WOULD invade, and we import.

You keep making your problems the problems of WhoWee, or me, or another post... and now Evo?! I'm telling you, if she's asking for something, it's a HUGE favor and hint; she could just delete your posts and you! Please, stop for a minute or a night, then just don't make a claim you can't source in accordance with PF rules. Nothing that's being asked is unreasonable, even in a CASUAL conversation given what you've claimed, and this is a STEM forum.

 

[apeiron]

I don't see Canada being worried, but rather pleased as they sit on something that is more and more valuable: fresh water. We CAN live without oil, however it might set us back; no water = dead.

I like a good dust-up as much as anyone but the issues here a little more important than the usual.

And I have already highlighted how tar sands and water resources are entwinned.

Here in Canada...a new water management framework under development for the lower Athabasca River will place tighter limits on the amount of water that can be withdrawn from the river to support the world’s largest energy project, the Alberta oil sands.

http://watercanada.net/2010/water-footprints/

So Canada's water is already under stress so far as tar sands exploitation goes.

 

[nismaratwork]

I like a good dust-up as much as anyone but the issues here a little more important than the usual.

And I have already highlighted how tar sands and water resources are entwinned.



So Canada's water is already under stress so far as tar sands exploitation goes.

Yes, but how does this lead to the state of hell that is Nigeria? I can see conflict; I don't believe that conflict will follow the Nigerian model, or even be military. I'd add... Canada is big. Saying that tar sands = All of Canada being stripped and will end like Nigeria strikes me as being naive on the order of expecting to be, "welcomed as liberators."

 

[apeiron]

Yes, but how does this lead to the state of hell that is Nigeria? I can see conflict; I don't believe that conflict will follow the Nigerian model, or even be military. I'd add... Canada is big. Saying that tar sands = All of Canada being stripped and will end like Nigeria strikes me as being naive on the order of expecting to be, "welcomed as liberators."

Err, all Phil actually said was that Canada would be left as

clean

as Nigeria (and he could have meant "mighty clean" so far as this bare statement went). So you have jumped to a pretty extreme interpretation of a quick quip.

Canada is certainly in a position to impose its own environmental clean-up standards. The question is how well is it handling tar sands so far?

About as well as a corrupt, poor and exploited third world nation? Or like the country with a proud tradition of foresight and social responsibility that I have long imagined it to be?

If you have evidence that pertains to this specific question - the one Phil clearly implied - then this is certainly the time to bring it to the table. All the rest is some personal feud.

(Hey, maybe PF should have a forum for "give me your best shot" flaming. And bring back all those who've departed with a ---------- through them.)

 

[nismaratwork]

Err, all Phil actually said was that Canada would be left as as Nigeria (and he could have meant "mighty clean" so far as this bare statement went). So you have jumped to a pretty extreme interpretation of a quick quip.

I have if I'm wrong, and that's based on more than one quip. Let me ask you, because I know you enjoy a good debate and I don't want to jump to conclusions: do you think I jumped to a conclusion here? I've been to Nigeria, so, "clean as Nigeria", and "Mighty Clean" are oxymoronic, and since Canada is already pretty damned clean compared to many other large nations (low population density... key)... it's absurd.

Given that, it's an extraordinary claim based on literally nothing except the conjecture of the kind of people who failed to predict far more proximal events such as Tunisia and Egypt. Prognostication is a losing game, to summarize a wiser person.

Canada is certainly in a position to impose its own environmental clean-up standards. The question is how well is it handling tar sands so far?

About as well as a kid with a new toy, but that's a long way from any social, political, or environmental element of Nigeria. I'm sorry, it's a terrible comparison, and thus much of what follows is necessarily based on this flawed premised.

About as well as a corrupt, poor and exploited third world nation? Or like the country with a proud tradition of foresight and social responsibility that I have long imagined it to be?

More towards the latter, but with strong elements of the former. Until I see actions that aren't just irresponsible and newly runaway, but actually malicious, it's not very similar at all. You could compare mining around the world, but really, you'd be mad to compare the life of a coal miner in Whales, to a blood diamond miner who gets cavity searched once a day, and paid crud.

Canada is likely to do some serious damage before they reign in the desire to make money in this hysterical market. That said, they could turn Alberta into a wasteland, and you'd still have Nigerians marveling at the overall beauty of Canada. In short, it's just an absurd comparison in every sense; scale, social justice, ability to rapidly change course without engendering chaos... it goes on.

Besides, their water is ALSO a monetary investment in their water staying clean, and destroying that would be foolish. That doesn't mean it won't happen, but it would be surprising.

If you have evidence that pertains to this specific question - the one Phil clearly implied - then this is certainly the time to bring it to the table. All the rest is some personal feud.

(Hey, maybe PF should have a forum for "give me your best shot" flaming. And bring back all those who've departed with a ---------- through them.)

You're entitled to your opinion, including reporting me; I'm guessing your standing is far better than mine so you'd likely do well. I can only say that only "personal" element here is that his posts consistently make gross generalizations with no support. Maybe you should read some more of them before you leap to his defense, to the point of near absurdity on the, "clean" issue.

We both know you're too bright to believe that, and this is politics, not philosophy... there is less wiggle room when you have to deal with objective reality.

 

[mheslep]

But an aside you might quickly be able to answer. What about the fact that both commodities are denominated in US dollars here, so the correlation could merely reflect currency fluctuations - dollar against a world average?

I didn't think this was a factor, the dollar being the de facto world currency, but maybe it is?

I'm not sure. Price of gold correction? Other than that I don't know. The http://www.goldprice.org/gold-price-history.html" in the last two years, tailing off just in the last month. So if one accepts gold as a standard, a constant supply commodity, then you could take that 40% out of the oil price as a currency correction, leaving the balance to supply and demand factors.

Do you have a good analytical paper to back up the $40 figure? I know it is widely quoted

No not handy; I'm also just relying on common statements in the mainstream media. Empirically, we know the Canadians kept tar sands substantial production going when oil was down at $55/bbl in early '09, and started operations there years ago when the price was consistently $65-$70/bbl in '06-'07

But history also shows that the oil industry goes for the cheapest, easiest development first, so what is break-even for early fields is not going to be the cost when production is in earnest.

Well there's a couple of cost of production factors in play there. First, yes as the tar sands get harder to produce cost will go up, but I don't know that they are anywhere near that point yet. Second, there's the economics of scale - as the operation scales up the cost of production per bbl goes down.

The simple EROEI means that tar sands can never match the cheapness of sweet crude.

That may be, but it does not mean 'unconventional oil' sources must cost 3X that of crude.

The Canadians might accept wafer profit margins instead of extracting an Opec style profit on each barrel. Or then again, in a free market, they might sting the US for all it is willing to pay eventually.

In a single huge buyer, medium sized seller model market, the buyer also has a lot of authority.

 

[mheslep]

The primary energy input is human made fertilizer.

As Phil says, fertilizer is a major input.

I'm wondering about this one. Best answer I can pull for now is MacKay's swag estimate. He has fertilizer as http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c13/page_78.shtml" , or 13% of the total.

As far as the fertilizer mass itself, apparently the only fossile fuel energy use goes into the production of ammonia (NH₃) based fertilizer via the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process" use. In any case what's needed to make NH₃ as you might guess is not natural gas, per se, but the hydrogen that tags along natural gas, and water.
N₂ + 3 H₂ ⇌ 2 NH₃

 

[mugaliens]

In any case what's needed to make NH₃ as you might guess is not natural gas, per se, but the hydrogen that tags along natural gas, and water.
N₂ + 3 H₂ ⇌ 2 NH₃

Given that Nitrogen is plentiful in the atmosphere, and Hydrogen is plentiful in water, I suspect the primary reason natural gas is used is to provide both energy for the conversation as well as hydrogen in a chemical form with less binding energy than it exists in water.

Is this correct?

If so, is there an electrochemical process which can be used to manufacture NH₃ from just air and water, perhaps a catalyst or two, with no other ingredients used in the process?